On Tuesday, 04/23/2002 at 02:59 AST, Rod Clayton
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It is also my understanding that you have to buy another VM license to
run
> guests under your IFL engine when you get it. The IFL VM will have to
talk to
> the NON-IFL VM via an intra-LPAR communications technique.
To
It is also my understanding that you have to buy another VM license to run guests
under your IFL engine when you get it. The IFL VM will have to talk to the NON-IFL VM
via an intra-LPAR communications technique.
>Alan Altmark posted that z/VM 3 can't run in IFL engines. This is not
>good news
> And, if I may ask, what
> do you need
> RSCS and PVM for that cannot be handled by FTP or Telnet? (Given that
> this is a Linux workload, not traditional apps.)
One thing might be that they're integrating a set of pre-existing management
tools to cover the VM side of the new box -- not too un
I don't really see much of a problem here.
Since the IFL engines can't be mixed with S/390 engines. You end up
running the S/390 in seperate LPARs from the IFL engines.
Buy the new box.
Move your current z/VM 3 on the S/390 engines.
Install z/VM 4.2 on the IFL side.
Do the Linux proof of con
Thanks.
If there were a problem with the TCP/IP network, RSCS provides an
alternative way to send files and Passthru provides another way into the VM.
If cheap enough, we'd probably want them. Just because other unix systems
only have IP doesn't mean we have to settle for that.
Actually we have
On Monday, 04/22/2002 at 02:05 AST, Ann Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Keeping both machines could incur additional software and hardware
costs.
> For now, I just need IBM to verify z/VM 3 really can't run in an IFL.
> If it really can't, we'll just have to deal with it.
z/VM V3 really CANNOT
Keeping both machines could incur additional software and hardware costs.
For now, I just need IBM to verify z/VM 3 really can't run in an IFL.
If it really can't, we'll just have to deal with it.
Rich Smrcina wrote:
> Are both machines going to be on the floor together for a while? If so, will
rocessing capability of an IFL
towards the machine "group" size, and hence not increasing the group-based
software charges.
Mark Post
-Original Message-
From: Ann Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2002 1:13 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: z/VM 3 and IFL engin
Are both machines going to be on the floor together for a while? If so, will
there be enough time to migrate your VM workload to the other system and
start your Linux POC after your VM migration?
On Monday 22 April 2002 12:12 pm, you wrote:
> Alan Altmark posted that z/VM 3 can't run in IFL engi
Mark
-Original Message-
From: Ann Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2002 1:13 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: z/VM 3 and IFL engines - Oh No!
Alan Altmark posted that z/VM 3 can't run in IFL engines. This is not
good news for us. We are currently running VM on
Alan Altmark posted that z/VM 3 can't run in IFL engines. This is not
good news for us. We are currently running VM on a machine that can't
run z/VM 4. We are looking at getting newer machine with an IFL engine.
We wanted to do a Linux proof of concept on the new machine, on the IFL
to isolate the
11 matches
Mail list logo
