On Thu, 21 Apr 2022 12:35:10 -0700, Charles Mills wrote: >I am not a "corporate shop" guy but apparently "put up a VM LPAR" is a huge >political leap for many z/OS shops. The idea is facilitating "if we could just >get one instance of Linux up under z/OS we could show that to senior >management and take it from there." Hence zCX. > What incremental skill set is required for the respective alternatives? I once inquired on another form whether a VM LPAR only for Linux might be administered with no CMS skill required. Alan Altmark (IIRC) answered, neither practical nor desirable in view of the superiority of the CMS-based tools. does an OOTB Linux LPAR change that?
>-----Original Message----- >From: Dave Jones >Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2022 10:55 AM > >I agree with Robert's objections to zCX, and, frankly, If all a site wants to >do is run zLinux applications on an IBM z system, it is much simpler (and >perhaps cheaper) to just install z/VM on the box and then host as many Linux >guests as you want. No extra external tooling is needed; just use out of the >box management apps that are already available. Plus, the system programmers >have much greater and finer, control over the hardware resources (memory, CPU, >etc.) each zLinux guest is allowed to consume. And of course, z/VM and zLinux >run very well on the full speed IFL engines, no other specialty engines >required. Connect the z/VM and z/OS LPARs together by hyper-sockets and >you're good to go. >If I was an z/OS shop looking towards Linux, that's how I would proceed. >Thought and comments always welcome. -- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
