OK we are running zLinux under zVM here. So from what I'm reading, z/vm -> z/vm -> zlinux is not a very good idea???
Adam Thornton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent by: The IBM z/VM Operating System <[email protected]> 03/11/2008 09:53 AM Please respond to The IBM z/VM Operating System <[email protected]> To [email protected] cc Subject Re: Disaster Recovery Scenarios On Mar 11, 2008, at 6:59 AM, Karl Kingston wrote: Thanks for the responses to my DR question. Helpful information! So basically, I have 2 methods of bringing z/VM up at our DR site: 1) Run it under the z/VM Floor System (we use Sungard as our DR service). 2) Bring z/VM up in an LPAR. To me, option one is probably the BEST and EASIEST to implement as I don't have to make changes to our running system to be able to run at the DR site. So: If I bring z/VM up under z/VM, what's the performance aspects of it? Will it affect performance more than if z/vm was running in an LPAR? You'll take a few percent hit, versus identical hardware, but the larger difference is going to be the difference in hardware and load on the machine at the DR site. But seriously, being a VM user and *not* using a virtualized second-level system for recovery is...silly. It's a *DISASTER* you're talking about. Getting the system back up--even running slower--is most of what counts. You can recreate a faithful copy of your environment very, very easily using VM, and it's very, very much harder on the metal. DR procedures should be as simple as possible, because people are panicky during a disaster and there shouldn't be much that CAN go wrong. In that case, VM and an identical (even if second-level) environment is a clear win. Adam
