On Friday, 03/12/2004 at 02:25 EST, someone offline wrote: >> If you want a separate network, the VSWITCH isn't involved. You would >> use a Guest LAN with a virtual router. (You could connect the virtual >> router to the real network via the VSWITCH if desired.) > > Would this offload some tcp/ip-related CPU from the guests to CP? From > the share presentations, I remember something like this when VSWITCHes > were discussed, but I wasn't sure if the change was a Guest LAN vs. > VSWITCH or a z/VM 4.3 vs. 4.4 thing. I thought it was a VSWITCH thing.
The VSWITCH eliminates the virtual router. Yes, CP has to some extra work, but it is far less than the overhead of a virtual router. I should have also mentioned that virtual routers aren't absolutely necessary in the "separate subnet/network" configuration. You can always do outboard routing in combination with the VSWITCH, a useful configuration if you want firewalls, but don't want to run them on zSeries. When combined with the power of IEEE VLANs, the facility blossoms fully. A single VSWITCH (with multiple OSA attachments for failover, of course), can securely carry traffic for multiple VLAN IDs. This is the preferred configuration. I do not recommend creating a separate VSWITCH for each network. Use VLANs instead; that's what they're for. Alan Altmark Sr. Software Engineer IBM z/VM Development ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
