Only lurking on this list, and often getting a bit behind in catching up with the daily digest, I may have missed a post mentioning that this summer's CA distribution of VM:Operator r3.0 has support for syslog and syslogd (works with syslogd or syslog-ng). The syslogd support allows VM:Operator to act as a collector or sender of syslog messages.
Given that z/VM hosts the Linux on System z guests, the z/VM system certainly has a direct effect on the Linux guests; and one Linux guest can certainly affect all the others. That being the case, I'd rather have all the Linux guests send their syslog messages to VM:Operator (could be IBM's Operations Manager or even PROP) so that *ALL* the messages for anything that can affect a guest appear on one place, right when they are being displayed on the guests. VM:Operator provides the means to display (VIEW) only a single guest's messages, handy if there is no systemic problem. But when "something" appears to be wrong with one guest, being able to see messages from CP or other guest z/VM concurrent with the problem report and diagnostic work is a definite advantage over being blind to CP's actions and messages. VM:Operator also provides the means to logon (passwords are masked) to the disconnected guest, entering commands and seeing the replies from the guests on the VM:Operator console. That helps eliminate the problems caused by logging onto the vm userid's virtual console directly (most often, a "BAD" thing to do, opening the guest up to unintended consequences). Mike Walter Hewitt Associates The opinions expressed herein are mine alone, not my employer's. > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2009 17:22:01 -0400 From: Richard Troth <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Has anyone looked into a "console server" 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; <>< The information contained in this e-mail and any accompanying documents may contain information that is confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply e-mail and then delete this message, including any attachments. Any dissemination, distribution or other use of the contents of this message by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. All messages sent to and from this e-mail address may be monitored as permitted by applicable law and regulations to ensure compliance with our internal policies and to protect our business. E-mails are not secure and cannot be guaranteed to be error free as they can be intercepted, amended, lost or destroyed, or contain viruses. You are deemed to have accepted these risks if you communicate with us by e-mail. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
