Well, it depends.... If your disaster recovery box is near equal in size/resources as your recovery workload, then you should think about a single VM solution.
However, if the disaster recovery box is much larger in size/resources, then your recovery workload, then make it easy on your self....Linux under VM under VM. Don't make things more complicated for disaster recovery then you have to. And if you are pushing the limits of your disaster recovery site, either get more resources at the site (if possible), or spend more time in disaster recovery prep to do a single VM option. I have a test coming up April 18. A 60 MIP box going under a 4 way disaster recovery box. Plenty of resources. Tom Duerbusch THD Consulting Karl Kingston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent by: The IBM z/VM Operating System <[email protected]> 03/11/2008 01:08 PM Please respond to The IBM z/VM Operating System <[email protected]> To [email protected] cc Subject Re: Disaster Recovery Scenarios 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 *************************** IMPORTANT NOTE***************************** The opinions expressed in this message and/or any attachments are those of the author and not necessarily those of Brown Brothers Harriman & Co., its subsidiaries and affiliates ("BBH"). There is no guarantee that this message is either private or confidential, and it may have been altered by unauthorized sources without your or our knowledge. Nothing in the message is capable or intended to create any legally binding obligations on either party and it is not intended to provide legal advice. BBH accepts no responsibility for loss or damage from its use, including damage from virus. ************************************************************************ Law of Cat Obstruction A cat must lay on the floor in such a position to obstruct the maximum amount of human foot traffic.
