Others might be more specific about z/VM advantages over KVM ... but you certainly lose your knowledge of z/VM to manage and control guests and need to use a KVM based model for that.. whether that is an issue or not is about your comfort level with both solutions on z. (and probably others you work with?).
Having said that - I've worked with IBM customers in many POCs where the licensing for our solution was supplied on a trial basis - just for that purpose -- so I'd think the z/VM licensing could be managed this way.. Sticking with a horse you know makes things quicker than learning to ride a new one... and in my experience - expedience always seems to be a part of any POC... :) And -- any solution you come up with can always get shifted to an LPAR (or LPARs) fairly easily with the correct IOCONFIG for the devices... Use dedicated volumes under z/VM if you know you'll be moving off it... just in case you need to boot Linux native. (or 0 to END minidisks) Scott Rohling Best of luck - Scott On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 1:20 PM Tom Huegel <[email protected]> wrote: > This has probably been discussed quite a bit but I wanted to ask for some > real user feedback. > > I have a customer that is interested a POC of z/VSE zLINUX VTAPE. > Unfortunately they do now have z/VM so the zLINUX would have to be in an > LPAR. So the question is 'do I gain/lose anything using KVM as the > hypervisor in the zLINUX LPAR?'. > > Thanks > Tom > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or > visit > http://www2.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://www2.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
