We recover the VM system to an LPAR, not under VM. Because VM senses all the i/o, the only changes we need to make for addressing differences is to DFSMS RMS & VMTAPE for tape drive numbers and to TCPIP for OSA differences (we have alternate tcpip profile which goes into effect based on node name change based on cpuid so that's pretty automatic).
I take that back a little bit - we do recover VM system volumes under a VM starter system, then we IPL that restored system to an LPAR (not VM under VM). We do it inhouse though, so we aren't under any vendor constraints. Do you also run a z900 in production? Java perf is much better on z990's and even better on z9. Marcy Cortes This message may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the addressee or authorized to receive this for the addressee, you must not use, copy, disclose, or take any action based on this message or any information herein. If you have received this message in error, please advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete this message. Thank you for your cooperation." -----Original Message----- From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of James Melin Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2006 14:27 To: [email protected] Subject: [LINUX-390] What configurations are people using for Disaster Recovery for Linux under z/VM I'm asking the collective wisdom of the list the following because we're seeing absolutely CRAP response time running WebSphere under Linux under our recovered z/VM under the Recovery facility z/VM system. The recovery vendor is running z/VM in Basic mode on a z/900 with all processors enabled and a boatload of memory. Resources do not appear to be a problem. 3 processors are defined to our z/OS guest. 2 Processors are DEDICATED to the guest we use to recover our z/VM environment. It is given the same amount of memory that we have on our z/VM LPAR usually has. I would like to know if people recover their VM under a recovery Vendor's VM, or the recover it running in an LPAR by itself, and the LPAR/IOCDS addressing differences are taken care of on that LPAR's VM image prior to recovering any Linux guests. When we start the initial WebSphere process at our DR vendor, what should take 10 minutes (Deployment manager startup) takes more than an hour. When we eventually got WebSphere all the way up, applications initialized, etc it all worked but exceptionally slowly. For example, an application that takes 1.5 seconds to display it's log-on screen took 3-5 minutes to show it. We took Java core dumps per IBM but ran out of time at the DR test to get everything they wanted, so I'm curious what people think about the results, and how much of it is VM under VM running Linux and then running Java. Theoretically under Basic mode, 2nd level of VM should NOT be encountering software SIE instruction execution. Currently I cannot convince our head systems programmer that it is valid to pursue our current configuration that is exhibiting the undesired behavior and trouble shoot it, as well as to create a Linux guest on the vendors base z/VM that runs at the same 'level' as our z/VM image executes. I personally believe the results will be enlightening regardless of what behaviour we see. If it vastly improves, it points at certain things in the z/VM under z/VM configuration, if it does NOT improve, it indicates a problem higher than the first level z/VM. Thanks for any insight into this. -J ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
