Hi, Would someone be kind to share your Hipersocket Definitions at your site(Ofcourse masking the critical details).
I am though referring http://www.redbooks.ibm.com/redbooks/pdfs/sg246816.pdf Just want to get your view on the Dynamic Routing(OMPRCONF) for Hipersocket so that all the inter-LPAR communication gets the Hipersocket and the external communications are only made by OSA. I understood that, if our VTAM is an APPN node with IBM EE running, then it can offload the SNA traffic to IP. On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 12:42 PM, Timothy Sipples <[email protected]> wrote: > In addition to the previous comments, there are some potential advantages > to HiperSockets when considering workload portability. You may be able to > ignore some OSA-Express physical and logical configuration considerations > for inter-LPAR communications on, for example, a DR machine. That could > simplify DR procedures and thus make DR more robust, in certain cases > anyway. > > I too recommend adopting SMC-D as soon as reasonably practical. SMC-D is > not a complete replacement for HiperSockets (or for OSA-Express > connections). However, implementing HiperSockets is a common step on the > journey to implementing SMC-D, even if you're not immediately ready to > implement SMC-D. > > HiperSocket connections need not replace OSA-Express connections when both > network paths are available. You can choose one, the other, or both > inter-LPAR connectivity options, selectively and opportunistically, > subsystem by subsystem, application by application. For example, you can > choose the HiperSocket path when low latency is most important. > > Yes, HiperSockets require a modest amount of central processor attention > when there is HiperSocket activity. However, for many (or even most) > workloads the latency reduction yields CPU savings. So even if you *only* > care about CPU utilization (you shouldn't), you may still be better off > using HiperSockets. You can make such evaluations and decisions > selectively, as noted in the previous paragraph. > > HiperSockets can make certain workloads (and LPAR splits) that were > practically impossible possible, particularly certain batch workloads that > have to (or should) cross LPAR boundaries during their execution but also > occasionally online transactions with tight response time limits. > > HiperSockets may allow you to reduce the number of OSA-Express adapters in > your machine -- or at least to avoid increasing the number of adapters in > the future. Or, said another way, with HiperSockets the genuinely external > network traffic doesn't have to compete with inter-LPAR traffic for > OSA-Express resources. > > HiperSockets offer some inherent security advantages. > > Good stuff, those HiperSockets. > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Timothy Sipples > IT Architect Executive, Industry Solutions, IBM z Systems, AP/GCG/MEA > E-Mail: [email protected] > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
