On Wed, Sep 04, 2002 at 05:07:04PM -0400, Dave Myers wrote: > Why dedicate two adapters to Linux guests (assuming you mean guests under > z/VM). > Why not run these Linux "routers" in dedicated LPARs and isolate them > from other images?
Because then you can't couple them to guest LANs. And frankly, in z/VM 4.2 or later, guest LANs are the only way to fly for multiple Linux images. I think I see where David is going with this, which is to have redundant Linux routers with failover capability. Which may be overkill if you mostly trust your adapter, since they're probably plugging into the same segment anyway. z/VM needs a TCPIP guest if you want VM to be able to talk TCP. VM has a service machine, TCPIP, which controls its TCP/IP functions. I don't see a need to isolate your images with LPARs; set SHARE appropriately under VM, and they won't run away with the box. If this is a sandbox system, then there's no particular need to guarantee performance (by dedicating resources) to the z/OS image, is there? And can't you assume that--since it's not a production system--if z/VM takes an outage, which should be infrequent, that you can afford to lose your other guests too during that time? Adam
