May I add my two cents. Why use an LPAR and lose the flexibility VM gives you? I have VM/ESA 2.4.0 up on a MP3000 since it was install on January 5th and it's been running since. I don't remember the last time VM has taken an outage except for a scheduled IPL. VM, the worlds 1st and foremost CLIENT/SERVER.
vr, P. Abruzzese > -----Original Message----- > From: Adam Thornton [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2002 6:26 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: H50 sandbox > > 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
