But ... just to be clear, Mike ... there are two "console server" concepts in this thread. What has been discussed is LOG servers and collection of virtual console traffic, and then also CONTROL servers (terminal servers) where you get a command shell without the 3215 pain.
Regarding log servers, to the extent that the (Linux) kernel is working and has network connectivity, I recommend SYSLOG. No reason VM cannot slurp-up SYSLOG traffic. There have been numerous implementations (including Arty, Neale, me; REXX, POSIX, and Pipelined; and sorry if I forgot someone), the latest being IBM's Operations Manager. Regarding terminal servers using IUCV ... just one word ... ahhhhhhhh!!! Not exactly what some of us thought it would be, but nice; very nice. -- R; <>< On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 15:02, Michael MacIsaac <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi list, > > Thanks for all the replies ... > > I had forgotten about the terminal server paper. That looks like a good > approach as it is Linux-centric (not that the z/VM-centric solutions > aren't good too). It's also good to hear that the next SLES release will > be picking that up from s390 tools. I'm guessing RHEL will be too... > > "Mike MacIsaac" <[email protected]> (845) 433-7061 > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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
