I don't understand what you mean by "avoids a lot of hassles," Lukas. I'm not trying to pick nits here, but I've worked with an Ops Console, too, and it was a hassle having to get my butt out the chair and go to the system. Maybe it was just the way we had it setup, but it an Ops Console was no different from a twinax console in that regard. On the other hand, with the LAN Console we can have redundancy, which is why my boss (who rarely uses the console) has it configured on his PC. If my PC dies (this is Windows after all), he can take over the console even if it is in the middle of a job. He doesn't have to get out of his chair or anything except start it from a desktop icon.
I've never worked with an HMC, but LAN Console is better and less hassle than either twinax console or Ops Console. Both of the latter, by the way, require special connectors whereas the LAN is just, well, strung off of the LAN.
Jerry C. Adams
IBM System i Programmer/Analyst
From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Lukas Beeler
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 2:16 PM
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
Subject: Re: Hooking up and starting a 520
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 20:59, Jerry Adams <Jerry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
One does not need a spare, dedicated PC for a LAN console. ÂI think you're thinking of the Ops Console. ÂI run a LAN console from my normal PC; my boss has it configured on his, too.
You're right, it's not needed. Still, it makes much more sense to have
this on a device dedicated to this task and this task only. Avoids a
lot of hassles.