Re: [SeimOT] IBM, Linux, and IFLs

>>> On 10/7/2007 at 10:33 AM, in message
<wT7Oi.741610$Bo7.307850@fe07.news.easynews.com>, William M.
Klein<wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote:
> Let me preface this by making it clear that I really DO NOT know anything

>
> (beyond what I have found on the IBM site) about IBM's IFLs (Integrated
> Facility
> for Linux).  However as a follow-up on another post, I thought I would
> point
> others to:
>   http://www-03.ibm.com/systems/z/os/linux/ifl.html
>
> It appears to me that an IFL is *only* available as an "add-on" to a
> "traditional" z9 processor (general processor).  And in fact in the
> chart/diagram on this page called "One IFL added " it appears to me that
> there
> is STILL a zVM OS running on the IFL *with* Linux - even though the IFL
> is a
> "dedicated" CP.  Notice particularly the bullet
>    "Software cost for z/VM and Linux distribution"
>
> I would be interested if anyone working at a z9 shop that has an IFL can
> clarify
> this for me (us).

I'm not exactly sure what your question is.  I will say that, contrary to a
message you wrote the other day, it is (I've been told!) entirely possible
to run a single Linux image in a LPAR by itself; no VM (or IFL for that
matter) required.

However, I believe it is unlikely that anyone would do that, other than as a
first step.  I'm pretty sure that an IFL processor is not even required, but
if you used a regular CP I think you'd be limited to the same size/speed as
your z/OS or z/VSE CPs, and thus your speed/size/whatever would be limited
to that of your regular CP.

Looks like Robert already answered this, but I just thought I'd chime in and
agree with him (first time for everything!).

In the end, as with so many things, it's all marketing.  As far as I know
there is no actual difference between a regular CP and an IFL, other than
that the IFL is somehow (I think) locked down so that you can not run z/OS
or z/VSE under it.  Or something like that.  It's all quite confusing.

We have an IFL under which we are getting ready to run DB2.  We decided not
to go with DB2 Server for VSE as the server, because it is so far behind
every other DB2 (surprise, surprise!).  We'll still have DB2/VSE, but we'll
only use it as the client that will connect to DB2/LUW running on a Linux
guest in the IFL.

Frank