>>> On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 7:04 PM, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marcy
Cortes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think I remember hearing that's how it worked here for Windows and
> RedHat Linux too. Not sure about SuSE Linux since we don't run that on
> Intel.
SLES on Intel is licensed per box
and newer,
since they must be registered to continue in full run mode.
-Original Message-
From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Shimon Lebowitz
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 6:57 PM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: z/VM - Lightweight specific p
Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Shimon Lebowitz
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 3:57 PM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: z/VM - Lightweight specific purpose file system
>Why would the Microsoft Licensing be "tricky"?
>Expensive perhaps as you need
> Is this really true??? One per *virtual*, not *real*,
> machine? If I were two run two
> copies of Windows on *one* PC, using e.g. VM-Ware,
> I would be required to pay twice???
Depends on what version of Windows. Some versions have restrictions on
where they can legally run, and there are limit
IBMVM] z/VM - Lightweight specific purpose file system
>Why would the Microsoft Licensing be "tricky"?
>Expensive perhaps as you need
>one license per virtual machine, but not tricky...
Is this really true??? One per *virtual*, not *real*, machine? If I were
two run two copies o
>Why would the Microsoft Licensing be "tricky"?
>Expensive perhaps as you need
>one license per virtual machine, but not tricky...
Is this really true??? One per *virtual*, not *real*,
machine? If I were two run two
copies of Windows on *one* PC, using e.g. VM-Ware,
I would be required to pay t
m: "Gentry, Stephen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 1:33 PM
Subject: Re: z/VM - Lightweight specific purpose file system
Hmm, what about the i370 aka Bigfoot? Other than physically, how did the
p370 differ from the s/370?
To quote from a document/webpage attrib
ot;McKown, John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 7:09 PM
> Subject: Re: z/VM - Lightweight specific purpose file system
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: The IBM z/VM Operating System
>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 5:51 PM, David Boyes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Modern Linuxes don't run on p390-class machines anymore, I think.
> > > Halfword immediate instructions maybe?
> >
> > With a proper support contract you could get the microcode that
> > supports halfway immediate i
> > Modern Linuxes don't run on p390-class machines anymore, I think.
> > Halfword immediate instructions maybe?
>
> With a proper support contract you could get the microcode that
> supports halfway immediate instructions.
Didn't that require a p390e card or an IS, though? I don't think the MC
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 11:30 PM, Adam Thornton
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Modern Linuxes don't run on p390-class machines anymore, I think.
> Halfword immediate instructions maybe?
With a proper support contract you could get the microcode that
supports halfway immediate instructions. Early
On Mar 27, 2008, at 8:33 AM, Gentry, Stephen wrote:
Hmm, what about the i370 aka Bigfoot? Other than physically, how did
the
p370 differ from the s/370?
To quote from a document/webpage attributed to you:
Linux on the System/390 is an idea that has been being kicked around
since Linux's earli
tem 370 and not p370.
Inquiring minds . . yadda, yadda
Steve G.
-Original Message-
From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Adam Thornton
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 6:31 PM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: z/VM - Lightweight specific purpose fi
System
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gentry, Stephen
> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 10:03 AM
> To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
> Subject: Re: z/VM - Lightweight specific purpose file system
>
> Seems like Johnny Carson did this joke as "The Great Carnac".
>
On Mar 26, 2008, at 3:23 PM, Gentry, Stephen wrote:
It will work on an IS (been there done that) but painfully slow. Would
the p390 actually have to be a p390e? I started to work on it a few
times on a p370 but kept getting side tracked on other stuff.
Steve G
Mine *was* a p390E.
I don't kno
cluding VM
Ware. I guess they could buy VM Ware first...
Dave G4UGM
Illegitimi Non Carborundum
- Original Message -
From: "McKown, John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 7:09 PM
Subject: Re: z/VM - Lightweight specific purpose file system
-
] On
Behalf Of Adam Thornton
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 4:12 PM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: z/VM - Lightweight specific purpose file system
On Mar 26, 2008, at 1:55 PM, David Boyes wrote:
> Not very. Adam's done it on our MP3K (RIP -- check the archives for a
> U
day, March 26, 2008 12:43 PM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: z/VM - Lightweight specific purpose file system
Early in the development cycle, we had both QEMU and Bochs running on
z/System version of Redhat (CentOS 5.4). The "Name two movie stars and a
dog" joke applied to both em
On Mar 26, 2008, at 1:55 PM, David Boyes wrote:
Not very. Adam's done it on our MP3K (RIP -- check the archives for a
URL with the screenshot of WinNT beating the living daylights out of
our
poor abused H70). Don't recommend it on that hardware.
I think it was actually a P390 or IS. REALLY
I would assume he needs VM because he needs several different versions of z/OS to support his
products. If your developing a z/OS product you need to have all the supported versions of z/OS to
test it on.
David Boyes wrote:
We have been using VM for 20 of our 27 years in business. A
developme
> > z/OS doesn't run because it deliberately issues an instruction
subcode
> > that is not implemented on an IFL and then craters in a specified
way
> > when the instruction fails.
> One might infer from your characterization that z/OS added code to
> intentionally crater itself on an IFL, and that
> -Original Message-
> From: The IBM z/VM Operating System
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Alan Altmark
> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 2:26 PM
> To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
> Subject: Re: z/VM - Lightweight specific purpose file system
>
>
> On Wed
On Wednesday, 03/26/2008 at 03:17 EDT, David Boyes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> z/OS doesn't run because it deliberately issues an instruction subcode
> that is not implemented on an IFL and then craters in a specified way
> when the instruction fails.
One might infer from your characterization t
On Wednesday, 03/26/2008 at 11:01 EDT, Mark Pace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Me too! Me too
>
> Give me a z10 and I'll try it.
If I find any on the sidewalk or near the storm drain I will save them for
you and Adam.
Alan Altmark
z/VM Development
IBM Endicott
> Systems such as z/OS do not run on an IFL due to
> some differences in the microcode loaded.
z/OS doesn't run because it deliberately issues an instruction subcode
that is not implemented on an IFL and then craters in a specified way
when the instruction fails.
> If somebody wanted to, they co
> -Original Message-
> From: The IBM z/VM Operating System
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Wade
> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 2:01 PM
> To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
> Subject: Re: z/VM - Lightweight specific purpose file system
>
>
> Why would
> There could be virtualization uses
> at some point. My shop is a heavy MS shop and trying to retire
> their Multiprise 3000. It would be nice to pilot the migration
> of some Windows servers onto our lightly loaded VM/ESA system.
Wait for the new hardware, at least if you have anything else us
Why would the Microsoft Licensing be "tricky"? Expensive perhaps as you need
one license per virtual machine, but not tricky...
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 6:52 PM
Subject: Re: z/VM - Lightweight specific pur
> Are you saying or asking if has run Bochs on a mainframe? That would
> be a very significant achievement.
Not very. Adam's done it on our MP3K (RIP -- check the archives for a
URL with the screenshot of WinNT beating the living daylights out of our
poor abused H70). Don't recommend it on that h
The tricky part about this is the Microsoft licensing.
-Original Message-
From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of McKown, John
Sent: March 26, 2008 14:41
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: z/VM - Lightweight specific purpose file system
> > We have been using VM for 20 of our 27 years in business. A
development
> > environment without it has never been considered an option.
Now that's the sort of quote that should appear in IBM marketing
materials.
-- db
> -Original Message-
> From: The IBM z/VM Operating System
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Wheeler
> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 1:35 PM
> To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
> Subject: Re: z/VM - Lightweight specific purpose file system
>
>
&
System
<[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject
ARK.EDU> Re: z/VM - Lightweight specific
Hi, Gary.
So, let me see if I got this straightyour organization has developed
some sort of application, which runs on CMS, that allows Windows-based
code to be executed? Way cool, dude. Good luck with it, and could you
please keep this informed as to your progress on this?
Given your e
On Mar 26, 2008, at 11:12 AM, David L. Craig wrote:
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 10:59:00AM -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
Dave, yes, Boch, running Windows NT itself, has been hosted on top
of a
zLinux guest, running under z/VM. This feat was accomplished by my
colleague Adam Thornton, who clearly has
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 12:32:58PM -0400, Alan Altmark wrote:
>
> I think you'll find the MP3K is just too slow (CPU speed). That was the
> point of my talking about a z10; it's a much faster CPU than even a z9.
>
> But as an experiment to determine feasibility of the technology it would
> be
Early in the development cycle, we had both QEMU and Bochs running on
z/System version of Redhat (CentOS 5.4). The "Name two movie stars and a
dog" joke applied to both emulators running in this environment.
We concluded early on that we had to get rid of Linux and the emulation
layer. Both would
On Wednesday, 03/26/2008 at 12:13 EDT, "David L. Craig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Yes, Google is my friend. There's even a Debian package, I see.
> I, too, would be very interested is performance numbers from
> state-of-the-art hardware. There could be virtualization uses
> at some point. My
As Dave (Jones) said, yes, it's been done.
But Dave (Craig), while it *is* cool, don't be shocked at this feat.
BOCHS is a pure emulator. It can be built on *any* HW platform
("System p", Sun SPARC, or an ARM hand-held, not only "System z")
and will emulate the INTeL instruction set with a sma
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 10:59:00AM -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
> Dave, yes, Boch, running Windows NT itself, has been hosted on top of a
> zLinux guest, running under z/VM. This feat was accomplished by my
> colleague Adam Thornton, who clearly has way too much free time on his
> hands. ;-)
>
> W
David L. Craig wrote:
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 10:29:59AM -0400, Alan Altmark wrote:
An excellent goal. As a point of comparison, have you ever run Windows
using the Bochs emulator on zLinux? If so, on what machine? (I'd like to
see someone try it on a z10.)
Are you saying or asking if has
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 10:29:59AM -0400, Alan Altmark wrote:
>
> An excellent goal. As a point of comparison, have you ever run Windows
> using the Bochs emulator on zLinux? If so, on what machine? (I'd like to
> see someone try it on a z10.)
Are you saying or asking if has run Bochs on a m
Me too! Me too
>
> Give me a z10 and I'll try it.
>
> Adam
--
Mark Pace
Mainline Information Systems
On Mar 26, 2008, at 9:29 AM, Alan Altmark wrote:
On Wednesday, 03/26/2008 at 12:20 EDT, "Gary M. Dennis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Emulation would be a non-starter for a production environment. I
would
describe this system as a single pass code segment translation system
with
conditional b
On Wednesday, 03/26/2008 at 12:20 EDT, "Gary M. Dennis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Emulation would be a non-starter for a production environment. I would
> describe this system as a single pass code segment translation system
with
> conditional block invalidation.
>
> We have been using VM for
Sounds very interesting. I hope you present your method at a conference sometime. Even if it isn't a
commercial success the idea is intriguing.
Gary M. Dennis wrote:
Emulation would be a non-starter for a production environment. I would
describe this system as a single pass code segment transla
Emulation would be a non-starter for a production environment. I would
describe this system as a single pass code segment translation system with
conditional block invalidation.
We have been using VM for 20 of our 27 years in business. A development
environment without it has never been considered
Are you attempting to write a windows emulator that runs under VM?
Looking at your companies web site it looks like you mostly sell products that
run under z/OS.
If you can do this there will be a lot of interest.
Gary M. Dennis wrote:
Months ago. The development team was so focused on instru
> Sent: March 25, 2008 17:14
> To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
> Subject: Re: z/VM - Lightweight specific purpose file system
>
> The callable services benchmarks we conducted with BFS ran between 8 and
> 10
> times longer than the test set running with the CMS file system.
>
>
- Lightweight specific purpose file system
The callable services benchmarks we conducted with BFS ran between 8 and
10
times longer than the test set running with the CMS file system.
Assuming a cluster of 125 Windows(r) 2K z/VM guests and using I/O counts
generated by Win 2K on native Intel hardware the
The callable services benchmarks we conducted with BFS ran between 8 and 10
times longer than the test set running with the CMS file system.
Assuming a cluster of 125 Windows® 2K z/VM guests and using I/O counts
generated by Win 2K on native Intel hardware the results of extrapolating
the I/O over
Another possibility would be to exploit the infrastructure that the RSK
provides..
DJ
Alan Altmark wrote:
On Tuesday, 03/25/2008 at 04:26 EDT, "Gary M. Dennis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Is anyone aware of a VM open source file system port with some of the
characteristics listed below.
On Tuesday, 03/25/2008 at 04:26 EDT, "Gary M. Dennis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is anyone aware of a VM open source file system port with some of the
> characteristics listed below. Such a system might enable us to add the
> functionality needed to support these guests without starting at zero
We need a lightweight file system to support z/VM i86 guest operating
systems. A high speed garbage can of sorts.
Is anyone aware of a VM open source file system port with some of the
characteristics listed below. Such a system might enable us to add the
functionality needed to support these guest
54 matches
Mail list logo
