On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 18:30:44 -0600, Rich Smrcina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You could define enough Hipersocket devices so that each Linux machine > that needs a connection to z/OS can have it's own. (the preferred way, > no extra routing hop required) Preferred by some... Upto 5.1.0 owning a dedicated network device prevented qdrop for the virtual machine even when idle. But even with 5.1.0 the locked buffers per real qdio device represent a fair amount of real estate. If test and development servers do not need high speed connections to z/OS, you might be better off to give them a virtual NIC instead. You can then either use a virtual machine to transfer traffic between the Hipersockets and the VSWITCH (as Alan suggests - which will cost you CPU resources in the virtual router) or go through a shared OSA to the other LPAR. I expect that when z/VM is busy enough, the delay in dispatching the virtual router may be enough to lose the benefit of Hipersockets. Rob -- Rob van der Heij rvdheij @ gmail.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
