On Jan 11, 2008 3:49 PM, David Boyes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ISFC would be nice, but PVM already supports all the same connection > methods that ISFC does, plus a few more that ISFC doesn't. I'd *really* > rather not make this dependent on CTCs.
I think PVM for transport of CP-to-CP communication was an ugly hack, probably because there were many SNA-less VM shops back then that already had a PVM network. I've seen big badges so fond of PASSTHRU that they could demand a PVM network in addition to the rest of connectivity. But for most shops the days are gone where you could afford to confuse people just to re-use hardware for something it was not meant to do. When you want to clustering of z/VM images, there will be sufficient other need for interaction (like shared DASD) so that the ISFC requirements do not make it harder. ISFC is pretty robust as long as you don't make it into slow connections and non-trivial topology. There may also be an additional need for a supported IPGATE solution (to let applications on non-clustered z/VM images talk). But we should very clearly distinguish between clustered and connected z/VM images. Rob
