Thank you all for your insights. I'm not certain which path we'll take,
but at least I'm better able to make that decision.
Tim
-Original Message-
From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Tom Duerbusch
Sent: Friday, January 19, 2007 12:16 PM
To: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST
1. Use what you are familar with. If it was LPAR on the test box, you
may lean towards LPAR on your production box.
2. Many of the small to midrange shops never had LPAR. We always ran
VM in basic mode, hence we would run VM under VM for testing. Now that
IBM forced everyone to LPAR, the smal
I'm going to go with one of my favorite answers here and say "it
depends". There are pros and cons for both approaches.
Some z/OS centric sites might feel more comfortable using the LPAR
approach,as that might fit in better with their over all system
management scheme.
Running z/VM as a 2nd
We've had VM for about 25 years I think (longer than I've been here).
We've never had a test LPAR - always done VM under VM for testing new
VM. With the Linux workload now, we do have one VM system that runs
only test/dev linuxes - so that's the first box to get a new release of
VM, but it's no
In all the places I have worked VM has been the poor step-child that got the
least amount of resources. I have always used a 2nd level VM system for testing
fixes, new releases, mods, or just trying to do something stupid that I didn't
want to take a chance of knocking out my production system w
Moeur Tim C wrote:
Good morning List,
I have a question of general test and production architecture. We
currently have some production zLinux guests running under z/VM 5.1.
z/VM is installed as an LPAR on our single Z9 server. We had, until
recently, a second Z9 on which I was running a test
I would say that almost all long-term VM shops run their test VM second
level, as you're considering.
Mark Post
-Original Message-
From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Moeur Tim C
Sent: Friday, January 19, 2007 11:03 AM
To: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: VM t
I would suggest the second LPAR approach, if anything for the separation
of function. Until you can get it defined, you can certainly run the
test VM second level.
Moeur Tim C wrote:
Good morning List,
I have a question of general test and production architecture. We
currently have some prod
Good morning List,
I have a question of general test and production architecture. We
currently have some production zLinux guests running under z/VM 5.1.
z/VM is installed as an LPAR on our single Z9 server. We had, until
recently, a second Z9 on which I was running a test VM which I could use
Thanks Harold. Will check out the patch.
The scp "problem" w/ transfer rates that don't go above 8 MB/sec turns out
to be a CPU bottleneck. Our z9-109 doesn't have any crypto hardware so all
the encryption/decryption is being done in software. My speculation about
there being an I/O bottleneck due
Hello,
You can also use c3270 from x3270's site. This can be used directly from a
unix console
to connect up against the box. Got some nice scripting functions aswell.
http://x3270.bgp.nu/download.html
Cheers
- Original Message -
From: "Phil Sidler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Thurs
From James Melin's 12/14/2006 post:
Mark, I saw something similar when we first went to SLES-9 (64 bit). We had
MTU sizes being negotiated down to an idiotic packet size of 1492.
Whether or not this has to do with how our OSA is configured I never did learn.
Search for stuff with hipersockets
12 matches
Mail list logo
