The HMC is only meant for big companies, as it costs nearly as much as a
baseline 515 ;)
And Operations Console isn't that much of an option, it requires a
separate, full fledged PC that needs to be maintained etc.
The Thin Console is a good replacement for Twinax terminals, and it's
what we use exclusively for our new system deployments.
I work for Small Businesses, not the multi billion dollar companies
you're used to. This means that "just buy a HMC", "just buy an
additional PC" are usually not really options. I would like to ship
every new system we sell with a HMC, believe me. But the cost is
prohibitively high.
-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[
mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Larry Bolhuis
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 2:43 PM
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
Subject: Re: Thin console capabilities (was Denying TCP connections
basedon IP)
Lukas Beeler wrote:
(I still think that the TC is a rather poorly done product, since it
doesn't offer remote access).
If you want remote access the HMC is the way to go. Sure it's more money
but it's got all that support built in that you need for that including
security. It has the ability to restrict users to functions based on job
role etc, to access ASMI, to share consoles for multiple partition and
systems. Thin Console was brought to light for those customers who just
simply couldn't live without a dedicated terminal based console. Having
to add a twinax card for this is expensive and wastes two slots (IOA
plus IOP) and locating a supply of good twinax terminals is getting more
and more difficult these days! If you want remote console access you
can also choose Operations console with either LAN or direct connect.
Thus adding remote capability to Thin Console would serve only to
increase cost and complexity, it wouldn't provide anything else that
doesn't already exist.
- Larry
midrange.com
