PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Use of zCX
Sorry, what do you mean?
- KB
--- Original Message ---
On Monday, April 25th, 2022 at 3:29 PM, Seymour J Metz wrote:
Icon? oorexx? Perl? Perl6 (Raku)?
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.e
The LINUX-390 list is also archived, of course:
https://www.mail-archive.com/linux-390@vm.marist.edu/
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message:
On 4/26/2022 5:05 AM, kekronbekron wrote:
ESG = ?
Environmental, Social and Governance issues...
--
Phoenix Software International
Edward E. Jaffe
831 Parkview Drive North
El Segundo, CA 90245
https://www.phoenixsoftware.com/
the LINUX-390 list?
>
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU On Behalf Of
> Kirk Wolf
>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2022 10:11 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: Use of zCX
>
> CAUTION: This ema
Thanks, thought you were about to suggest I somehow time travel to get to it.
Will look up that list.
- KB
--- Original Message ---
On Tuesday, April 26th, 2022 at 8:37 PM, Phil Smith III wrote:
> I'm compelled to note that all of the discussion of third-party product
> availability,
Does anyone have a URL for the LINUX-390 list?
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of
Kirk Wolf
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2022 10:11 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Use of zCX
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the Texas
Very good point.
Phil - I haven't been subscribed for a year or two to linux-390 - are they
discussing arch=390x docker packages as needed for zCX as well? VM/Linux vs
zCX? I would assume yes to both.
On Tue, Apr 26, 2022, at 10:07 AM, Phil Smith III wrote:
> I'm compelled to note that
I'm compelled to note that all of the discussion of third-party product
availability, difficulty (or not) of porting, etc. has been rehashed over
the last 20 years on the LINUX-390 list. That doesn't mean it's not a valid
discussion, just that joining that list will likely get more detailed
erv.ua.edu]
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2022 11:19 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Use of zCX
Sorry, what do you mean?
- KB
--- Original Message ---
On Monday, April 25th, 2022 at 3:29 PM, Seymour J Metz wrote:
> Icon? oorexx? Perl? Perl6 (Raku)?
>
>
> --
> Shmuel
ESG = ?
- KB
--- Original Message ---
On Tuesday, April 26th, 2022 at 3:30 PM, Matt Hogstrom
wrote:
> I did have an interesting conversation with a customer recently where given
> ESG they wanted to move relevant workload to zLinux because the power / VM /
> container ratio was
I did have an interesting conversation with a customer recently where given ESG
they wanted to move relevant workload to zLinux because the power / VM /
container ratio was lower than an x86 farm to lower their carbon footprint; I’m
not sure if this is an edge case or not.
For many Z customers
> On Apr 25, 2022, at 11:19 PM, kekronbekron
> <02dee3fcae33-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
>
>> If it's "easy", why is the IBM Z and LinuxOne Open Source list not bigger
>
A significant factor from my perspective is the lack of availability of IBM Z
hardware to the broader
On 26/4/22 01:03, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
Given this constraint, we try to put CPU-intensive activities (such as code
page conversion) on the faster-executing platforms.
and for that reason zCX is very important for ISVs because it does offload to
Ziips, provides an open technology platform and
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of
> kekronbekron [02dee3fcae33-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu]
> Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2022 11:37 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: Use of zCX
>
> Okay, maybe I'm mixing
> Given this constraint, we try to put CPU-intensive activities (such as code
> page conversion) on the faster-executing platforms.
and for that reason zCX is very important for ISVs because it does offload to
Ziips, provides an open technology platform and for customers that do not have
vZM
On 4/25/2022 6:29 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
Kirk, IIRC Node.js was one such technology. I don’t have a lot of familiarity
on the tech but from what I remember it was not possible to “port” the engine
because it directly generated x86 instructions (I was told) so it basically
compiled the code
There are a ton at https://hub.docker.com/u/clefos
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Kirk, IIRC Node.js was one such technology. I don’t have a lot of familiarity
on the tech but from what I remember it was not possible to “port” the engine
because it directly generated x86 instructions (I was told) so it basically
compiled the code to x86. IBM had a challenge getting it on
It's pretty good (s390x linux software), but it seems to me that this is not
without some friction:
- OSS sometimes has compile paths that take advantage of x86 instructions for
optimization, e.g. SSE. Nearly all of the time there is a C path, but that
doesn't mean that the code will perform
I would mention as well that cross compiling from an x86 to generate s390x also
works well. Today I use a MacBook Pro with the M1xPro (ARM) processor. The
days of heavy porting are in almost every case I’ve seen a compile away and not
a “porting” exercise.
Matt Hogstrom
m...@hogstrom.org
Matt agrees with you David. The only issue I’ve run into is sourcing some of
the other software in a precompiled form. That said, Postgres for example, was
strightforward to grab the source, build and package. Linux is what we had
hoped back in the 90’s that Open Edition would have been :)
ooRexx for sure.
DJ
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
, 2022 11:37 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Use of zCX
Okay, maybe I'm mixing things up.
So 'tainers are doable, assuming the program can first compile to s390x?
What about code that does CPU instruction set specific things.
How likely is the success of its compilation on s390x
On 25/4/22 11:37, kekronbekron wrote:
What about code that does CPU instruction set specific things.
How likely is the success of its compilation on s390x with minimal work.
About 100% likely. Linux is Linux is Linux. IBM have ported all the
compiler tool-chains such a GCC, LLVM/Clang etc. In
Okay, maybe I'm mixing things up.
So 'tainers are doable, assuming the program can first compile to s390x?
What about code that does CPU instruction set specific things.
How likely is the success of its compilation on s390x with minimal work.
If it's "easy", why is the IBM Z and LinuxOne Open
On 23/4/22 14:10, kekronbekron wrote:
Building the s390x containers is straight forward.
Again, really? (honest question).
Are there any public examples for reference?
You know, small enough that it isn't 50 million lines of code or something.
I don't want to speak for Matt but building
M-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Use of zCX
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 w
> Building the s390x containers is straight forward.
Again, really? (honest question).
Are there any public examples for reference?
You know, small enough that it isn't 50 million lines of code or something.
- KB
--- Original Message ---
On Friday, April 22nd, 2022 at 9:49 PM, Matt
> If you already deliver container images that support your product that
> currently run outside z/OS, or if that’s what you plan to do, it’d be a great
> idea to add s390x compatibility to your container images so your customers
> have greater deployment flexibility. That’s usually quite easy
ible where you can easily spin up a few
> linux VMs.
>
> Who remembers zBX? That died a death pretty quickly.
>
> > Charles
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
> > Behalf
On 23/4/22 06:00, Phil Smith III wrote:
David Crayford wrote:
Don't mean to put you on the spot Phil, but can you elaborate? Is there
a big drop off in Linux on Z users? Did the poster children move to x86
systems?
Well, the several examples I can think of moved the workload elsewhere,
On 23/4/22 00:19, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
On Apr 22, 2022, at 3:42 AM, David Crayford wrote:
If you already deliver container images that support your product that
currently run outside z/OS, or if that’s what you plan to do, it’d be a great
idea to add s390x compatibility to your container
David Crayford wrote:
>Don't mean to put you on the spot Phil, but can you elaborate? Is there
>a big drop off in Linux on Z users? Did the poster children move to x86
>systems?
Well, the several examples I can think of moved the workload elsewhere,
presumably to x86. I hate to be negative
Many shops might find linux containers managed as a z/OS subsystem using z/OS
SMS storage is attractive when compared to VM/Linux infrastucture.You can't
make everyone happy, but now you can have it either way. z is the new
"Whopper" :-)
On Thu, Apr 21, 2022, at 12:55 PM, Dave Jones
> On Apr 22, 2022, at 3:42 AM, David Crayford wrote:
>
>>
>> If you already deliver container images that support your product that
>> currently run outside z/OS, or if that’s what you plan to do, it’d be a
>> great idea to add s390x compatibility to your container images so your
>>
On 22/4/22 13:43, Timothy Sipples wrote:
David Crayford wrote:
Right, but zCX is not free.
Actually it’s no additional charge for 90 days. However, “it’s not free” is not
a meaningful argument. It’s *never* free to run applications in an enterprise
context at least. What matters is whether
David Crayford wrote:
>Right, but zCX is not free.
Actually it’s no additional charge for 90 days. However, “it’s not free” is not
a meaningful argument. It’s *never* free to run applications in an enterprise
context at least. What matters is whether there’s sufficient or better
I messed about with this back in the day; it worked well.
http://gsf-soft.com/Documents/ISX390.html
Subject: Re: Use of zCX
From: "PINION, RICHARD W."
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2022 18:52:08 +
Does anybody hear remember a software product from a Russian company that
allowed one to
>>Early 2001. Possibly included to run VSE in a z/OS address space to
>>aid migration?
>>
>DUO (DOS Under OS)?
If memory serves, DUO was around way before as one of the products acquired
when CA bought UCCEL. I have a recollection of seeing a manual in the blue
binders that I think CA
y.
Charles
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Dave Jones
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2022 10:55 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Use of zCX
I agree with Robert's objections to zCX, and, frankly, If all a s
On 22/4/22 05:32, Phil Smith III wrote:
Linux on Z in
general seems to be fading, which makes me very sad: several of the poster
children have backed away completely
Don't mean to put you on the spot Phil, but can you elaborate? Is there
a big drop off in Linux on Z users? Did the poster
zCX is part of new hardware exploitation. IBM still sells mainframes and
needs software to exploit the great new hardware features. The flip side
is that such software runs well only on the new hardware. For zCX you
pretty much need to be on z15 or even z16 to start seeing the great
benefits.
On Thu, 21 Apr 2022 16:32:40 -0400, Phil Smith III wrote:
>
>>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
That's a nice, positive view, Matt. Still doesn't quite make sense to me
yet, but I'm willing to believe it. Not convinced it made sense as a use of
very limited resources at this stage of the game, though. Linux on Z in
general seems to be fading, which makes me very sad: several of the poster
On Thu, 21 Apr 2022 20:55:49 +, Mike Schwab wrote:
>Early 2001. Possibly included to run VSE in a z/OS address space to
>aid migration?
>
DUO (DOS Under OS)?
>On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 6:52 PM PINION, RICHARD W. wrote:
>>
>> Does anybody hear remember a software product from a Russian company
nux as
>> an address space under OS/390? If memory serves me correctly, I think this
>> was in the 1990's, possible early
>> 2000's.
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of
>> Phil Smith III
>> Sen
? If memory serves me correctly, I think this
> was in the 1990's, possible early
> 2000's.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of
> Phil Smith III
> Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2022 2:26 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subj
Gil asked:
>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
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
zCX.
Charles
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Dave Jones
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2022 10:55 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Use of zCX
I agree with Robert's objections to zCX, and, frankly, If all a s
Of
Phil Smith III
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2022 2:26 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Use of zCX
[External Email. Exercise caution when clicking links or opening attachments.]
>It likes a LOT of real memory and it appears that the running instance
consumes the full amount of r
>It likes a LOT of real memory and it appears that the running instance
consumes the full amount of real memory allocated to it for the duration,
making it unavailable to zOS for paging or any other use.
Well, sure-that memory use is Linux caching files in memory. This has all
been explored,
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
EA/s/ Anthony L. Zak
Original message From: Sean Gleann
Date: 4/21/22 2:57 AM (GMT-05:00) To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re:
[IBM-MAIN] Use of zCX @Robert Garrett (with a sigh of relief!) 15 minutes for
z/CX to come up ona z/OS under z/VM at Dallas? Me too. I
/s/ Anthony L. ZakJo,z
Original message From: Sean Gleann
Date: 4/21/22 2:57 AM (GMT-05:00) To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re:
[IBM-MAIN] Use of zCX @Robert Garrett (with a sigh of relief!) 15 minutes for
z/CX to come up ona z/OS under z/VM at Dallas? Me too. I
@Robert Garrett (with a sigh of relief!) 15 minutes for z/CX to come up on
a z/OS under z/VM at Dallas? Me too. I thought I was doing something
wrong, but couldn't get any useful feedback from IBM/Dallas about the
'problem'.
Sean
On Thu, 21 Apr 2022 at 04:57, kekronbekron <
Apologies if this seems rash.
Certainly don't mean to belittle people's work; many are restricted with
choices, procedures, etc.
If it isn't for the cost of being an MF s/w vendor, competent new solutions
would steal the show.
Much like most of y'all, I want Z to remain king of the hill.
-KB
Discussion List On Behalf Of
Matt Hogstrom
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2022 2:56 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Use of zCX
As an ISV are interested in leveraging containers for delivery of services into
zCX … I’m curious if
1. You have zCX installed, or plan to?
2 If so, are you
As an observer, I reckon IBM are forced to use OpenShift because they've got to
get RedHat in there.
Also, since everyone knows the word Docker now, the Z "has to have it".
Surely the industry is now waking up to the mess that is the Kubernetes
ecoystem mgmt., service MESS.
I do wonder... for
On Wed, 20 Apr 2022 at 18:00, Robert Garrett wrote:
[...]
> It likes a LOT of real memory and it appears that the running instance
> consumes the full amount of real memory allocated to it for the duration,
> making it unavailable to zOS for paging or any other use. Don't believe the
> claim
Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of
Matt Hogstrom
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2022 2:56 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Use of zCX
As an ISV are interested in leveraging containers for delivery of services into
zCX … I’m curious if
1. You have zCX installed
A well timed question. We are also exploring zCX and would like to know
how widely it has been adopted. There is no doubt that customers can
save a lot of money by exploiting zCX workloads running on zIIPs.
There's an interesting paper from IBM WRT offloading MQ workloads
As an ISV are interested in leveraging containers for delivery of services into
zCX … I’m curious if
1. You have zCX installed, or plan to?
2 If so, are you looking to use IBM’s recently announced OpenShift or another
orchestrator?
It’s always nice to know if you’re delivering content that
63 matches
Mail list logo
