I think I know the answer, just in case...
When using a z/890 with z/VM 5.1 and running z/Linux (Suse), I looking at methods of attaching a Shark.
The Shark can be LPAR'ed into normal CKD dasd and SAN dasd. The SAN side can be used for any type of LAN accessed DASD.
However, Linux, can support dasd on the CKD side via FICON and the SAN side via FCP connections.
In this "mainframe only" environment, is there any reason to configure the Shark to have SAN capabilities and then connect the Linux to it via the FCP channels?
FICON has 100 MB, 200 MB and now 270 MB channel speeds. FCP has 1 gb, 2 gb and I hear 4 gb is comming. So the speeds are simular.
Of course, the Shark hardware is basically the same, as well as the z/890. So I don't see any reason for FCP/SAN connectivity.
I can see many reasons why I wouldn't want to do this type of connectivity.
1. Cost. I already have to have the FICON channels for the 390 side. To support FCP, I have to also buy the FCP cards.
2. Flexability. If all the Shark is configured for the mainframe side, then dasd can be assigned in cylinder increments to whatever side needs it. I think Shark LPAR divides things up on 8-pack increments. (or maybe twin 8-pack increments)
3. Management. Only have one side to manage.
4. Flash Copy. I'm not sure that flash copy is available on the FCP attached side. But if it does, then I may need extra space for flash copy images. (Flash Copy with copy only, doesn't copy all the data, just the data that is changed. This can result in quite a reduction in space need for the flash copy, copy.)
So, if there are any reasons why I would want a z/890, z/VM 5.1, z/Linux to Shark 800 via FCP, I need to know before we finish the specifications.
Thanks
Tom Duerbusch THD Consulting
---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
