Re: V5R2 Console Recommendations

[Don <dr2@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Marty,

from what we were told at our user group meeting, you're going to have a
hard ware console on some of the models being announced in a few months...

Don in DC



On Tue, 10 Feb 2004, Urbanek, Marty wrote:

> I have always preferred dumb 5250 twinax devices as consoles because when
> the chips are down, they work. However, they do take a lot of space, are no
> longer sold by IBM, are not the "modern" way of doing things, etc, etc, etc.
> I had a model 150 with an async ops console one time and it was terrible -
> the thing would fail to reconnect half the time in the middle of touchy
> procedures like IPLs for PTFs, storage dumps, etc. I am hoping the new
> console technologies have come a long way since then and maybe it is time to
> try again.
>
> Which of IBM's current console approaches do you guys recommend (or not)? We
> are hoping to get a new system (maybe 870) that will run several LPARs
> (about 5, all OS/400). It would be great to be able to use the same device
> for all the partitions and to be able to connect remotely to perform
> functions like IPL, maybe even DST, etc. I guess I am asking for control
> panel functions beyond initiating an IPL such as viewing SRCs, change modes,
> etc.
>
> What about just as a multi-system console, without the control-panel
> functions? Any difference in opinion without that requirement?
>
> What have you had good results with? Any horror stories?
>
> THANKS EVERYBODY,
> -Marty
> _______________________________________________
> This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list
> To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
> visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
> or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
> at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.
>