Too bad it will not work for geographically dispersed LPARS :-( Regards, Richard Schuh
> -----Original Message----- > From: The IBM z/VM Operating System > [mailto:IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU] On Behalf Of Alan Altmark > Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 11:28 AM > To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU > Subject: Re: zvm directions > > On Wednesday, 05/18/2011 at 12:07 EDT, Marcy Cortes > <marcy.d.cor...@wellsfargo.com> wrote: > > > I don't see LGR as a load balancing solution at all. We > will continue > to use > > our F5 load balancers as well as the WAS IHS plugin for > that effort. > > I > see it > > more for a planned outage move for things you want to move > away for a > while > > without the reboot. > > An excellent assessment, Marcy. :-) LGR was not designed to > replace any application-level workload balancing solutions > (F5). Those balancing solutions provide the needed HA in > case you lose a VM LPAR unexpectedly. > > LGR will let you take back control of your VM LPARs. No > longer will you need to get 15 application owners to agree on > a time for you to take down and service the VM system. Their > servers keep running and the application monitor dashboard > shows green. > > Oh, and I suppose there is an additional benefit in that if > someone says, > "*I* can relocate a server to a different rack in case it > starts to overheat!" you can stick out your tongue and then > say "*I* can relocate a server when I want to. My machine > doesn't overheat." :-) > > Alan Altmark > > z/VM and Linux on System z Consultant > IBM System Lab Services and Training > ibm.com/systems/services/labservices > office: 607.429.3323 > mobile; 607.321.7556 > alan_altm...@us.ibm.com > IBM Endicott >
