On Thu, 2 Jan 2014 12:32:58 -0600, John McKown wrote: >On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 12:29 PM, Farley, Peter x23353 wrote: > >> Thanks for the history Mike. I would indeed have truly bemoaned the loss >> of VM had that happened. >> >> Being lodged in strictly MVS and z/OS shops for many years without access >> to VM and CMS at all I just plain miss it. >> >> >Another lack if VM had been killed would be IBM's Linux on System z. I >cannot imagine z/Linux running in an LPAR. I doubt that IBM would have put >the effort into the port at all. > I believe we run a few of our test systems in LPARs; many more as VM guests. Aren't there limits on number of LPARs that don't apply to VM guests? And doesn't even a quiescent system in an LPAR bogart real storage?
-- gil >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, >send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
