Mark Perry wrote:
John Summerfield wrote:
You might know that, but I'm leaning towards LKM. LKM has the great
advantage of being a standard part of the Linux kernel.
Red Hat's tools make the difference pretty minor so far as usability is
concerned.
Hi John,
I assume you mean KVM (which uses
Larry Ploetz wrote:
RPN01 wrote:
The downside of this in a virtual environment is that you are repeatedly
implementing the same operating system code in memory for each unique
image,
when in fact, this code could have been shared by several individual
applications, were they to share a single
Mark Perry wrote:
Larry Ploetz wrote:
Bottom line, I know Xen is all the rage, but for System z with z/VM then
VServer or OpenVZ offers a brighter future...
You might know that, but I'm leaning towards LKM. LKM has the great
advantage of being a standard part of the Linux kernel.
Red
John Summerfield wrote:
You might know that, but I'm leaning towards LKM. LKM has the great
advantage of being a standard part of the Linux kernel.
Red Hat's tools make the difference pretty minor so far as usability is
concerned.
Hi John,
I assume you mean KVM (which uses Linux Kernel
There are a lot of reasons why it depends is the correct answer to this
question.
You can definitely reduce overhead on the VM layer by running multiple
applications on a single Linux guest. When you have a few applications
with a few dozen servers, it may make sense to have one appliction per
I'll start with the second part first, and even with a rant, at that: VMWare
doesn't work for Linux. If you put a Linux system on a heavily used VMWare
box, VMWare can't complete the Linux I/O quickly enough, Linux detects the
timeout, and places the filesystem in a read-only state. There is no
On Mar 27, 2008, at 7:52 AM, RPN01 wrote:
I'll start with the second part first, and even with a rant, at
that: VMWare
doesn't work for Linux. If you put a Linux system on a heavily used
VMWare
box, VMWare can't complete the Linux I/O quickly enough, Linux
detects the
timeout, and places the
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 1:52 PM, RPN01 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Then to the actual question: The appliance mode works well, if you never
plan to upgrade it, or it is a stand-alone application unto itself, with
little outside information applied or kept. When the time comes to upgrade,
you
I'm wondering about this. I'm a z/OS person with some Linux knowledge.
But we don't run Linux on z around here. In the Windows world, the
mantra is generally One server, one function. On z/OS it is the
opposite of one server, lots of functions. How does Linux, in
general,
stack up on this
An installation I talked to in the past was pushing that ratio with
additional power. They were driving it that a system admin had no
business to login to a server unless there was a change or problem
ticket for it. The idea of just looking at something did not justify
a login. Instead, if
mods intact. We are 'sort of'
there, but not quite.
Ray Mrohs
-Original Message-
From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Rob van der Heij
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 9:30 AM
To: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: curiousity question: Linux usage: many or few
On Thursday, 03/27/2008 at 10:22 EDT, Mrohs, Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
We can only get there through standardization. As long as different
vendors mess with whatever directories they want, we always run the risk
of missing or overwriting something during the service or upgrade
process.
Alan Altmark wrote:
UnionFS should help alot. Then you don't *care* so much about where an
UnionFS - have you been looking at my Xmas list ;-)
Can you add 390 UREC to that too!
Vendors, any one playing Santa?
mark
--
For
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 11:54 AM, in message [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Mark Perry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-snip-
Can you add 390 UREC to that too!
What is UREC?
Mark Post
--
For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access
Mark Post wrote:
What is UREC?
The 390 VM RDR PRT (UNIT RECORD) device driver
mark
--
For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit
Mark Perry wrote:
Mark Post wrote:
What is UREC?
The 390 VM RDR PRT (UNIT RECORD) device driver
mark
See:
http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/7/17/186
mark
--
For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 12:44 PM, in message [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Mark Perry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mark Post wrote:
What is UREC?
The 390 VM RDR PRT (UNIT RECORD) device driver
Service Pack 2.
Mark Post
--
For
Mark Post wrote:
Service Pack 2.
thank you santa!
is it on RC1 ?
dare I ask about UnionFS?
mark
--
For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO
Mark Perry wrote:
Mark Post wrote:
Service Pack 2.
thank you santa!
is it on RC1 ?
dare I ask about UnionFS?
mark
Yes its on RC1:
kernel/drivers/s390/char/vmur.ko
mark
--
For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 2:12 PM, in message [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Mark Perry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mark Post wrote:
Service Pack 2.
thank you santa!
is it on RC1 ?
It should be.
dare I ask about UnionFS?
You can ask, but it looks like a lump of coal for you on that one. Something
RPN01 wrote:
The downside of this in a virtual environment is that you are repeatedly
implementing the same operating system code in memory for each unique image,
when in fact, this code could have been shared by several individual
applications, were they to share a single Linux image. It would
I'm wondering about this. I'm a z/OS person with some Linux knowledge.
But we don't run Linux on z around here. In the Windows world, the
mantra is generally One server, one function. On z/OS it is the
opposite of one server, lots of functions. How does Linux, in general,
stack up on this scale?
the first one to break.
-Original Message-
From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
McKown, John
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 9:43 AM
To: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: curiousity question: Linux usage: many or few
I'm wondering about this. I'm a z/OS person with some
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 11:06 PM, Fargusson.Alan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Most placed I know of put multiple applications on one Linux. This is true
even on Intel. It usually happens because once you have a Linux system you
can add applications to it without having to buy another server,
Cost savings. On discrete boxes (Intel or LPAR) run multiple applications on
one Linux. Adding
another box costs money. Adding an application to an existing box costs zero.
On virtual systems
(z/VM or VMware) run one application per Linux. It doesn't cost anything to
define another guest.
Rob
On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 15:06:38 -0700
Fargusson.Alan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Most placed I know of put multiple applications on one Linux. This is true
even on Intel. It usually happens because once you have a Linux system you
can add applications to it without having to buy another server,
Cost savings. On discrete boxes (Intel or LPAR) run multiple applications on
one Linux. Adding
another box costs money. Adding an application to an existing box costs zero.
On virtual systems
(z/VM or VMware) run one application per Linux. It doesn't cost anything to
define
2GB PC
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 6:52 PM, in message [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Alan Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Cost savings. On discrete boxes (Intel or LPAR) run multiple applications
on
one Linux. Adding
another box costs money. Adding an application to an existing box costs
zero. On virtual
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 12:47 AM, Mark Post [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's why we use automation and commercial management tools as much as
possible, when they're available. We tend to get anywhere up to 100 servers
per admin ratios in that environment. If you divide up the tasks
29 matches
Mail list logo
