Re: Trying to build CMSBAM segment
Alan, SEGMENT RESERVE/RELEASE didn't help. A few more details. I defined vstor at 256m. We installed to mdisk, not SFS. I have backups of the old SDF files and can restore if necessary. We are running 5.1 and are trying to get to 5.3 since 5.1 is unsupported. I'll open a PMR with that information and provide the console listings. Thanks, Larry -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Alan Altmark Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 5:38 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Trying to build CMSBAM segment On Tuesday, 11/20/2007 at 03:32 EST, Harland, Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We are installing zVM 5.3 and need to recreate the CMSDOS and CMSBAM segments on the current spool. I issued the following (results listed below) from the Service Guide and received this error for CMSBAM: DMSDCS343E Storage in range 00B0D000-00B37FFF for CMSBAM in use. I displayed storage for this range and it showed nothing in that area of storage. We keep the same spool packs between releases and rename the segments. We are using the default names for 5.3 so I thought this would be easy. I'm trying this from the MAINT id on a second level 5.3 system. Any help on what I might try or what I might be doing wrong would be appreciated. Larry, please open a PMR so that we can look at your problem in more detail. This usually shows up when you've installed into SFS - the memory occupied by file descriptors (FSTs) in the accessed directories is bumping into the memory used by CMSBAM. A possible workaround: Immediately after IPL CMS and ACC (NOPROF, try SEGMENT RESERVE CMSBAM. Then, right before you issue the VMFBLD for the segment, issue SEGMENT RELEASE CMSBAM. And add the NOSETUP option to VMFBLD. E.g. segment release cmsbam Ready; vmfbld list segbld esasegs dosbam blddata (all nosetup No guarantees, but worth a try. Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott
Re: Trying to build CMSBAM segment
Let us know if IBM has a new solution. I'm doing VM5.3 too and will hit CMSBAM build problem again at some point. This e-mail, including any attachments, may be confidential, privileged or otherwise legally protected. It is intended only for the addressee. If you received this e-mail in error or from someone who was not authorized to send it to you, do not disseminate, copy or otherwise use this e-mail or its attachments. Please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete the e-mail from your system. -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Harland, Lawrence Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 7:58 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Trying to build CMSBAM segment Alan, SEGMENT RESERVE/RELEASE didn't help. A few more details. I defined vstor at 256m. We installed to mdisk, not SFS. I have backups of the old SDF files and can restore if necessary. We are running 5.1 and are trying to get to 5.3 since 5.1 is unsupported. I'll open a PMR with that information and provide the console listings. Thanks, Larry -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Alan Altmark Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 5:38 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Trying to build CMSBAM segment On Tuesday, 11/20/2007 at 03:32 EST, Harland, Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We are installing zVM 5.3 and need to recreate the CMSDOS and CMSBAM segments on the current spool. I issued the following (results listed below) from the Service Guide and received this error for CMSBAM: DMSDCS343E Storage in range 00B0D000-00B37FFF for CMSBAM in use. I displayed storage for this range and it showed nothing in that area of storage. We keep the same spool packs between releases and rename the segments. We are using the default names for 5.3 so I thought this would be easy. I'm trying this from the MAINT id on a second level 5.3 system. Any help on what I might try or what I might be doing wrong would be appreciated. Larry, please open a PMR so that we can look at your problem in more detail. This usually shows up when you've installed into SFS - the memory occupied by file descriptors (FSTs) in the accessed directories is bumping into the memory used by CMSBAM. A possible workaround: Immediately after IPL CMS and ACC (NOPROF, try SEGMENT RESERVE CMSBAM. Then, right before you issue the VMFBLD for the segment, issue SEGMENT RELEASE CMSBAM. And add the NOSETUP option to VMFBLD. E.g. segment release cmsbam Ready; vmfbld list segbld esasegs dosbam blddata (all nosetup No guarantees, but worth a try. Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott
Re: Trying to build CMSBAM segment
Maybe you've got some minidisks with lots of files then. At the other hand, when I migrate from one VM level to another, I keep my spool. And, I know CMSDOS co are seldom changed... So, my CMSDOS,BAM,AMSVSAM date from december 2002. We now run 5.2 2007/11/21, Harland, Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Alan, SEGMENT RESERVE/RELEASE didn't help. A few more details. I defined vstor at 256m. We installed to mdisk, not SFS. I have backups of the old SDF files and can restore if necessary. We are running 5.1 and are trying to get to 5.3 since 5.1 is unsupported. I'll open a PMR with that information and provide the console listings. Thanks, Larry
Re: Guest access to z9 DVD drive
Access to the DVD drive on the HMC is incredibly slow. I think it was meant as a means of bootstraping up a bare system when you first get it, rather than being intended for long-term use as a mainframe device. It's faster and easier to create the ISO on your laptop and FTP/NFS/SCP it up to one of you Linux guests. Remember that, while the HMC is part of the mainframe, it isn't directly attached; it's networked to the mainframe on a private network, and probably a slower one than you have attached to your OSA cards. -- .~.Robert P. Nix Mayo Foundation /V\RO-OE-5-55200 First Street SW /( )\ 507-284-0844 Rochester, MN 55905 ^^-^^ - In theory, theory and practice are the same, but in practice, theory and practice are different. On 11/20/07 1:43 PM, Susan Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I just thought that if we could provide the guest access to the DVD drive we could build the ISO images directly to a file system on zLinux. (Not sure if I'm adequately describing this.) Admittedly, we don't need to do this often, but when we do, it seems that it would be a big time-saver. I'm presuming the DVD in the HMC would be able to read the SUSE SLES Installation CDs. Thanks... susan
Re: TCPIP troubleshooting
Alan Altmark wrote: On Tuesday, 11/20/2007 at 05:51 EST, Miguel Delapaz/Endicott/[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: *ahem* Using NETSTAT OBEY wouldn't fix ifconfig. It would eliminate the need for the minidisk password while severely limiting the amount of data we can send to the stack. While this wouldn't be an issue for starting/stopping interfaces, creating/modifying interfaces is an entirely other story. I meant just for ifconfig UP and DOWN. Fix what we can now, let the rest wait until ... later. ;-) Absolutely! Take the weekend off, even! A PTF Monday is soon enough! (Must be virtual Friday in the USA, right?)
Re: Questions about LUN DASD volumes
Speaking with the OPEN guys, the major problem say have when they restore on a D/R site is to exactly map their requirements to what they find in t he new DASD array. So the problem appears when they want to restore a group of LUNs (meta volume) to preserve data coherence. Does a CP cmd exist to get this info. I presume the query edev is for LUN only ? Alain Benveniste
Re: Trying to build CMSBAM segment
Gee, I'm glad now I was in a hurry, and just copied these segments from z/VM 3.1.0 to z/VM 5.3.0. I missed a headache there! And now I know to try building them second-level before I do anything in production. Thanks guys!!! -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kris Buelens Sent: November 21, 2007 08:27 To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Trying to build CMSBAM segment Maybe you've got some minidisks with lots of files then. At the other hand, when I migrate from one VM level to another, I keep my spool. And, I know CMSDOS co are seldom changed... So, my CMSDOS,BAM,AMSVSAM date from december 2002. We now run 5.2 2007/11/21, Harland, Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Alan, SEGMENT RESERVE/RELEASE didn't help. A few more details. I defined vstor at 256m. We installed to mdisk, not SFS. I have backups of the old SDF files and can restore if necessary. We are running 5.1 and are trying to get to 5.3 since 5.1 is unsupported. I'll open a PMR with that information and provide the console listings. Thanks, Larry The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review retransmission dissemination or other use of or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient or delegate is strictly prohibited. If you received this in error please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. The integrity and security of this message cannot by guaranteed on the Internet. The Sender accepts no liability for the content of this e-mail or for the consequences of any actions taken on basis of the information provided. The recipient should check this e-mail and any attachments for the presence of viruses. The sender accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail. This disclaimer is the property of the TTC and must not be altered or circumvented in any manner.
Re: Trying to build CMSBAM segment
I'm now having a problem submitting the PMR. Get the following error. An error has occurred: * An error occurred accessing the database: CPR1 201 I'll try it again later today then just wait til after the weekend. Happy Thanksgiving Larry Harland
Re: Questions about LUN DASD volumes
Alain, There is: CP QUERY EDEVICE But I'm not sure that will give you what you are looking for ... Especially since you would have first had to have done a SET EDEVICE for the LUN ... which would mean the devices are attached and active on z/VM. JR (Steven) Imler CA Senior Software Engineer Tel: +1 703 708 3479 Fax: +1 703 708 3267 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Alain Benveniste Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 10:08 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Questions about LUN DASD volumes Speaking with the OPEN guys, the major problem say have when they restore= on a D/R site is to exactly map their requirements to what they find in t= he new DASD array. So the problem appears when they want to restore a group = of LUNs (meta volume) to preserve data coherence. Does a CP cmd exist to get this info. I presume the query edev is for LUN= only ? Alain Benveniste
Re: Questions about LUN DASD volumes
SCSIDISC (the SCSI Discovery Tool) is a sample exec which provides target port and LUN information so one can discover the LUN topology which hangs off a System z FCP Subchannel.The help file for the tool (SCSIDISC SAMPHELP) indicates that it is Located on MAINT 194 or 2C2 disk. Regards, Steve. Steve Wilkins IBM z/VM Development Alain Benveniste [EMAIL PROTECTED] E.FR To Sent by: The IBM IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU z/VM Operating cc System [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject ARK.EDU Re: Questions about LUN DASD volumes 11/21/2007 10:07 AM Please respond to The IBM z/VM Operating System [EMAIL PROTECTED] ARK.EDU Speaking with the OPEN guys, the major problem say have when they restore on a D/R site is to exactly map their requirements to what they find in the new DASD array. So the problem appears when they want to restore a group of LUNs (meta volume) to preserve data coherence. Does a CP cmd exist to get this info. I presume the query edev is for LUN only ? Alain Benveniste
IFL's, VM, Suse, OH MY...
Folks, I've done about a 45 minute search and I think my answer is that I'd have to run multiple VM's per frame but wanted to ensure I was right. My management wants to run some product called HATS on our VM/MFL world. We recently upgraded from our z/890's with 1 IFL each to z9BC's with 2 IFL's each. I guess to keep costs down they want to run on one IFL this HATS worlds so the question to me was can I run a single VM with BOTH IFL's allocated but alot the HATS world only 1 IFL. Is this possible with VM config parms or some other way like maybe my HMC which I just thought of but haven't looked at yet. I know we have to lic Suse for more engines. Just more interested in is it even doable. THANX Brian W. France Systems Administrator (Mainframe) Pennsylvania State University Administrative Information Services - Infrastructure/SYSARC Rm 25 Shields Bldg., University Park, Pa. 16802 814-863-4739 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe. Carl Sagan
Re: IFL's, VM, Suse, OH MY...
If HATS runs on Linux, then you could have a dedicated Linux guest for HATS. And in z/VM, you could assign a single virtual CPU to that Linux instance. That would restrict the HATS Linux system to run on a single CPU at a time (might switch from CPU to CPU, but only use one). -- John McKown Senior Systems Programmer HealthMarkets Keeping the Promise of Affordable Coverage Administrative Services Group Information Technology This message (including any attachments) contains confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose, and its content is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this message and are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this transmission, or taking any action based on it, is strictly prohibited. -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian France Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 10:00 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: IFL's, VM, Suse, OH MY... Folks, I've done about a 45 minute search and I think my answer is that I'd have to run multiple VM's per frame but wanted to ensure I was right. My management wants to run some product called HATS on our VM/MFL world. We recently upgraded from our z/890's with 1 IFL each to z9BC's with 2 IFL's each. I guess to keep costs down they want to run on one IFL this HATS worlds so the question to me was can I run a single VM with BOTH IFL's allocated but alot the HATS world only 1 IFL. Is this possible with VM config parms or some other way like maybe my HMC which I just thought of but haven't looked at yet. I know we have to lic Suse for more engines. Just more interested in is it even doable. THANX Brian W. France Systems Administrator (Mainframe) Pennsylvania State University Administrative Information Services - Infrastructure/S YSA RC Rm 25 Shields Bldg., University Park, Pa. 16802 814-863-4739 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe. Carl Sagan
Re: IFL's, VM, Suse, OH MY...
John, Yes, HATS run on MainFrameLinux using WAS. So, do I understand you in that I can assign two IFL's to my VM, and most of my MFL's could have access to both IFL's except for the MFL that runs HATS? I somehow assign a cpu to it in my USER DIRECT statements? At 11:03 AM 11/21/2007, McKown, John wrote: If HATS runs on Linux, then you could have a dedicated Linux guest for HATS. And in z/VM, you could assign a single virtual CPU to that Linux instance. That would restrict the HATS Linux system to run on a single CPU at a time (might switch from CPU to CPU, but only use one). -- John McKown Senior Systems Programmer HealthMarkets Keeping the Promise of Affordable Coverage Administrative Services Group Information Technology This message (including any attachments) contains confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose, and its content is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this message and are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this transmission, or taking any action based on it, is strictly prohibited. -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian France Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 10:00 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: IFL's, VM, Suse, OH MY... Folks, I've done about a 45 minute search and I think my answer is that I'd have to run multiple VM's per frame but wanted to ensure I was right. My management wants to run some product called HATS on our VM/MFL world. We recently upgraded from our z/890's with 1 IFL each to z9BC's with 2 IFL's each. I guess to keep costs down they want to run on one IFL this HATS worlds so the question to me was can I run a single VM with BOTH IFL's allocated but alot the HATS world only 1 IFL. Is this possible with VM config parms or some other way like maybe my HMC which I just thought of but haven't looked at yet. I know we have to lic Suse for more engines. Just more interested in is it even doable. THANX Brian W. France Systems Administrator (Mainframe) Pennsylvania State University Administrative Information Services - Infrastructure/S YSA RC Rm 25 Shields Bldg., University Park, Pa. 16802 814-863-4739 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe. Carl Sagan Brian W. France Systems Administrator (Mainframe) Pennsylvania State University Administrative Information Services - Infrastructure/SYSARC Rm 25 Shields Bldg., University Park, Pa. 16802 814-863-4739 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe. Carl Sagan
Re: IFL's, VM, Suse, OH MY...
My mistake. The OP did says keep costs down. Which the MACHINE directive will not do. It would only keep the CPU used by the HATS guest from exceeding a single IFL. The only way to keep the costs down (i.e. software licensing fees) is to remove an IFL entirely. I don't think that having multiple z/VMs in separate LPARs would reduce the software cost either. One of my main complaints about licensing by number of processors or power of the processor is this. The HATS license (and most others) will be the same given the same hardware configuration, even if it only use 5% of the CPU resource (with the other 95% being used by in-house applications). I would prefer a consumption license based on usage. Or perhaps a base license price for the product, irrespective of the processor, then an add on cost for normally scheduled maintenance, then perhaps a per incident cost for ad-hoc support. But people would complain about that as well, I guess. -- John McKown Senior Systems Programmer HealthMarkets Keeping the Promise of Affordable Coverage Administrative Services Group Information Technology This message (including any attachments) contains confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose, and its content is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this message and are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this transmission, or taking any action based on it, is strictly prohibited. -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 10:39 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: IFL's, VM, Suse, OH MY... Note that although this works from a technical point of view, from a product licensing point of view, it likely would not. Vendors tend to be very picky when it comes to money, and would likely only be happy if the product was running in an LPAR with one IFL assigned to it. If the vendor is not too familiar with mainframes, I wouldn't be surprised to have them insist it be installed on a z9 equipped with only 1 IFL. Peter -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of McKown, John Sent: November 21, 2007 11:32 To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: IFL's, VM, Suse, OH MY... Correct. USER HATS MACHINE ESA 1 ... other stuff will define a z/VM guest called HATS which only has a single CPU assigned to it. ref: http://publibz.boulder.ibm.com/cgi-bin/bookmgr_OS390/BOOKS/hcsg0b20/3.2. 35 -- John McKown Senior Systems Programmer HealthMarkets Keeping the Promise of Affordable Coverage Administrative Services Group Information Technology This message (including any attachments) contains confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose, and its content is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this message and are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this transmission, or taking any action based on it, is strictly prohibited. -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian France Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 10:27 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: IFL's, VM, Suse, OH MY... John, Yes, HATS run on MainFrameLinux using WAS. So, do I understand you in that I can assign two IFL's to my VM, and most of my MFL's could have access to both IFL's except for the MFL that runs HATS? I somehow assign a cpu to it in my USER DIRECT statements? At 11:03 AM 11/21/2007, McKown, John wrote: If HATS runs on Linux, then you could have a dedicated Linux guest for HATS. And in z/VM, you could assign a single virtual CPU to that Linux instance. That would restrict the HATS Linux system to run on a single CPU at a time (might switch from CPU to CPU, but only use one). -- John McKown Senior Systems Programmer HealthMarkets Keeping the Promise of Affordable Coverage Administrative Services Group Information Technology This message (including any attachments) contains confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose, and its content is protected by law.
Re: IFL's, VM, Suse, OH MY...
Correct. USER HATS MACHINE ESA 1 ... other stuff will define a z/VM guest called HATS which only has a single CPU assigned to it. ref: http://publibz.boulder.ibm.com/cgi-bin/bookmgr_OS390/BOOKS/hcsg0b20/3.2. 35 -- John McKown Senior Systems Programmer HealthMarkets Keeping the Promise of Affordable Coverage Administrative Services Group Information Technology This message (including any attachments) contains confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose, and its content is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this message and are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this transmission, or taking any action based on it, is strictly prohibited. -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian France Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 10:27 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: IFL's, VM, Suse, OH MY... John, Yes, HATS run on MainFrameLinux using WAS. So, do I understand you in that I can assign two IFL's to my VM, and most of my MFL's could have access to both IFL's except for the MFL that runs HATS? I somehow assign a cpu to it in my USER DIRECT statements? At 11:03 AM 11/21/2007, McKown, John wrote: If HATS runs on Linux, then you could have a dedicated Linux guest for HATS. And in z/VM, you could assign a single virtual CPU to that Linux instance. That would restrict the HATS Linux system to run on a single CPU at a time (might switch from CPU to CPU, but only use one). -- John McKown Senior Systems Programmer HealthMarkets Keeping the Promise of Affordable Coverage Administrative Services Group Information Technology This message (including any attachments) contains confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose, and its content is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this message and are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this transmission, or taking any action based on it, is strictly prohibited. -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [ mailto:IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU mailto:IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU ] On Behalf Of Brian France Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 10:00 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: IFL's, VM, Suse, OH MY... Folks, I've done about a 45 minute search and I think my answer is that I'd have to run multiple VM's per frame but wanted to ensure I was right. My management wants to run some product called HATS on our VM/MFL world. We recently upgraded from our z/890's with 1 IFL each to z9BC's with 2 IFL's each. I guess to keep costs down they want to run on one IFL this HATS worlds so the question to me was can I run a single VM with BOTH IFL's allocated but alot the HATS world only 1 IFL. Is this possible with VM config parms or some other way like maybe my HMC which I just thought of but haven't looked at yet. I know we have to lic Suse for more engines. Just more interested in is it even doable. THANX Brian W. France Systems Administrator (Mainframe) Pennsylvania State University Administrative Information Services - Infrastructure/S YSA RC Rm 25 Shields Bldg., University Park, Pa. 16802 814-863-4739 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe. Carl Sagan Brian W. France Systems Administrator (Mainframe) Pennsylvania State University Administrative Information Services - Infrastructure/S YSA RC Rm 25 Shields Bldg., University Park, Pa. 16802 814-863-4739 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: IFL's, VM, Suse, OH MY...
From a cost perspective, the software companines will charge you for the number of IFL engines you have on a box in which you run the software. So if you are running HATS on a single IFL box, you get charged for one copy. If you run HATS on your dual IFL box, you get charged for two copies. Same for z/VM, except for VM you also have to include the 390 engines. However, some companies have price breaks for multiple CPU systems. VM, for example, starts getting cheaper for each additional engine after a certain point. There might be a point with HATS, but I doubt there is any play with a 2 IFL system. If you have new boxes, you can talk with your business partner about software discounts. BTW, trial of HATS is free. Don't start paying for licenses until you need to. Tom Duerbusch THD Consulting Law of Cat Stretching A cat will stretch to a distance proportional to the length of the nap just taken. Brian France [EMAIL PROTECTED] 11/21/2007 10:00 AM Folks, I've done about a 45 minute search and I think my answer is that I'd have to run multiple VM's per frame but wanted to ensure I was right. My management wants to run some product called HATS on our VM/MFL world. We recently upgraded from our z/890's with 1 IFL each to z9BC's with 2 IFL's each. I guess to keep costs down they want to run on one IFL this HATS worlds so the question to me was can I run a single VM with BOTH IFL's allocated but alot the HATS world only 1 IFL. Is this possible with VM config parms or some other way like maybe my HMC which I just thought of but haven't looked at yet. I know we have to lic Suse for more engines. Just more interested in is it even doable. THANX Brian W. France Systems Administrator (Mainframe) Pennsylvania State University Administrative Information Services - Infrastructure/SYSARC Rm 25 Shields Bldg., University Park, Pa. 16802 814-863-4739 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe. Carl Sagan
Re: IFL's, VM, Suse, OH MY...
Note that although this works from a technical point of view, from a product licensing point of view, it likely would not. Vendors tend to be very picky when it comes to money, and would likely only be happy if the product was running in an LPAR with one IFL assigned to it. If the vendor is not too familiar with mainframes, I wouldn't be surprised to have them insist it be installed on a z9 equipped with only 1 IFL. Peter -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of McKown, John Sent: November 21, 2007 11:32 To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: IFL's, VM, Suse, OH MY... Correct. USER HATS MACHINE ESA 1 ... other stuff will define a z/VM guest called HATS which only has a single CPU assigned to it. ref: http://publibz.boulder.ibm.com/cgi-bin/bookmgr_OS390/BOOKS/hcsg0b20/3.2. 35 -- John McKown Senior Systems Programmer HealthMarkets Keeping the Promise of Affordable Coverage Administrative Services Group Information Technology This message (including any attachments) contains confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose, and its content is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this message and are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this transmission, or taking any action based on it, is strictly prohibited. -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian France Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 10:27 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: IFL's, VM, Suse, OH MY... John, Yes, HATS run on MainFrameLinux using WAS. So, do I understand you in that I can assign two IFL's to my VM, and most of my MFL's could have access to both IFL's except for the MFL that runs HATS? I somehow assign a cpu to it in my USER DIRECT statements? At 11:03 AM 11/21/2007, McKown, John wrote: If HATS runs on Linux, then you could have a dedicated Linux guest for HATS. And in z/VM, you could assign a single virtual CPU to that Linux instance. That would restrict the HATS Linux system to run on a single CPU at a time (might switch from CPU to CPU, but only use one). -- John McKown Senior Systems Programmer HealthMarkets Keeping the Promise of Affordable Coverage Administrative Services Group Information Technology This message (including any attachments) contains confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose, and its content is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this message and are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this transmission, or taking any action based on it, is strictly prohibited. -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [ mailto:IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU mailto:IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU ] On Behalf Of Brian France Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 10:00 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: IFL's, VM, Suse, OH MY... Folks, I've done about a 45 minute search and I think my answer is that I'd have to run multiple VM's per frame but wanted to ensure I was right. My management wants to run some product called HATS on our VM/MFL world. We recently upgraded from our z/890's with 1 IFL each to z9BC's with 2 IFL's each. I guess to keep costs down they want to run on one IFL this HATS worlds so the question to me was can I run a single VM with BOTH IFL's allocated but alot the HATS world only 1 IFL. Is this possible with VM config parms or some other way like maybe my HMC which I just thought of but haven't looked at yet. I know we have to lic Suse for more engines. Just more interested in is it even doable. THANX Brian W. France Systems Administrator (Mainframe) Pennsylvania State University Administrative Information Services - Infrastructure/S YSA RC Rm 25 Shields Bldg., University Park, Pa. 16802 814-863-4739 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe. Carl Sagan Brian W. France Systems Administrator (Mainframe) Pennsylvania State University Administrative Information Services - Infrastructure/S YSA RC Rm 25 Shields Bldg., University Park, Pa. 16802 814-863-4739 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe. Carl Sagan The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain
Re: IFL's, VM, Suse, OH MY...
Brian, I will not pretend to know about licensing costs, but be glad you have the 2 IFL's on your z9. When we went from our 9672's with 1 IFL each to our z/9 EC's we got 1 IFL each also. BUT all the presentations at SHARE said if you want to grow your PENGUIN farm you need at least 2 IFL's per z/VM (see David Kreuter's, Jim Vincent's and Marcy Cortes presentations) We are running HATS on 2 LINUX guests under z/VM 5.2.0 now along with 2 other LINUX guests in Production and we are ok, now, but if we want to GROW I have already asked for another IFL for each z/9. We are running z/VM 5.3.0 on the other IFL of the other processor with some test LINUX's good luck buddy Bill Munson VM System Programmer Office of Information Technology State of New Jersey (609) 984-4065 President MVMUA http://www.marist.edu/~mvmua McKown, John wrote: My mistake. The OP did says keep costs down. Which the MACHINE directive will not do. It would only keep the CPU used by the HATS guest from exceeding a single IFL. The only way to keep the costs down (i.e. software licensing fees) is to remove an IFL entirely. I don't think that having multiple z/VMs in separate LPARs would reduce the software cost either. One of my main complaints about licensing by number of processors or power of the processor is this. The HATS license (and most others) will be the same given the same hardware configuration, even if it only use 5% of the CPU resource (with the other 95% being used by in-house applications). I would prefer a consumption license based on usage. Or perhaps a base license price for the product, irrespective of the processor, then an add on cost for normally scheduled maintenance, then perhaps a per incident cost for ad-hoc support. But people would complain about that as well, I guess. -- John McKown Senior Systems Programmer HealthMarkets Keeping the Promise of Affordable Coverage Administrative Services Group Information Technology This message (including any attachments) contains confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose, and its content is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this message and are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this transmission, or taking any action based on it, is strictly prohibited. -Original Message- *From:* The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] *Sent:* Wednesday, November 21, 2007 10:39 AM *To:* IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU *Subject:* Re: IFL's, VM, Suse, OH MY... Note that although this works from a technical point of view, from a product licensing point of view, it likely would not. Vendors tend to be very picky when it comes to money, and would likely only be happy if the product was running in an LPAR with one IFL assigned to it. If the vendor is not too familiar with mainframes, I wouldnt be surprised to have them insist it be installed on a z9 equipped with only 1 IFL. Peter -Original Message- *From:* The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *McKown, John *Sent:* November 21, 2007 11:32 *To:* IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU *Subject:* Re: IFL's, VM, Suse, OH MY... Correct. USER HATS MACHINE ESA 1 ... other stuff will define a z/VM guest called HATS which only has a single CPU assigned to it. ref: http://publibz.boulder.ibm.com/cgi-bin/bookmgr_OS390/BOOKS/hcsg0b20/3.2.35 -- John McKown Senior Systems Programmer HealthMarkets Keeping the Promise of Affordable Coverage Administrative Services Group Information Technology This message (including any attachments) contains confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose, and its content is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this message and are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this transmission, or taking any action based on it, is strictly prohibited. -Original Message- *From:* The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Brian France *Sent:* Wednesday, November 21, 2007 10:27 AM *To:* IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU *Subject:* Re: IFL's, VM, Suse, OH MY... John, Yes, HATS run on MainFrameLinux using WAS. So, do I understand you in that I can assign two IFL's to my VM, and most of my MFL's could have access to both IFL's except for the MFL that runs HATS? I somehow assign a cpu to it in my USER DIRECT statements? At 11:03 AM 11/21/2007, McKown, John wrote: If HATS runs on Linux, then you could have a dedicated Linux guest for
Re: IFL's, VM, Suse, OH MY...
Some of us to complain about that. That is, those of us that only use a part of an engine. On the other side, the cost of HATS on an IFL, on a per engine basis, is the same as the cost of an Intel engine (right?). So, in other words, the costs are the same... You just get more on our platform G. Management is use to it. The bigger problem is as you scale up the number of IFLs in a single box. And if you also scale up the number of packages used. Eventually, you need to buy separate boxes to keep software costs down as you add IFL engines. That is where talking to the venders so you don't get charged for every engine can come into play. I've heard it works, but I have no direct experience. Tom Duerbusch THD Consulting Law of Cat Stretching A cat will stretch to a distance proportional to the length of the nap just taken. McKown, John [EMAIL PROTECTED] 11/21/2007 10:49 AM My mistake. The OP did says keep costs down. Which the MACHINE directive will not do. It would only keep the CPU used by the HATS guest from exceeding a single IFL. The only way to keep the costs down (i.e. software licensing fees) is to remove an IFL entirely. I don't think that having multiple z/VMs in separate LPARs would reduce the software cost either. One of my main complaints about licensing by number of processors or power of the processor is this. The HATS license (and most others) will be the same given the same hardware configuration, even if it only use 5% of the CPU resource (with the other 95% being used by in-house applications). I would prefer a consumption license based on usage. Or perhaps a base license price for the product, irrespective of the processor, then an add on cost for normally scheduled maintenance, then perhaps a per incident cost for ad-hoc support. But people would complain about that as well, I guess. -- John McKown Senior Systems Programmer HealthMarkets Keeping the Promise of Affordable Coverage Administrative Services Group Information Technology This message (including any attachments) contains confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose, and its content is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this message and are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this transmission, or taking any action based on it, is strictly prohibited. -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 10:39 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: IFL's, VM, Suse, OH MY... Note that although this works from a technical point of view, from a product licensing point of view, it likely would not. Vendors tend to be very picky when it comes to money, and would likely only be happy if the product was running in an LPAR with one IFL assigned to it. If the vendor is not too familiar with mainframes, I wouldn't be surprised to have them insist it be installed on a z9 equipped with only 1 IFL. Peter -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of McKown, John Sent: November 21, 2007 11:32 To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: IFL's, VM, Suse, OH MY... Correct. USER HATS MACHINE ESA 1 ... other stuff will define a z/VM guest called HATS which only has a single CPU assigned to it. ref: http://publibz.boulder.ibm.com/cgi-bin/bookmgr_OS390/BOOKS/hcsg0b20/3.2. 35 -- John McKown Senior Systems Programmer HealthMarkets Keeping the Promise of Affordable Coverage Administrative Services Group Information Technology This message (including any attachments) contains confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose, and its content is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this message and are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this transmission, or taking any action based on it, is strictly prohibited. -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian France Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 10:27 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: IFL's, VM, Suse, OH MY... John, Yes, HATS run on MainFrameLinux using WAS. So, do I understand you in that I can assign two IFL's to my VM, and most of my MFL's could have access to both IFL's except for the MFL that runs HATS? I somehow assign a cpu to it in my USER DIRECT
Re: IFL's, VM, Suse, OH MY...
Tom Duerbusch writes: From a cost perspective, the software companines will charge you for the number of IFL engines you have on a box in which you run the software. So if you are running HATS on a single IFL box, you get charged for one copy. If you run HATS on your dual IFL box, you get charged for two copies. Same for z/VM, except for VM you also have to include the 390 engines. However, some companies have price breaks for multiple CPU systems. VM, for example, starts getting cheaper for each additional engine after a certain point. There might be a point with HATS, but I doubt there is any play with a 2 IFL system. Fortunately, one of those companies with price breaks is IBM :-) Subcapacity pricing is available under the IBM Passport Advantage scheme (i.e. the normal scheme for buying IBM distributed software for Linux on System z) for selected software and z/VM and LPAR on System z are supported virtualisation methods for Linux software under that subcapacity scheme. The place to go for information is http://www-306.ibm.com/software/lotus/passportadvantage/subcaplicensing.html and also the Linux for System z presentation linked to on http://www-306.ibm.com/software/lotus/passportadvantage/Counting_Software_licenses_using_specific_virtualization_technologies.html Those give all the details on what software is available with subcapacity pricing and how to count up guest CPUs, LPAR CPUs and physical CPUs and come up with the right number of them you need to license. Basically, it works as you'd hope with a granularity of one engine: the presentation mentioned above has lots of worked examples. When looking around the IBM web site for information on this, I strongly recommend not starting off with searches for system z and sub-capacity or even ipla and sub-capacity. You'll very probably end up in all the web pages about sub-capacity pricing for z/OS software which is very different. The Passport Advantage Sub-capacity Licensing List of Eligible Programs (a PDF document linked to from the page at the first URL I gave) does include some HATS stuff so I think Brian may be in with a chance. --Malcolm -- Malcolm Beattie [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux Technical Consultant and Program Manager IBM Europe, System z
Re: IFL's, VM, Suse, OH MY...
At 11:36 AM 11/21/2007, you wrote: From a cost perspective, the software companines will charge you for the number of IFL engines you have on a box in which you run the software. So if you are running HATS on a single IFL box, you get charged for one copy. If you run HATS on your dual IFL box, you get charged for two copies. Same for z/VM, except for VM you also have to include the 390 engines. However, some companies have price breaks for multiple CPU systems. VM, for example, starts getting cheaper for each additional engine after a certain point. There might be a point with HATS, but I doubt there is any play with a 2 IFL system. We we actually have 4 IFL's. Two per frame. Still trying to figure out how to lay it all out. If you have new boxes, you can talk with your business partner about software discounts. I will let that up to managemet. THANX!!! BTW, trial of HATS is free. Don't start paying for licenses until you need to. OH it was trialed. On an intel box. :-( Tom Duerbusch THD Consulting Law of Cat Stretching A cat will stretch to a distance proportional to the length of the nap just taken. Brian France [EMAIL PROTECTED] 11/21/2007 10:00 AM Folks, I've done about a 45 minute search and I think my answer is that I'd have to run multiple VM's per frame but wanted to ensure I was right. My management wants to run some product called HATS on our VM/MFL world. We recently upgraded from our z/890's with 1 IFL each to z9BC's with 2 IFL's each. I guess to keep costs down they want to run on one IFL this HATS worlds so the question to me was can I run a single VM with BOTH IFL's allocated but alot the HATS world only 1 IFL. Is this possible with VM config parms or some other way like maybe my HMC which I just thought of but haven't looked at yet. I know we have to lic Suse for more engines. Just more interested in is it even doable. THANX Brian W. France Systems Administrator (Mainframe) Pennsylvania State University Administrative Information Services - Infrastructure/SYSARC Rm 25 Shields Bldg., University Park, Pa. 16802 814-863-4739 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe. Carl Sagan Brian W. France Systems Administrator (Mainframe) Pennsylvania State University Administrative Information Services - Infrastructure/SYSARC Rm 25 Shields Bldg., University Park, Pa. 16802 814-863-4739 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe. Carl Sagan
Re: IFL's, VM, Suse, OH MY...
At 12:54 PM 11/21/2007, you wrote: Some of us to complain about that. That is, those of us that only use a part of an engine. On the other side, the cost of HATS on an IFL, on a per engine basis, is the same as the cost of an Intel engine (right?). So, in other words, the costs are the same... You just get more on our platform G. Management is use to it. Costs I don't care much about. BUT from an admin point of view, IF I have to run this product on it's own z/VM lpar, now I have to create a another VM system using at least 3 volumes JUST for VM. I have to set up another set of volumes for my shared root system instead of being able to use my existing setup. NOT that I'm trying to support the moped environment, but to run on a mainframe I should be afforded the ability to run as suggested, limiting a machine to one IFL virtually. The bigger problem is as you scale up the number of IFLs in a single box. And if you also scale up the number of packages used. Eventually, you need to buy separate boxes to keep software costs down as you add IFL engines. BUT here again, building more VM's using up more dasd and from to me a maint nightmare. BUT, it still beats the moped world... That is where talking to the venders so you don't get charged for every engine can come into play. I've heard it works, but I have no direct experience. I'll try to let y'all know how my management makes out. Tom Duerbusch THD Consulting Law of Cat Stretching A cat will stretch to a distance proportional to the length of the nap just taken. McKown, John [EMAIL PROTECTED] 11/21/2007 10:49 AM My mistake. The OP did says keep costs down. Which the MACHINE directive will not do. It would only keep the CPU used by the HATS guest from exceeding a single IFL. The only way to keep the costs down (i.e. software licensing fees) is to remove an IFL entirely. I don't think that having multiple z/VMs in separate LPARs would reduce the software cost either. One of my main complaints about licensing by number of processors or power of the processor is this. The HATS license (and most others) will be the same given the same hardware configuration, even if it only use 5% of the CPU resource (with the other 95% being used by in-house applications). I would prefer a consumption license based on usage. Or perhaps a base license price for the product, irrespective of the processor, then an add on cost for normally scheduled maintenance, then perhaps a per incident cost for ad-hoc support. But people would complain about that as well, I guess. -- John McKown Senior Systems Programmer HealthMarkets Keeping the Promise of Affordable Coverage Administrative Services Group Information Technology This message (including any attachments) contains confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose, and its content is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this message and are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this transmission, or taking any action based on it, is strictly prohibited. -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 10:39 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: IFL's, VM, Suse, OH MY... Note that although this works from a technical point of view, from a product licensing point of view, it likely would not. Vendors tend to be very picky when it comes to money, and would likely only be happy if the product was running in an LPAR with one IFL assigned to it. If the vendor is not too familiar with mainframes, I wouldn't be surprised to have them insist it be installed on a z9 equipped with only 1 IFL. Peter -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of McKown, John Sent: November 21, 2007 11:32 To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: IFL's, VM, Suse, OH MY... Correct. USER HATS MACHINE ESA 1 ... other stuff will define a z/VM guest called HATS which only has a single CPU assigned to it. ref: http://publibz.boulder.ibm.com/cgi-bin/bookmgr_OS390/BOOKS/hcsg0b20/3.2. 35 -- John McKown Senior Systems Programmer HealthMarkets Keeping the Promise of Affordable Coverage Administrative Services Group Information Technology This message (including any attachments) contains confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose, and its content is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this message and are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this transmission, or taking any action based on it, is strictly prohibited.
Re: IFL's, VM, Suse, OH MY...
I guess the question that pops into my mind is what are you really trying to do here? Set this beast up so that it can't use any more than one physical CPU worth of resources at any given time, or reserve one full CPU worth of horsepower for this beast (given it's WAS, you may end up doing this, unfortunately). If the former, look at the SET SHARE LIMITHARD command. If you are doing the latter, then look at using a DEDICATE statement or SET SHARE ABSOLUTE 100. The latter is slightly preferable in that it guarantees that you get 1 full CPU worth of resources (with two CPUs, the total will add up to 200), but it doesn't tie down a CPU to a particular virtual machine.
Re: Trying to build CMSBAM segment
Is this a known problem and does everyone have it? I am on z/VM 5.3 for about two weeks. Ran all the RSU and PTFS before testing. AFAIK, it really only affects people who need DOS/VS emulation or who still care about CMS VSAM. Ordinary CMS and Linux use of VM really doesn't invoke any of these segments in normal life. Of course, if you still use any compilers other than C/C++ or VS Fortran on CMS, you *do* care... *sigh*.
Re: Trying to build CMSBAM segment
Hello Everyone, Is this a known problem and does everyone have it? I am on z/VM 5.3 for about two weeks. Ran all the RSU and PTFS before testing. Ed Martin Aultman Health Foundation 330-588-4723 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ext. 40441
Re: Trying to build CMSBAM segment
Hello David, Thanks. I am on z/VM 5.3 and we are using VSE/VSAM for VM. It is required for the UltraQuest report product. Ed Martin Aultman Health Foundation 330-588-4723 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ext. 40441 -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Boyes Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 2:07 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Trying to build CMSBAM segment Is this a known problem and does everyone have it? I am on z/VM 5.3 for about two weeks. Ran all the RSU and PTFS before testing. AFAIK, it really only affects people who need DOS/VS emulation or who still care about CMS VSAM. Ordinary CMS and Linux use of VM really doesn't invoke any of these segments in normal life. Of course, if you still use any compilers other than C/C++ or VS Fortran on CMS, you *do* care... *sigh*.
Re: IFL's, VM, Suse, OH MY...
From a VM dasd sideit is a trade off between having a qualified VM Systems Programmer available, vs the costs of the additional packs. The vast majority of RES and WK1 packs are used to build and maintain VM. You only need 1 copy of that. The CP areas is the only areas that you need a copy per copy of VM running. (you might want to add a copy of MAINT's 191 to that, but it really isn't necessary). Now, is it worth it? Not really. DASD is really cheap nowadays. But if you don't have the dasd available, then the next pack is rather expensive G. However, based on what Malcolm sent about subcapacity licensing for zLinux, that looks like the way to go and it will solve your concerns about multiple VM systems. Tom Duerbusch THD Consulting Law of Cat Stretching A cat will stretch to a distance proportional to the length of the nap just taken. Brian France [EMAIL PROTECTED] 11/21/2007 12:51 PM At 12:54 PM 11/21/2007, you wrote: Some of us to complain about that. That is, those of us that only use a part of an engine. On the other side, the cost of HATS on an IFL, on a per engine basis, is the same as the cost of an Intel engine (right?). So, in other words, the costs are the same... You just get more on our platform G. Management is use to it. Costs I don't care much about. BUT from an admin point of view, IF I have to run this product on it's own z/VM lpar, now I have to create a another VM system using at least 3 volumes JUST for VM. I have to set up another set of volumes for my shared root system instead of being able to use my existing setup. NOT that I'm trying to support the moped environment, but to run on a mainframe I should be afforded the ability to run as suggested, limiting a machine to one IFL virtually. The bigger problem is as you scale up the number of IFLs in a single box. And if you also scale up the number of packages used. Eventually, you need to buy separate boxes to keep software costs down as you add IFL engines. BUT here again, building more VM's using up more dasd and from to me a maint nightmare. BUT, it still beats the moped world... That is where talking to the venders so you don't get charged for every engine can come into play. I've heard it works, but I have no direct experience. I'll try to let y'all know how my management makes out. Tom Duerbusch THD Consulting Law of Cat Stretching A cat will stretch to a distance proportional to the length of the nap just taken. McKown, John [EMAIL PROTECTED] 11/21/2007 10:49 AM My mistake. The OP did says keep costs down. Which the MACHINE directive will not do. It would only keep the CPU used by the HATS guest from exceeding a single IFL. The only way to keep the costs down (i.e. software licensing fees) is to remove an IFL entirely. I don't think that having multiple z/VMs in separate LPARs would reduce the software cost either. One of my main complaints about licensing by number of processors or power of the processor is this. The HATS license (and most others) will be the same given the same hardware configuration, even if it only use 5% of the CPU resource (with the other 95% being used by in-house applications). I would prefer a consumption license based on usage. Or perhaps a base license price for the product, irrespective of the processor, then an add on cost for normally scheduled maintenance, then perhaps a per incident cost for ad-hoc support. But people would complain about that as well, I guess. -- John McKown Senior Systems Programmer HealthMarkets Keeping the Promise of Affordable Coverage Administrative Services Group Information Technology This message (including any attachments) contains confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose, and its content is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this message and are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this transmission, or taking any action based on it, is strictly prohibited. -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 10:39 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: IFL's, VM, Suse, OH MY... Note that although this works from a technical point of view, from a product licensing point of view, it likely would not. Vendors tend to be very picky when it comes to money, and would likely only be happy if the product was running in an LPAR with one IFL assigned to it. If the vendor is not too familiar with mainframes, I wouldn't be surprised to have them insist it be installed on a z9 equipped with only 1 IFL. Peter -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of McKown, John Sent: November 21, 2007 11:32 To:
Re: Trying to build CMSBAM segment
We use PP 5648-A25 IBM COBOL for OS/390 VM 2.2.0, and 5668-910 IBM OS PL/I OPTIMIZING COMPILER V2.R3.M0 -- but no VSAM. After first copying SEGBLIST EXC0 as a backup to SEGBLIST -EXC (Never change anything IBM sends you without leaving a trail of bread crumbs), I've been manually deleting CMSBAM and CMSDOS from SEGBLIST EXC0 for ages. And then just manually purging their appropriate NSSes. I also mark them DELETED in SEGBLIST SEGDATA -- there's a VMFsomethingorother command to do that, but the upshot is: ... :OBJNAME.CMSBAM :DEFPARMS.DELETED :OBJNAME.CMSDOS :DEFPARMS.DELETED ... :OBJNAME.DOSINST :DEFPARMS.DELETED ... Again, no CMS VSAM other uses, and nothing has been complaining and they never need to be re-built after service because they are not in the SEGBLIST EXC0 (he says without thoroughly looking through what he has done for a long time). :-) Mike Walter Hewitt Associates Any opinions expressed herein are mine alone and do not necessarily represent the opinions or policies of Hewitt Associates. David Boyes [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU 11/21/2007 01:06 PM Please respond to The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU To IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU cc Subject Re: Trying to build CMSBAM segment Is this a known problem and does everyone have it? I am on z/VM 5.3 for about two weeks. Ran all the RSU and PTFS before testing. AFAIK, it really only affects people who need DOS/VS emulation or who still care about CMS VSAM. Ordinary CMS and Linux use of VM really doesn't invoke any of these segments in normal life. Of course, if you still use any compilers other than C/C++ or VS Fortran on CMS, you *do* care... *sigh*. The information contained in this e-mail and any accompanying documents may contain information that is confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply e-mail and then delete this message, including any attachments. Any dissemination, distribution or other use of the contents of this message by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. All messages sent to and from this e-mail address may be monitored as permitted by applicable law and regulations to ensure compliance with our internal policies and to protect our business. Emails are not secure and cannot be guaranteed to be error free as they can be intercepted, amended, lost or destroyed, or contain viruses. You are deemed to have accepted these risks if you communicate with us by email.
Re: IFL's, VM, Suse, OH MY...
Tom, Yes, I have forwarded Malcoms' info and links to management to look at. We are still way to new to VM to consider what I know as qualified but alas, I am the systems programmer for better or worse. SO, I must ask, are you stating below that I can share a RES vol with multiple VM LPARs? I have no idea what you mean by the CP areas being what I need multiple copies of. I have to ass/u/me you are referring to some minidisks. I currently maintain two VM systems, one on each frame. They are kept completely separate since one is prod and one is test. I learned from an IBM'er how to rename vols and change parms to have a 520res, 520spl, and 520pag along with a VM7RES, VM7SPL, and VM7PAG. I figured I'd have to create another set of these. So, if I understood you correctly, would you please point me to some RTFM material that I could peruse and hopefully put to use. At 02:28 PM 11/21/2007, Tom Duerbusch wrote: From a VM dasd sideit is a trade off between having a qualified VM Systems Programmer available, vs the costs of the additional packs. The vast majority of RES and WK1 packs are used to build and maintain VM. You only need 1 copy of that. The CP areas is the only areas that you need a copy per copy of VM running. (you might want to add a copy of MAINT's 191 to that, but it really isn't necessary). Now, is it worth it? Not really. DASD is really cheap nowadays. But if you don't have the dasd available, then the next pack is rather expensive G. However, based on what Malcolm sent about subcapacity licensing for zLinux, that looks like the way to go and it will solve your concerns about multiple VM systems. Tom Duerbusch THD Consulting Law of Cat Stretching A cat will stretch to a distance proportional to the length of the nap just taken. Brian France [EMAIL PROTECTED] 11/21/2007 12:51 PM At 12:54 PM 11/21/2007, you wrote: Some of us to complain about that. That is, those of us that only use a part of an engine. On the other side, the cost of HATS on an IFL, on a per engine basis, is the same as the cost of an Intel engine (right?). So, in other words, the costs are the same... You just get more on our platform G. Management is use to it. Costs I don't care much about. BUT from an admin point of view, IF I have to run this product on it's own z/VM lpar, now I have to create a another VM system using at least 3 volumes JUST for VM. I have to set up another set of volumes for my shared root system instead of being able to use my existing setup. NOT that I'm trying to support the moped environment, but to run on a mainframe I should be afforded the ability to run as suggested, limiting a machine to one IFL virtually. The bigger problem is as you scale up the number of IFLs in a single box. And if you also scale up the number of packages used. Eventually, you need to buy separate boxes to keep software costs down as you add IFL engines. BUT here again, building more VM's using up more dasd and from to me a maint nightmare. BUT, it still beats the moped world... That is where talking to the venders so you don't get charged for every engine can come into play. I've heard it works, but I have no direct experience. I'll try to let y'all know how my management makes out. Tom Duerbusch THD Consulting Law of Cat Stretching A cat will stretch to a distance proportional to the length of the nap just taken. McKown, John [EMAIL PROTECTED] 11/21/2007 10:49 AM My mistake. The OP did says keep costs down. Which the MACHINE directive will not do. It would only keep the CPU used by the HATS guest from exceeding a single IFL. The only way to keep the costs down (i.e. software licensing fees) is to remove an IFL entirely. I don't think that having multiple z/VMs in separate LPARs would reduce the software cost either. One of my main complaints about licensing by number of processors or power of the processor is this. The HATS license (and most others) will be the same given the same hardware configuration, even if it only use 5% of the CPU resource (with the other 95% being used by in-house applications). I would prefer a consumption license based on usage. Or perhaps a base license price for the product, irrespective of the processor, then an add on cost for normally scheduled maintenance, then perhaps a per incident cost for ad-hoc support. But people would complain about that as well, I guess. -- John McKown Senior Systems Programmer HealthMarkets Keeping the Promise of Affordable Coverage Administrative Services Group Information Technology This message (including any attachments) contains confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose, and its content is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this message and are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this transmission, or taking any action based on it, is strictly prohibited.
Re: Questions about LUN DASD volumes
Ahh ... yes ... I forgot about the SCSI sniffer :-) JR (Steven) Imler CA Senior Software Engineer Tel: +1 703 708 3479 Fax: +1 703 708 3267 [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Wilkins Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 10:49 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Questions about LUN DASD volumes SCSIDISC (the SCSI Discovery Tool) is a sample exec which provides target port and LUN information so one can discover the LUN topology which hangs off a System z FCP Subchannel. The help file for the tool (SCSIDISC SAMPHELP) indicates that it is Located on MAINT 194 or 2C2 disk. Regards, Steve. Steve Wilkins IBM z/VM Development Inactive hide details for Alain Benveniste [EMAIL PROTECTED]Alain Benveniste [EMAIL PROTECTED] Alain Benveniste [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU 11/21/2007 10:07 AM Please respond to The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU To IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU cc Subject Re: Questions about LUN DASD volumes Speaking with the OPEN guys, the major problem say have when they restore on a D/R site is to exactly map their requirements to what they find in the new DASD array. So the problem appears when they want to restore a group of LUNs (meta volume) to preserve data coherence. Does a CP cmd exist to get this info. I presume the query edev is for LUN only ? Alain Benveniste
Re: IFL's, VM, Suse, OH MY...
Brian, What Tom is talking about is SERVICE one z/VM system then clone only the parts that are needed. (I use DDR with the reorder option - simple) example here is: ZVTRES, ZVTSP1, ZVTPG1, ZVTS01, ZVTS02, ZVTS03 as provided at INSTALL time and Serviced when needed. our LINUX images have ZLARES, ZLAPG1, ZLSP1 and ZLBRES, ZLBPG1, ZLBSP1 with the needed mdisks from ZVTRES, ZVTS01, ZVTS02, ZVTS03 for CP and CMS to ipl all fit on ZLARES or ZLBRES. 6 packs for test and Service and 3 packs for production. fell free to keep in touch Bill Munson VM System Programmer Office of Information Technology State of New Jersey (609) 984-4065 President MVMUA http://www.marist.edu/~mvmua Brian France wrote: Tom, Yes, I have forwarded Malcoms' info and links to management to look at. We are still way to new to VM to consider what I know as qualified but alas, I am the systems programmer for better or worse. SO, I must ask, are you stating below that I can share a RES vol with multiple VM LPARs? I have no idea what you mean by the CP areas being what I need multiple copies of. I have to ass/u/me you are referring to some minidisks. I currently maintain two VM systems, one on each frame. They are kept completely separate since one is prod and one is test. I learned from an IBM'er how to rename vols and change parms to have a 520res, 520spl, and 520pag along with a VM7RES, VM7SPL, and VM7PAG. I figured I'd have to create another set of these. So, if I understood you correctly, would you please point me to some RTFM material that I could peruse and hopefully put to use. At 02:28 PM 11/21/2007, Tom Duerbusch wrote: From a VM dasd sideit is a trade off between having a qualified VM Systems Programmer available, vs the costs of the additional packs. The vast majority of RES and WK1 packs are used to build and maintain VM. You only need 1 copy of that. The CP areas is the only areas that you need a copy per copy of VM running. (you might want to add a copy of MAINT's 191 to that, but it really isn't necessary). Now, is it worth it? Not really. DASD is really cheap nowadays. But if you don't have the dasd available, then the next pack is rather expensive G. However, based on what Malcolm sent about subcapacity licensing for zLinux, that looks like the way to go and it will solve your concerns about multiple VM systems. Tom Duerbusch THD Consulting
Re: Questions about LUN DASD volumes
Compliments of Eric R. Farman, a sample of the SCSIDISC output: _FCP_CH_ __WWPN__ _LUN_ID_ _VENDOR_ PROD MODL _SERIAL_ CODE _BLK_SIZE_ _DISKBLKS_ __LUN_SIZE_(bytes)__ B098 5005076300CA04DA 5100 IBM 2105 F20 10013262 .178 5127617216 3900014592 B098 5005076300CA04DA 5101 IBM 2105 F20 10113262 .178 5127617216 3900014592 B098 5005076300CA04DA 5102 IBM 2105 F20 10213262 .178 5127617216 3900014592 B098 5005076300CA04DA 5103 IBM 2105 F20 10313262 .178 5127617216 3900014592 B098 5005076300CA04DA 5104 IBM 2105 F20 10413262 .178 512 19532817936 B098 5005076300CA04DA 5105 IBM 2105 F20 10513262 .178 512 19532817936 B098 5005076300CA04DA 5106 IBM 2105 F20 10613262 .178 512 19532817936 B098 5005076300CA04DA 5107 IBM 2105 F20 10713262 .178 5121953152 113824 B098 5005076300CA04DA 5108 IBM 2105 F20 10813262 .178 5121953152 113824 B098 5005076300CA04DA 5109 IBM 2105 F20 10913262 .178 5121953152 113824 B098 5005076300CA04DA 510A IBM 2105 F20 10A13262 .178 5121953152 113824 B098 5005076300CA04DA 510B IBM 2105 F20 10B13262 .178 5121953152 113824 Regards, Steve. Steve Wilkins IBM z/VM Development
Re: Questions about LUN DASD volumes
FYI, SCSIDISC requires a LUN zero exist and be accessible in each storage controller to be scanned. Assuming non-NPIV, If one's using IBM San Volume Controller then consider having the very first LUN (LUN ) that each of its I/O Groups maps to your host (mainframe) be a minimal size LUN that will exist but not normally be used. That way its always free for SCSIDISC's need. Otherwise if LUN zero's in use by z/VM CP or a linux guest, SCSIDISC can't use it to scan the LUN's storage controller (SVC I/O Group). This e-mail, including any attachments, may be confidential, privileged or otherwise legally protected. It is intended only for the addressee. If you received this e-mail in error or from someone who was not authorized to send it to you, do not disseminate, copy or otherwise use this e-mail or its attachments. Please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete the e-mail from your system. From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Wilkins Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 10:49 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Questions about LUN DASD volumes SCSIDISC (the SCSI Discovery Tool) is a sample exec which provides target port and LUN information so one can discover the LUN topology which hangs off a System z FCP Subchannel. The help file for the tool (SCSIDISC SAMPHELP) indicates that it is Located on MAINT 194 or 2C2 disk. Regards, Steve. Steve Wilkins IBM z/VM Development Inactive hide details for Alain Benveniste [EMAIL PROTECTED]Alain Benveniste [EMAIL PROTECTED] Alain Benveniste [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU 11/21/2007 10:07 AM Please respond to The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU To IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU cc Subject Re: Questions about LUN DASD volumes Speaking with the OPEN guys, the major problem say have when they restore on a D/R site is to exactly map their requirements to what they find in the new DASD array. So the problem appears when they want to restore a group of LUNs (meta volume) to preserve data coherence. Does a CP cmd exist to get this info. I presume the query edev is for LUN only ? Alain Benveniste
Re: Questions about LUN DASD volumes
on some occasions SCSIDISC will report LUN_SIZE_(bytes) as a negative number. Seen that only for large LUNs. On other occasions some of the fields, LUN_SIZE too, will be reported as X's This e-mail, including any attachments, may be confidential, privileged or otherwise legally protected. It is intended only for the addressee. If you received this e-mail in error or from someone who was not authorized to send it to you, do not disseminate, copy or otherwise use this e-mail or its attachments. Please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete the e-mail from your system. From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Wilkins Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 3:43 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Questions about LUN DASD volumes Compliments of Eric R. Farman, a sample of the SCSIDISC output: _FCP_CH_ __WWPN__ _LUN_ID_ _VENDOR_ PROD MODL _SERIAL_ CODE _BLK_SIZE_ _DISKBLKS_ __LUN_SIZE_(bytes)__ B098 5005076300CA04DA 5100 IBM 2105 F20 10013262 .1785127617216 3900014592 B098 5005076300CA04DA 5101 IBM 2105 F20 10113262 .1785127617216 3900014592 B098 5005076300CA04DA 5102 IBM 2105 F20 10213262 .1785127617216 3900014592 B098 5005076300CA04DA 5103 IBM 2105 F20 10313262 .1785127617216 3900014592 B098 5005076300CA04DA 5104 IBM 2105 F20 10413262 .178512 19532817936 B098 5005076300CA04DA 5105 IBM 2105 F20 10513262 .178512 19532817936 B098 5005076300CA04DA 5106 IBM 2105 F20 10613262 .178512 19532817936 B098 5005076300CA04DA 5107 IBM 2105 F20 10713262 .1785121953152 113824 B098 5005076300CA04DA 5108 IBM 2105 F20 10813262 .1785121953152 113824 B098 5005076300CA04DA 5109 IBM 2105 F20 10913262 .1785121953152 113824 B098 5005076300CA04DA 510A IBM 2105 F20 10A13262 .1785121953152 113824 B098 5005076300CA04DA 510B IBM 2105 F20 10B13262 .1785121953152 113824 Regards, Steve. Steve Wilkins IBM z/VM Development
Re: IFL's, VM, Suse, OH MY...
Yes, if you know what you are doing (and a qualified VM System's Programmer does), then you can share the packs. You only have to duplicate the CP areas. I hate to say this, but if you don't know what CP areas are, DON'T SHARE THE PACKS! That is, unless you like to learn by reinstalling VM over and over G. Back when disks were expensive, there was a manual on setting up a second level system. This was normally done for maintenance/testing purposes. If you don't intend on getting to a qualified VM System's Programmer status (about 4 weeks of classes should do it), it isn't worth it for the cost of a pack or two. Realistically, other then at z/VM install, you may never apply maintenance to VMjust upgrade to the next release if/when needed. If you are using VM just to support guest Operating Systems (zLinux, z/VSE, z/VM, z/OS and/or z/TPF), there is not a lot of maintenance to be done. (Now that I say that, VSWITCH was the last piece of VM that had a ramp up of fixes and features once it became available.) The only time I seem to apply maintenance anymore, is to support new hardware and I do that by installing the next release of z/VM. As far as a current book goes Running Guest Operating Systems (part of the VM book collection), should get you started. It covers running a small VM under VM. The small VM contains only that disk space, that you really need. And that could run on another LPAR. Tom Duerbusch THD Consulting Law of Cat Stretching A cat will stretch to a distance proportional to the length of the nap just taken. Brian France [EMAIL PROTECTED] 11/21/2007 1:46 PM Tom, Yes, I have forwarded Malcoms' info and links to management to look at. We are still way to new to VM to consider what I know as qualified but alas, I am the systems programmer for better or worse. SO, I must ask, are you stating below that I can share a RES vol with multiple VM LPARs? I have no idea what you mean by the CP areas being what I need multiple copies of. I have to ass/u/me you are referring to some minidisks. I currently maintain two VM systems, one on each frame. They are kept completely separate since one is prod and one is test. I learned from an IBM'er how to rename vols and change parms to have a 520res, 520spl, and 520pag along with a VM7RES, VM7SPL, and VM7PAG. I figured I'd have to create another set of these. So, if I understood you correctly, would you please point me to some RTFM material that I could peruse and hopefully put to use. At 02:28 PM 11/21/2007, Tom Duerbusch wrote: From a VM dasd sideit is a trade off between having a qualified VM Systems Programmer available, vs the costs of the additional packs. The vast majority of RES and WK1 packs are used to build and maintain VM. You only need 1 copy of that. The CP areas is the only areas that you need a copy per copy of VM running. (you might want to add a copy of MAINT's 191 to that, but it really isn't necessary). Now, is it worth it? Not really. DASD is really cheap nowadays. But if you don't have the dasd available, then the next pack is rather expensive G. However, based on what Malcolm sent about subcapacity licensing for zLinux, that looks like the way to go and it will solve your concerns about multiple VM systems. Tom Duerbusch THD Consulting Law of Cat Stretching A cat will stretch to a distance proportional to the length of the nap just taken. Brian France [EMAIL PROTECTED] 11/21/2007 12:51 PM At 12:54 PM 11/21/2007, you wrote: Some of us to complain about that. That is, those of us that only use a part of an engine. On the other side, the cost of HATS on an IFL, on a per engine basis, is the same as the cost of an Intel engine (right?). So, in other words, the costs are the same... You just get more on our platform G. Management is use to it. Costs I don't care much about. BUT from an admin point of view, IF I have to run this product on it's own z/VM lpar, now I have to create a another VM system using at least 3 volumes JUST for VM. I have to set up another set of volumes for my shared root system instead of being able to use my existing setup. NOT that I'm trying to support the moped environment, but to run on a mainframe I should be afforded the ability to run as suggested, limiting a machine to one IFL virtually. The bigger problem is as you scale up the number of IFLs in a single box. And if you also scale up the number of packages used. Eventually, you need to buy separate boxes to keep software costs down as you add IFL engines. BUT here again, building more VM's using up more dasd and from to me a maint nightmare. BUT, it still beats the moped world... That is where talking to the venders so you don't get charged for every engine can come into play. I've heard it works, but I have no direct experience. I'll try to let y'all know how my management makes out. Tom Duerbusch THD
Re: IFL's, VM, Suse, OH MY...
Hi Brian. The fact you are planning on using HATS (Host Access Transformation services?) means you will be accessing 3270 screens, from a browser (IE or Firefox). This also means you are also running conventional (1 or more CP processors) for your CICS? (z/OS or z/VSE) system. You mentioned that you are now supporting two z/VM systems. I'm guessing management wants to buy one z9 with one or more CP engines to replace your old equipment running your conventional OS and at the same time purchase 4 IFL for new z/LINUX workload. HATS is a WebSphere application and in your case WebSphere will be running in LINUX on an LPAR with 1 or more IFL engines. The number of IFLs will depend on the number of concurrent 3270 session you plan to support. You can run LINUX on bare metal (LPAR) without VM but that would NOT be my first choice. I'm guessing that NOT all IFL engines are planned for HATS but rather for future consolidation of LINUX or UNIX servers to z/VM LINUX. If you plan to have general z/LINUX servers on z/VM than you may create one LPAR and one VM for the remaining 3 IFL engines. BUT more than likely you'll want to run DB2, ORACLE or other applications and then the license charges for those applications come in play which if I recall is based on the number of IFLs in an LPAR. Now you need to decide (create business case to see which is more cost effective) how many LPARs and VM images you wish to run. The VM price will always be the same for 3 LPARS with one dedicated IFL each or 1 LPAR with 3 IFL engines. Most vendors will now consider an LPAR as a physical box and only charge you for the engines dedicated to it. If you start sharing engines between LPARs consider being charged for all shared engines too. You have an interesting opportunity here and you have received a lot of comments from the list. It's a lot to digest in one day but keep asking. Good luck. Hans Rempel _ From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian France Sent: November 21, 2007 2:47 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: IFL's, VM, Suse, OH MY... Tom, Yes, I have forwarded Malcoms' info and links to management to look at. We are still way to new to VM to consider what I know as qualified but alas, I am the systems programmer for better or worse. SO, I must ask, are you stating below that I can share a RES vol with multiple VM LPARs? I have no idea what you mean by the CP areas being what I need multiple copies of. I have to ass/u/me you are referring to some minidisks. I currently maintain two VM systems, one on each frame. They are kept completely separate since one is prod and one is test. I learned from an IBM'er how to rename vols and change parms to have a 520res, 520spl, and 520pag along with a VM7RES, VM7SPL, and VM7PAG. I figured I'd have to create another set of these. So, if I understood you correctly, would you please point me to some RTFM material that I could peruse and hopefully put to use. At 02:28 PM 11/21/2007, Tom Duerbusch wrote: From a VM dasd sideit is a trade off between having a qualified VM Systems Programmer available, vs the costs of the additional packs. The vast majority of RES and WK1 packs are used to build and maintain VM. You only need 1 copy of that. The CP areas is the only areas that you need a copy per copy of VM running. (you might want to add a copy of MAINT's 191 to that, but it really isn't necessary). Now, is it worth it? Not really. DASD is really cheap nowadays. But if you don't have the dasd available, then the next pack is rather expensive G. However, based on what Malcolm sent about subcapacity licensing for zLinux, that looks like the way to go and it will solve your concerns about multiple VM systems. Tom Duerbusch THD Consulting Law of Cat Stretching A cat will stretch to a distance proportional to the length of the nap just taken. Brian France [EMAIL PROTECTED] 11/21/2007 12:51 PM At 12:54 PM 11/21/2007, you wrote: Some of us to complain about that. That is, those of us that only use a part of an engine. On the other side, the cost of HATS on an IFL, on a per engine basis, is the same as the cost of an Intel engine (right?). So, in other words, the costs are the same... You just get more on our platform G. Management is use to it. Costs I don't care much about. BUT from an admin point of view, IF I have to run this product on it's own z/VM lpar, now I have to create a another VM system using at least 3 volumes JUST for VM. I have to set up another set of volumes for my shared root system instead of being able to use my existing setup. NOT that I'm trying to support the moped environment, but to run on a mainframe I should be afforded the ability to run as suggested, limiting a machine to one IFL virtually. The bigger problem is as you scale up the number of IFLs in a single box. And if you also scale up the number of packages used. Eventually, you need
