one lpar works well, shares storage, shares other resources, reduces overhead, reduces system programming efforts, reduces costs. And I can show other mixed mode LPARs with both VSE and linux in the same LPAR. Was it a hardware vendor recommending increasing your hardware costs....

Michael Simms wrote:
I hope everyone had a safe and happy one Holiday Season.

I need some guidance, advice and/or ammunition on an issue that has come up regarding mainframe configuration.
I have found myself having to defend the way we are now configured  vs. a 
co-worker who has come back from
class saying his instructor said we should run 2 LPARs,
one with zVM and zVSE and the other one house our production zLinux and DB2
images. My co-worker has no mainframe experience and does not know
our hardware or complete software configuration. Apparently my co-worker fears
VSE ‘interference’ with his zLinux images as well as a fear that he would crash
the zVM system. Not sure what he has in his plans that would cause such zVM instability. We currently have: z114, 1 partial
CP, 1 IFL, 24GB storage (18/6), 2 FICON cards, 2 OSA cards, 1 zVM LPAR with 
both CPUs,
zVM V6.1, zVSE, zLinux of various flavors SuSE running and DB2 running in 
several
or more zLinuxes. Don’t know how many DB2 zLinux images yet. We
already have a couple of production zLinux and are exploring another set of
zLinux that would maybe use the zVSE VSAM Redirector and DB2. I suggest that we
add to our current configuration as it would better share resources such as
memory and I/O. I also feel that it would be easier to manage 1 LPAR instead of
2 LPARs and all their various pieces and parts that would also include zVM test
machines and 2 test VSE machines.
I have tried to explain how mainframe architecture and zVM have
been designed as a sharing environment while at the same time protecting
against influences from any given guest machine, should the configuration be
configured just right. I might have partially agreed with his instructor had
not zVM come to support all manner of CPU in recent years, for example 
accommodating
both CP and IFLs. We are also on a limited budget and I don’t know if we’d be
able to purchase more storage or Chpids. Based on my years experience, I have poked, prodded and received advice for our system to where we have great performance today, both traditional and non-traditional workloads. Does anyone have suggestion/points to argue one way or the
other? Do you have some examples of something similar, one way or another, to
what we have or will soon have? You probably would like some more input
variables? Just let me know and I’ll provide.
I appreciate any and all feedback!

Thanks.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@vm.marist.edu with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit
http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For more information on Linux on System z, visit
http://wiki.linuxvm.org/




----------------------------------------------------------------------
For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@vm.marist.edu with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit
http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For more information on Linux on System z, visit
http://wiki.linuxvm.org/

<<attachment: BARTON.vcf>>

Reply via email to