Re: Logoff vs. Force
On Wednesday, 03/26/2008 at 03:28 EDT, "Schuh, Richard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> What does this have to do with ESM?
You said you had to trace successful and unsuccessful SEND commands (I
assume in your efforts to reverse engineer SEND) and it gave me an idea
about recording the recording the results of a command ("success" or
"failure") in the audit trail. Stream of consciousness, I guess. We are
*collaborating* and *synergizing* in our efforts to create a *gestalt* of
*innovation*. ("bingo") Egad! I'm talking and I can't shut up...
Chuckie! Save me I pray for your div...
NOW STOP IT. Sorry about that, folks. The C-man was here.
Alan Altmark
z/VM Development
IBM Endicott
Re: SHARE vs. zSeries Expo
>>> On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 4:34 PM, in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "O'Brien, Dennis L" wrote: > We're planning our training for the year, and wondering about the value > of SHARE vs. zSeries Expo. Several of us have been to SHARE, but none > have been to the Expo. What do people who've been to both think of > each? As far as z/VM and Linux go, most of the people presenting sessions do so at both. I think they're both good conferences. SHARE is going to be in San Jose in August, if that would reduce your travel costs. System z Expo will be in Las Vegas. SHARE provides a lot more sessions, but largely in the z/OS arena. The amount of z/VM and Linux sessions is similar between the two. System z Expo includes breakfast and lunch in the registration fee. SHARE does not. So, based on your needs for education, those would be the main factors that I can think of. Mark Post
Re: SHARE vs. zSeries Expo
Hi, Dennis. In my opinion and I have been to both many times, I think the greater value is with zExpo. O'Brien, Dennis L wrote: We're planning our training for the year, and wondering about the value of SHARE vs. zSeries Expo. Several of us have been to SHARE, but none have been to the Expo. What do people who've been to both think of each? Dennis O'Brien "Just because we spent the night together doesn't mean we're on a first name basis." -- Miss Glick, in "Lucky Stiff"
Re: z/VM - Lightweight specific purpose file system
The movie stars were Lassie and Rin-tin-tin. The dog is variable, chosen to suit the audience. I have heard it with various dogs. IBM-specific ones were IMS and TSO. Other substitutions are possible. Regards, Richard Schuh > -Original Message- > From: The IBM z/VM Operating 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". > Do you remember what the answers are/were? I can't remember > the name of the female movie star (of course you could > substitute any currently good looking female movie star(and > let's not go too off thread with this)). I do remember the > other two. (a well know canine movie star and an IBM product > that I don't think is sold or supported, in its original > form, anymore). > Steve G. > > -Original Message- > From: The IBM z/VM Operating System > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gary M. Dennis > Sent: Wednesday, 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 emulators > running in this environment. > > We concluded early on that we had to get rid of Linux and the > emulation layer. Both would prevent us from ever achieving > the required level of performance. The result of that detour > is that the only thing between > Windows(r) and VM is CMS and translation code. > > > > On 3/26/08 9:57 AM, "Adam Thornton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.) > > --. .- .-. -.-- > > Gary Dennis > Mantissa Corporation > 2 Perimeter Park South > Birmingham, Alabama 35243-3274 > > p: 205.968-3942 > m: 205.218-3937 > f: 205.968.3932 > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://www.mantissa.com > http://www.idovos.com >
Re: z/VM - Lightweight specific purpose file system
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 know if it would have worked on a straight-up p390. Modern Linuxes don't run on p390-class machines anymore, I think. Halfword immediate instructions maybe? p370 couldn't run Linux, so you'd be dead in the water there. Adam
Re: MONWRITE files
Hi Berry and Mike, Your pipe commands appear to have worked. After issuing them this is what I see: CP2KVMXT VMARCA1 V80 2629 53 3/26/08 14:55 MONVIEW VMARCA1 V80756 16 3/26/08 14:53 For the below file, I issued the following command and the vmarc module went from a size of 81XX to 13464: PIPE < vmarc module a | deblcok cms | > vmarc module a: VMARCMODULE A1 V 13464 34 3/26/08 13:20 Does this look right now? Thank you for all your help, Alyce -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Berry van Sleeuwen Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 2:45 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: MONWRITE files Hello Alyce, As Mike said, looks like a upload error. I guess these are from the IBM VM packages, in that case upload to VM in binary mode, Recfm fixed and lrecl 80. If you can't upload with specifing recordlayout you also can upload in binary and use the PIPE FBLOCK to restore the correct layout. (Upload binary and next issue 'PIPE < MONVIEW VMARC A | FBLOCK 80 00 | > NEWFILE VMARC A') I use this because my ftp client doesn't provide the recordlayout so I end up with 8K blocks instead of fixed 80 byte records. BTW, perhaps you can use this also on the files you now already have on your mindisk. These files usually hold more than one file. I assume, based on the console messages, that only a part of the files (monview script and cp2kvmxt exec) is now on disk. At some point, either at the end of a record or at the end of a file invalid data is found. So delete the files that were unpacked, upload the VMARC files again and unpack again. Regards, Berry. Austin, Alyce (CIV) schreef: > Hello, > > When I issue the following vmarc commands in preparation for the > monwrite procedures, > > this is what I get: > > vmarc unpk monview vmarc a > > MONVIEW SCRIPT A1. Bytes in= 11776, bytes out= 6168 ( 52%). > > Invalid header for compacted file. > > Ready(8); T=0.01/0.01 13:38:10 > > vmarc unpk cp2kvmxt vmarc a > > CP2KVMXT EXEC A1. Bytes in= 17652, bytes out= 152800 ( 865%). > > Invalid header for compacted file. > > Ready(8); T=0.05/0.05 13:38:30 > > I assume that the correct files were created; that is, "monview > script" and "cp2kvmxt exec" > > even though I got an invalid header after issuing the commands. Is > this the case? > > Thanks, > > Alyce > > > > *From:* The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > *On Behalf Of *Stefan Raabe > *Sent:* Wednesday, March 19, 2008 12:36 AM > *To:* IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU > *Subject:* Re: MONWRITE files > > > > **Diese E-Mail enthaelt vertrauliche oder rechtlich geschuetzte > Informationen. Wenn Sie nicht der beabsichtigte Empfaenger sind, > informieren Sie bitte sofort den Absender und loeschen Sie diese > E-Mail. Das unbefugte Kopieren dieser E-Mail oder die unbefugte > Weitergabe der enthaltenen Informationen ist nicht gestattet. The > information contained in this message is confidential or protected by > law. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender > and delete this message. Any unauthorised copying of this message or > unauthorised distribution of the information contained herein is > prohibited. Legally required information for business correspondence/ > Gesetzliche Pflichtangaben fuer Geschaeftskorrespondenz: > http://deutsche-boerse.com/letterhead ** >
Re: z/VM - Lightweight specific purpose file system
The existing licenses already allow running in a virtual environment and don't specify what chips etc that could be. They could change future licenses, perhaps, but MS licenses don't work like Mainframe Licenses and it would be hard to exclude mainframe based emulation without excluding 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 -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 the Microsoft Licensing be "tricky"? Expensive perhaps as you need one license per virtual machine, but not tricky... Well, "tricky" in that MS might refuse to grant the license. They are under no obligation to do so. And they are really, really worried about Windows under any virtualization other than their own. Running on "unsupported" hardware would likely make them even more reluctant. Of course, I cannot think of any software that runs on Windows that I would want to run on a z. I'd rather replace any such with "equivalent" software, if there is some, or just run on Intel for that function. -- John McKown Senior Systems Programmer HealthMarkets Keeping the Promise of Affordable Coverage Administrative Services Group Information Technology The information contained in this e-mail message may be privileged and/or confidential. It is for intended addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, reproduction, distribution or other use of this communication is strictly prohibited and could, in certain circumstances, be a criminal offense. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by reply and delete this message without copying or disclosing it.
Re: MONWRITE files
Hello Alyce, As Mike said, looks like a upload error. I guess these are from the IBM VM packages, in that case upload to VM in binary mode, Recfm fixed and lrecl 80. If you can't upload with specifing recordlayout you also can upload in binary and use the PIPE FBLOCK to restore the correct layout. (Upload binary and next issue 'PIPE < MONVIEW VMARC A | FBLOCK 80 00 | > NEWFILE VMARC A') I use this because my ftp client doesn't provide the recordlayout so I end up with 8K blocks instead of fixed 80 byte records. BTW, perhaps you can use this also on the files you now already have on your mindisk. These files usually hold more than one file. I assume, based on the console messages, that only a part of the files (monview script and cp2kvmxt exec) is now on disk. At some point, either at the end of a record or at the end of a file invalid data is found. So delete the files that were unpacked, upload the VMARC files again and unpack again. Regards, Berry. Austin, Alyce (CIV) schreef: Hello, When I issue the following vmarc commands in preparation for the monwrite procedures, this is what I get: vmarc unpk monview vmarc a MONVIEW SCRIPT A1. Bytes in= 11776, bytes out= 6168 ( 52%). Invalid header for compacted file. Ready(8); T=0.01/0.01 13:38:10 vmarc unpk cp2kvmxt vmarc a CP2KVMXT EXEC A1. Bytes in= 17652, bytes out= 152800 ( 865%). Invalid header for compacted file. Ready(8); T=0.05/0.05 13:38:30 I assume that the correct files were created; that is, “monview script” and “cp2kvmxt exec” even though I got an invalid header after issuing the commands. Is this the case? Thanks, Alyce *From:* The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Stefan Raabe *Sent:* Wednesday, March 19, 2008 12:36 AM *To:* IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU *Subject:* Re: MONWRITE files **Diese E-Mail enthaelt vertrauliche oder rechtlich geschuetzte Informationen. Wenn Sie nicht der beabsichtigte Empfaenger sind, informieren Sie bitte sofort den Absender und loeschen Sie diese E-Mail. Das unbefugte Kopieren dieser E-Mail oder die unbefugte Weitergabe der enthaltenen Informationen ist nicht gestattet. The information contained in this message is confidential or protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete this message. Any unauthorised copying of this message or unauthorised distribution of the information contained herein is prohibited. Legally required information for business correspondence/ Gesetzliche Pflichtangaben fuer Geschaeftskorrespondenz: http://deutsche-boerse.com/letterhead **
Re: SHARE vs. zSeries Expo
Don't forget WAVV .. No Z/OS stuff but plenty of z/VM z/VSE and z/LINUX.. -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of O'Brien, Dennis L Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 3:35 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: SHARE vs. zSeries Expo We're planning our training for the year, and wondering about the value of SHARE vs. zSeries Expo. Several of us have been to SHARE, but none have been to the Expo. What do people who've been to both think of each? Dennis O'Brien "Just because we spent the night together doesn't mean we're on a first name basis." -- Miss Glick, in "Lucky Stiff"
Re: MONWRITE files
Alyce, In cases like this it has (to the best of my knowledge) always been an download/upload problem. - Download the files with LRECL and RECFM, and ASCII or BIN as the site requests. - When uploading the files to your VM system, do so carefully following the instructions from the site where they came. Often they require LRECL 80 RECFM F, sometimes LRECL 1024 RECFM F, and other times whatever the author specified when they packed them with VMARC. It depends... :-) Mike Walter Hewitt Associates Any opinions expressed herein are mine alone and do not necessarily represent the opinions or policies of Hewitt Associates. "Austin, Alyce (CIV)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent by: "The IBM z/VM Operating System" 03/26/2008 04:06 PM Please respond to "The IBM z/VM Operating System" To IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU cc Subject Re: MONWRITE files Hello, When I issue the following vmarc commands in preparation for the monwrite procedures, this is what I get: vmarc unpk monview vmarc a MONVIEW SCRIPT A1. Bytes in= 11776, bytes out= 6168 (52%). Invalid header for compacted file. Ready(8); T=0.01/0.01 13:38:10 vmarc unpk cp2kvmxt vmarc a CP2KVMXT EXEC A1. Bytes in= 17652, bytes out=152800 ( 865%). Invalid header for compacted file. Ready(8); T=0.05/0.05 13:38:30 I assume that the correct files were created; that is, ?monview script? and ?cp2kvmxt exec? even though I got an invalid header after issuing the commands. Is this the case? Thanks, Alyce From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Stefan Raabe Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 12:36 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: MONWRITE files Diese E-Mail enthaelt vertrauliche oder rechtlich geschuetzte Informationen. Wenn Sie nicht der beabsichtigte Empfaenger sind, informieren Sie bitte sofort den Absender und loeschen Sie diese E-Mail. Das unbefugte Kopieren dieser E-Mail oder die unbefugte Weitergabe der enthaltenen Informationen ist nicht gestattet. The information contained in this message is confidential or protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete this message. Any unauthorised copying of this message or unauthorised distribution of the information contained herein is prohibited. Legally required information for business correspondence/ Gesetzliche Pflichtangaben fuer Geschaeftskorrespondenz: http://deutsche-boerse.com/letterhead 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. E-mails 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 e-mail.
Re: SHARE vs. zSeries Expo
And I paid for a vendor session to give that non-vendor presentation. Gee, SHARE encourages technical presentations, and EXPO has lots of sessions that are pretty poorly attended - as in little interest. Marcy Cortes wrote: Did both last year. While there is a lot of overlap, SHARE is a heavier on technical how'tos and user experiences sessions and non-IBM vendor content - Barton only got 1 session at expo :)... IMHO. You can use your IBM credits for all the z10's you're purchasing to attend Expo, though :) Marcy Cortes "This message may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the addressee or authorized to receive this for the addressee, you must not use, copy, disclose, or take any action based on this message or any information herein. If you have received this message in error, please advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete this message. Thank you for your cooperation." -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of O'Brien, Dennis L Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 1:35 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: [IBMVM] SHARE vs. zSeries Expo We're planning our training for the year, and wondering about the value of SHARE vs. zSeries Expo. Several of us have been to SHARE, but none have been to the Expo. What do people who've been to both think of each? Dennis O'Brien "Just because we spent the night together doesn't mean we're on a first name basis." -- Miss Glick, in "Lucky Stiff"
Re: SHARE vs. zSeries Expo
Did both last year. While there is a lot of overlap, SHARE is a heavier on technical how'tos and user experiences sessions and non-IBM vendor content - Barton only got 1 session at expo :)... IMHO. You can use your IBM credits for all the z10's you're purchasing to attend Expo, though :) Marcy Cortes "This message may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the addressee or authorized to receive this for the addressee, you must not use, copy, disclose, or take any action based on this message or any information herein. If you have received this message in error, please advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete this message. Thank you for your cooperation." -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of O'Brien, Dennis L Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 1:35 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: [IBMVM] SHARE vs. zSeries Expo We're planning our training for the year, and wondering about the value of SHARE vs. zSeries Expo. Several of us have been to SHARE, but none have been to the Expo. What do people who've been to both think of each? Dennis O'Brien "Just because we spent the night together doesn't mean we're on a first name basis." -- Miss Glick, in "Lucky Stiff"
Re: MONWRITE files
Hello, When I issue the following vmarc commands in preparation for the monwrite procedures, this is what I get: vmarc unpk monview vmarc a MONVIEW SCRIPT A1. Bytes in= 11776, bytes out= 6168 ( 52%). Invalid header for compacted file. Ready(8); T=0.01/0.01 13:38:10 vmarc unpk cp2kvmxt vmarc a CP2KVMXT EXEC A1. Bytes in= 17652, bytes out=152800 ( 865%). Invalid header for compacted file. Ready(8); T=0.05/0.05 13:38:30 I assume that the correct files were created; that is, "monview script" and "cp2kvmxt exec" even though I got an invalid header after issuing the commands. Is this the case? Thanks, Alyce From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Stefan Raabe Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 12:36 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: MONWRITE files Diese E-Mail enthaelt vertrauliche oder rechtlich geschuetzte Informationen. Wenn Sie nicht der beabsichtigte Empfaenger sind, informieren Sie bitte sofort den Absender und loeschen Sie diese E-Mail. Das unbefugte Kopieren dieser E-Mail oder die unbefugte Weitergabe der enthaltenen Informationen ist nicht gestattet. The information contained in this message is confidential or protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete this message. Any unauthorised copying of this message or unauthorised distribution of the information contained herein is prohibited. Legally required information for business correspondence/ Gesetzliche Pflichtangaben fuer Geschaeftskorrespondenz: http://deutsche-boerse.com/letterhead
Re: z/VM - Lightweight specific purpose file system
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 -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 > 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 don't recommend it there! Adam
Re: z/VM - Lightweight specific purpose file system
Seems like Johnny Carson did this joke as "The Great Carnac". Do you remember what the answers are/were? I can't remember the name of the female movie star (of course you could substitute any currently good looking female movie star(and let's not go too off thread with this)). I do remember the other two. (a well know canine movie star and an IBM product that I don't think is sold or supported, in its original form, anymore). Steve G. -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gary M. Dennis Sent: Wednesday, 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 emulators running in this environment. We concluded early on that we had to get rid of Linux and the emulation layer. Both would prevent us from ever achieving the required level of performance. The result of that detour is that the only thing between Windows(r) and VM is CMS and translation code. On 3/26/08 9:57 AM, "Adam Thornton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.) --. .- .-. -.-- Gary Dennis Mantissa Corporation 2 Perimeter Park South Birmingham, Alabama 35243-3274 p: 205.968-3942 m: 205.218-3937 f: 205.968.3932 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.mantissa.com http://www.idovos.com
SHARE vs. zSeries Expo
We're planning our training for the year, and wondering about the value of SHARE vs. zSeries Expo. Several of us have been to SHARE, but none have been to the Expo. What do people who've been to both think of each? Dennis O'Brien "Just because we spent the night together doesn't mean we're on a first name basis." -- Miss Glick, in "Lucky Stiff"
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 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 don't recommend it there! Adam
Re: z/VM - Lightweight specific purpose file system
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 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 -- Stephen Frazier Information Technology Unit Oklahoma Department of Corrections 3400 Martin Luther King Oklahoma City, Ok, 73111-4298 Tel.: (405) 425-2549 Fax: (405) 425-2554 Pager: (405) 690-1828 email: stevef%doc.state.ok.us
Re: z/VM - Lightweight specific purpose file system
> > 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 would be incorrect. One might also infer that vi is somehow superior to emacs, or that tomatoes are vegetables. It issues the instruction and dies in the way specified for such things to die. Is that better? (*grumble* smart-ass CGI movie doll... grumble)
Re: z/VM - Lightweight specific purpose file system
> -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 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 that z/OS added code to > intentionally crater itself on an IFL, and that would be incorrect. > > Alan Altmark In reality, IBM changed the microcode which loads on an IFL to cause that particular function to get a "check stop" (IIRC) condition. six of one ... IBM has made it impossible to run z/OS on an IFL. As is their right. And that is GOOD in that it allows other OSes such as Linux to be cost effectively run on a z. It also got IBM to thinking about "speciality" engines and out came the zAAP and zIIP. Both designed to allow some special types of work to run without impacting the z/OS software cost. Very smart! -- John McKown Senior Systems Programmer HealthMarkets Keeping the Promise of Affordable Coverage Administrative Services Group Information Technology The information contained in this e-mail message may be privileged and/or confidential. It is for intended addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, reproduction, distribution or other use of this communication is strictly prohibited and could, in certain circumstances, be a criminal offense. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by reply and delete this message without copying or disclosing it.
Re: Logoff vs. Force
What does this have to do with ESM? Regards, Richard Schuh > -Original Message- > From: The IBM z/VM Operating System > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Alan Altmark > Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 12:21 PM > To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU > Subject: Re: Logoff vs. Force > > On Wednesday, 03/26/2008 at 12:05 EDT, "Schuh, Richard" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > At my previous place of employment, I implemented a class S SEND > > command > on, > > initially, an HPO4 system. It was a problem at first > because SEND was > OCO. I > > had to trace successful and unsuccessful SENDs on a 2nd > level system > > to > see > > where each went. Then I had to find a patch area where I > could put my > code. > > Fortunately, IBM provided a universal patch area called the > Copyright. > > I > was > > glad to see the class C SEND come on the scene. > > Hmmm calling the ESM at the *end* of any command for > status logging...hmmm. (One can't wait until end of > command to call the ESM because you would then have no record > of who issued "FORCE MYESM" or carefully crafted "STORE HOST" > or "SHUTDOWN". > > Not that I'm paranoid, but that's what they pay me for. > > Alan Altmark > z/VM Development > IBM Endicott >
Re: z/VM - Lightweight specific purpose file system
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 that z/OS added code to intentionally crater itself on an IFL, and that would be incorrect. Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott
Re: z/VM - Lightweight specific purpose file system
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
Re: Logoff vs. Force
On Wednesday, 03/26/2008 at 12:05 EDT, "Schuh, Richard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At my previous place of employment, I implemented a class S SEND command on, > initially, an HPO4 system. It was a problem at first because SEND was OCO. I > had to trace successful and unsuccessful SENDs on a 2nd level system to see > where each went. Then I had to find a patch area where I could put my code. > Fortunately, IBM provided a universal patch area called the Copyright. I was > glad to see the class C SEND come on the scene. Hmmm calling the ESM at the *end* of any command for status logging...hmmm. (One can't wait until end of command to call the ESM because you would then have no record of who issued "FORCE MYESM" or carefully crafted "STORE HOST" or "SHUTDOWN". Not that I'm paranoid, but that's what they pay me for. Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott
Re: z/VM - Lightweight specific purpose file system
> 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 could port one of the *BSDs to > run on an IFL. OpenSolaris runs on an IFL as well. Yep. What's that old joke about "doctor, it hurts when I do that." "Well, don't do that, then!". See above. IFLs (and the other specialty engines) solve a historical marketing and pricing problem with z/OS. I really wish they were marketed as a part of "z/OS", not the Z platform, but that level of confusion would make lots of IBM salescritter brains go tilt, so I suppose we're stuck with the status quo. Now, if someone wants to pay for BSD on Z, we're open to the idea...8-) -- db
Re: z/VM - Lightweight specific purpose file system
> -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 the Microsoft Licensing be "tricky"? Expensive > perhaps as you need > one license per virtual machine, but not tricky... Well, "tricky" in that MS might refuse to grant the license. They are under no obligation to do so. And they are really, really worried about Windows under any virtualization other than their own. Running on "unsupported" hardware would likely make them even more reluctant. Of course, I cannot think of any software that runs on Windows that I would want to run on a z. I'd rather replace any such with "equivalent" software, if there is some, or just run on Intel for that function. -- John McKown Senior Systems Programmer HealthMarkets Keeping the Promise of Affordable Coverage Administrative Services Group Information Technology The information contained in this e-mail message may be privileged and/or confidential. It is for intended addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, reproduction, distribution or other use of this communication is strictly prohibited and could, in certain circumstances, be a criminal offense. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by reply and delete this message without copying or disclosing it.
Re: z/VM - Lightweight specific purpose file system
> 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 useful happening on that system (or want to). Adam's little demo pegged both CPUs on the H70 at the time. It wasn't pretty.
Re: 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... - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 6:52 PM Subject: Re: z/VM - Lightweight specific purpose file system 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 -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 If such a beast were to materialize, would IBM let customers run it on IFL's (where "L" stand for Linux)? l How could IBM stop them, other than by some sort of license about what could be run on an IFL? Systems such as z/OS do not run on an IFL due to some differences in the microcode loaded. z/OS is dependant on those differences. If somebody wanted to, they could port one of the *BSDs to run on an IFL. OpenSolaris runs on an IFL as well. -- John McKown Senior Systems Programmer HealthMarkets Keeping the Promise of Affordable Coverage Administrative Services Group Information Technology The information contained in this e-mail message may be privileged and/or confidential. It is for intended addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, reproduction, distribution or other use of this communication is strictly prohibited and could, in certain circumstances, be a criminal offense. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by reply and delete this message without copying or disclosing it. 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 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 be 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 the basis of 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 property of the TTC and must not be altered or circumvented in any manner.
Re: z/VM - Lightweight specific purpose file system
> 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 hardware.
Re: z/VM - Lightweight specific purpose file system
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 > -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 > > > If such a beast were to materialize, would IBM let customers run it on > IFL's (where "L" stand for Linux)? > l How could IBM stop them, other than by some sort of license about what could be run on an IFL? Systems such as z/OS do not run on an IFL due to some differences in the microcode loaded. z/OS is dependant on those differences. If somebody wanted to, they could port one of the *BSDs to run on an IFL. OpenSolaris runs on an IFL as well. -- John McKown Senior Systems Programmer HealthMarkets Keeping the Promise of Affordable Coverage Administrative Services Group Information Technology The information contained in this e-mail message may be privileged and/or confidential. It is for intended addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, reproduction, distribution or other use of this communication is strictly prohibited and could, in certain circumstances, be a criminal offense. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by reply and delete this message without copying or disclosing it. 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 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 be 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 the basis of 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 property of the TTC and must not be altered or circumvented in any manner.
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
Re: z/VM - Lightweight specific purpose file system
> -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 > > > If such a beast were to materialize, would IBM let customers run it on > IFL's (where "L" stand for Linux)? > l How could IBM stop them, other than by some sort of license about what could be run on an IFL? Systems such as z/OS do not run on an IFL due to some differences in the microcode loaded. z/OS is dependant on those differences. If somebody wanted to, they could port one of the *BSDs to run on an IFL. OpenSolaris runs on an IFL as well. -- John McKown Senior Systems Programmer HealthMarkets Keeping the Promise of Affordable Coverage Administrative Services Group Information Technology The information contained in this e-mail message may be privileged and/or confidential. It is for intended addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, reproduction, distribution or other use of this communication is strictly prohibited and could, in certain circumstances, be a criminal offense. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by reply and delete this message without copying or disclosing it.
Re: z/VM - Lightweight specific purpose file system
If such a beast were to materialize, would IBM let customers run it on IFL's (where "L" stand for Linux)? l Stephen Frazier <[EMAIL PROTECTED] .ok.us>To Sent by: The IBM IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU z/VM Operating cc System <[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject ARK.EDU> Re: z/VM - Lightweight specific purpose file system 03/25/2008 05:45 PM Please respond to The IBM z/VM Operating System <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ARK.EDU> 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 instruction result > fidelity, machine state, and segment translation bypass issues that I/O > subsystem did not receive the necessary attention. At least the tough part > is done. > > Gary Dennis > Mantissa -- Stephen Frazier Information Technology Unit Oklahoma Department of Corrections 3400 Martin Luther King Oklahoma City, Ok, 73111-4298 Tel.: (405) 425-2549 Fax: (405) 425-2554 Pager: (405) 690-1828 email: stevef%doc.state.ok.us
Re: Logoff vs. Force
On: Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 11:54:00AM -0400,Jim Bohnsack Wrote: } This is true, but I've only seen it for a tape drive with an } intervention required. Have you seen other devices do this? Occasionally for a disk, usually because its broken. More frequently for tapes. -- Rich Greenberg N Ft Myers, FL, USA richgr atsign panix.com + 1 239 543 1353 Eastern time. N6LRT I speak for myself & my dogs only.VM'er since CP-67 Canines:Val, Red, Shasta & Casey (RIP), Red & Zero, Siberians Owner:Chinook-L Retired at the beach Asst Owner:Sibernet-L
Re: z/VM - Lightweight specific purpose file system
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 earlier experiences with the BFS, I would strongly recommend that you take a closer look at using the RSK as the basis for your new file system. Creating a 'simple' file system, using the RSK's DASD management APIs should not be all that difficult, and it certainly does scale up to the sizes you mentioned before. # The maximum number of storage groups is 1024. # The maximum number of data blocks per storage group is X'' (16 TB). # The maximum number of minidisks per storage group is 13,000. # The total number of dataspace-mapped DASD blocks cannot exceed X'' (16 TB). Plus, it can perform DASD I/O async allowing perhaps one RSK-based file server to support several Windows application's I/O needs. Hope this helps some. DJ 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 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 an option. Many companies (ours included) consider running a few dozen virtual Windows® images on a rack-mounted machine good business. We see no reason why z/System should not support from 250 images on the low end to several thousand on mid and high end systems. On 3/25/08 5:45 PM, "Stephen Frazier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 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 instruction result fidelity, machine state, and segment translation bypass issues that I/O subsystem did not receive the necessary attention. At least the tough part is done. Gary Dennis Mantissa --. .- .-. -.-- Gary M. Dennis Mantissa Corporation 2 Perimeter Park South Birmingham, Alabama 35243-3274 p: 205.968-3942 m: 205.218-3937 f: 205.968.3932 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.mantissa.com http://www.idovos.com
Re: z/VM - Lightweight specific purpose file system
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 way too much free time on his hands. ;-) While it did work, the performance was awful, to say the least. Of course, this was done on a smallish S/390 box and certainly not on a z9 or z10 series platform. 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 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. You can't run Bochs acceptably on an MP3000. It's going to be like running on, I dunno, a 10 MHz Intel. Adam
Re: z/VM - Lightweight specific purpose file system
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 ok. I.e. it "runs". > Well, it's only a matter of time until IBM drops support for the MP 3000 and at the rate applications are being migrated off it, we're going to need a z10 BC (assuming such a beast is coming) to replace it. It would be very nice to be able to say we could support some XP servers on it. So I guess I'll think about bringing up a zlinux vm and playing with Bochs... -- May the LORD God bless you exceedingly abundantly! Dave Craig - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - "'So the universe is not quite as you thought it was. You'd better rearrange your beliefs, then. Because you certainly can't rearrange the universe.'" --from _Nightfall_ by Asimov/Silverberg
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 emulators running in this environment. We concluded early on that we had to get rid of Linux and the emulation layer. Both would prevent us from ever achieving the required level of performance. The result of that detour is that the only thing between Windows® and VM is CMS and translation code. On 3/26/08 9:57 AM, "Adam Thornton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.) --. .- .-. -.-- Gary Dennis Mantissa Corporation 2 Perimeter Park South Birmingham, Alabama 35243-3274 p: 205.968-3942 m: 205.218-3937 f: 205.968.3932 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.mantissa.com http://www.idovos.com
Re: z/VM - Lightweight specific purpose file system
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 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. 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 ok. I.e. it "runs". Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott
Re: z/VM - Lightweight specific purpose file system
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 smattering of
simulated PC hardware attached.
The determined experimenter can do yet kinkier things:
http://www.ps3forums.com/showthread.php?t=6418
"an x86 emulator running a 680x0 emulator on a handheld gaming console"
Some may also enjoy shattering of gender assumptions in that post,
"my name's Neisha, and yes, girls can hack too".
-- R;
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 11:38 AM, David L. Craig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 run Bochs on a mainframe? That would
> be a very significant achievement.
>
> --
>
> May the LORD God bless you exceedingly abundantly!
>
> Dave Craig
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> "'So the universe is not quite as you thought it was.
> You'd better rearrange your beliefs, then.
> Because you certainly can't rearrange the universe.'"
>
> --from _Nightfall_ by Asimov/Silverberg
>
--
-- R; <><
Re: z/VM - Lightweight specific purpose file system
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. ;-) > > While it did work, the performance was awful, to say the least. Of > course, this was done on a smallish S/390 box and certainly not on a z9 > or z10 series platform. 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 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. -- May the LORD God bless you exceedingly abundantly! Dave Craig - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - "'So the universe is not quite as you thought it was. You'd better rearrange your beliefs, then. Because you certainly can't rearrange the universe.'" --from _Nightfall_ by Asimov/Silverberg
Re: Logoff vs. Force
At my previous place of employment, I implemented a class S SEND command on, initially, an HPO4 system. It was a problem at first because SEND was OCO. I had to trace successful and unsuccessful SENDs on a 2nd level system to see where each went. Then I had to find a patch area where I could put my code. Fortunately, IBM provided a universal patch area called the Copyright. I was glad to see the class C SEND come on the scene. Regards, Richard Schuh From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Colin Allinson Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 8:38 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Logoff vs. Force Alan Altmark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > There is also a class C version of SEND that doesn't require you > to be the SECUSER, ... Well, you learn something new every day!! I guess I have never gone back and read this up or tried it. Colin Allinson Amadeus Data Processing GmbH
Re: z/VM - Lightweight specific purpose file system
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 run Bochs on a mainframe? That would be a very significant achievement. 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. ;-) While it did work, the performance was awful, to say the least. Of course, this was done on a smallish S/390 box and certainly not on a z9 or z10 series platform. Dave Jones V/Soft
Re: Logoff vs. Force
This is true, but I've only seen it for a tape drive with an intervention required. Have you seen other devices do this? Jim Rich Greenberg wrote: Caveat: Thids doesn't always work: I have had some success with the SEND command such as: CP SEND CP target LOG sometimes, especially if some device is hanging it up preceed with: CP SEND CP target SYSTEM RESET If you can determine the hanging device try CP HALT ccuu -- Jim Bohnsack Cornell University (607) 255-1760 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Logoff vs. Force
On the other hand, if you are referring to the user being forced as the one who hangs, any condition that hangs it when it is forced will likely hang it in logoff. I presume that you are using RETRIEVE as the retrieval tool in DISKACNT. If so, use (iirc) SEND CP DISKACNT EXT followed by SEND DISKACNT END to terminate the retrieval process cleanly. Then it can be forced or logged off without the hang. I, as do many others, use a pipeline to retrieve the accounting and erep records. It responds to SMSG commands and can be ended cleanly by a single command. Regards, Richard Schuh > -Original Message- > From: The IBM z/VM Operating System > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Alan Altmark > Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 8:20 AM > To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU > Subject: Re: Logoff vs. Force > > On Wednesday, 03/26/2008 at 10:46 EDT, "Wandschneider, Scott" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Does anybody have a trick on how to LOGOFF disconnected users like > > DISKACNT instead of using FORCE. Sometimes FORCE will > cause a user to > > hang and it requires the forcing user to have class A. I know that > > the FORCE command can be change to another class, but would rather > > stay away from FORCE altogether. > > If I am the SECUSER of DISKACNT, I can use class G SEND CP > DISKACNT LOGOFF. There is also a class C version of SEND > that doesn't require you to be the SECUSER, but giving > someone class C SEND is more dangerous than FORCE. SEND lets > you issue (e.g. Linux) commands in the guest as well as CP > commands. FORCE just gives you the ability to get the user > off the system. In a choice between the two, FORCE is preferred. > > In a previous discussion here, I asked about pairing FORCE > authority with XAUTOLOG authority so that a class G user > could FORCE any user he or she was authorized to XAUTOLOG. > That suggestion was shot down in flames. > > As an alternative I can envision a change to CP to enable ESM > protection of a new class G FORCE command so that you can > control XAUTOLOG and FORCE separately. > > Alan Altmark > z/VM Development > IBM Endicott >
Re: Logoff vs. Force
Alan Altmark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > There is also a class C version of SEND that doesn't require you > to be the SECUSER, ... Well, you learn something new every day!! I guess I have never gone back and read this up or tried it. Colin Allinson Amadeus Data Processing GmbH
Re: z/VM - Lightweight specific purpose file system
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 mainframe? That would be a very significant achievement. -- May the LORD God bless you exceedingly abundantly! Dave Craig - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - "'So the universe is not quite as you thought it was. You'd better rearrange your beliefs, then. Because you certainly can't rearrange the universe.'" --from _Nightfall_ by Asimov/Silverberg
Re: Logoff vs. Force
On Wednesday, 03/26/2008 at 10:46 EDT, "Wandschneider, Scott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Does anybody have a trick on how to LOGOFF disconnected users like > DISKACNT instead of using FORCE. Sometimes FORCE will cause a user to > hang and it requires the forcing user to have class A. I know that the > FORCE command can be change to another class, but would rather stay away > from FORCE altogether. If I am the SECUSER of DISKACNT, I can use class G SEND CP DISKACNT LOGOFF. There is also a class C version of SEND that doesn't require you to be the SECUSER, but giving someone class C SEND is more dangerous than FORCE. SEND lets you issue (e.g. Linux) commands in the guest as well as CP commands. FORCE just gives you the ability to get the user off the system. In a choice between the two, FORCE is preferred. In a previous discussion here, I asked about pairing FORCE authority with XAUTOLOG authority so that a class G user could FORCE any user he or she was authorized to XAUTOLOG. That suggestion was shot down in flames. As an alternative I can envision a change to CP to enable ESM protection of a new class G FORCE command so that you can control XAUTOLOG and FORCE separately. Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott
Re: Logoff vs. Force
Scott: Using SEND to logoff users of the RETRIEVE MODULE like DISKACNT, EREP or OPERSYMP is much cleaner (ie avoids "HCPCRC8084E An IUCV IPRCODE of 02 was encountered during an IUCV SEND function for user DISKACNT".) if you: CP SEND CP userid EXT CP SEND userid END CP SEND CP userid LOGOFF
Re: Logoff vs. Force
Way too easy - THANK YOU! Thank you, Scott R Wandschneider Senior Systems Programmer Infocrossing Office 402.963.8905 -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rothman, Peter Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 9:49 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Logoff vs. Force CP SEND CP 'userid' LOGOFF' -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Wandschneider, Scott Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 10:41 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Logoff vs. Force Does anybody have a trick on how to LOGOFF disconnected users like DISKACNT instead of using FORCE. Sometimes FORCE will cause a user to hang and it requires the forcing user to have class A. I know that the FORCE command can be change to another class, but would rather stay away from FORCE altogether. Thank you, Scott R Wandschneider Senior Systems Programmer Infocrossing Office 402.963.8905 If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail message, please notify the sender and delete all copies immediately. The sender believes this message and any attachments were sent free of any virus, worm, Trojan horse, and other forms of malicious code. This message and its attachments could have been infected during transmission. The recipient opens any attachments at the recipient's own risk, and in so doing, the recipient accepts full responsibility for such actions and agrees to take protective and remedial action relating to any malicious code. Travelport is not liable for any loss or damage arising from this message or its attachments.
Re: Logoff vs. Force
"Wandschneider, Scott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Does anybody have a trick on how to LOGOFF disconnected users like > DISKACNT instead of using FORCE. Sometimes FORCE will cause a user to > hang and it requires the forcing user to have class A. I know that the > FORCE command can be change to another class, but would rather stay away > from FORCE altogether. With z/VM 5.3 you can use the 'FOR userid CMD cp command' if you are appropriately authorised. It has a number of advantages over CP SEND - particularly that you don't alter the functioning of the server prior to the command by setting the SECUSER. Colin Allinson Amadeus Data Processing GmbH
Re: z/VM - Lightweight specific purpose file system
Me too! Me too > > Give me a z10 and I'll try it. > > Adam -- Mark Pace Mainline Information Systems
Re: Logoff vs. Force
On: Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 07:40:57AM -0700,Wandschneider, Scott Wrote: } Does anybody have a trick on how to LOGOFF disconnected users like } DISKACNT instead of using FORCE. Sometimes FORCE will cause a user to } hang and it requires the forcing user to have class A. I know that the } FORCE command can be change to another class, but would rather stay away } from FORCE altogether. Caveat: Thids doesn't always work: I have had some success with the SEND command such as: CP SEND CP target LOG sometimes, especially if some device is hanging it up preceed with: CP SEND CP target SYSTEM RESET If you can determine the hanging device try CP HALT ccuu -- Rich Greenberg N Ft Myers, FL, USA richgr atsign panix.com + 1 239 543 1353 Eastern time. N6LRT I speak for myself & my dogs only.VM'er since CP-67 Canines:Val, Red, Shasta & Casey (RIP), Red & Zero, Siberians Owner:Chinook-L Retired at the beach Asst Owner:Sibernet-L
Re: z/VM - Lightweight specific purpose file system
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 block invalidation. We have been using VM for 20 of our 27 years in business. A development environment without it has never been considered an option. Many companies (ours included) consider running a few dozen virtual Windows® images on a rack-mounted machine good business. We see no reason why z/System should not support from 250 images on the low end to several thousand on mid and high end systems. 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.) Give me a z10 and I'll try it. Adam
Re: Logoff vs. Force
Use the "CP SEND" command to "send" a LOGOFF command. David Wakser -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Wandschneider, Scott Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 10:41 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Logoff vs. Force Does anybody have a trick on how to LOGOFF disconnected users like DISKACNT instead of using FORCE. Sometimes FORCE will cause a user to hang and it requires the forcing user to have class A. I know that the FORCE command can be change to another class, but would rather stay away from FORCE altogether. Thank you, Scott R Wandschneider Senior Systems Programmer Infocrossing Office 402.963.8905
Re: Logoff vs. Force
CP SEND CP 'userid' LOGOFF' -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Wandschneider, Scott Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 10:41 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Logoff vs. Force Does anybody have a trick on how to LOGOFF disconnected users like DISKACNT instead of using FORCE. Sometimes FORCE will cause a user to hang and it requires the forcing user to have class A. I know that the FORCE command can be change to another class, but would rather stay away from FORCE altogether. Thank you, Scott R Wandschneider Senior Systems Programmer Infocrossing Office 402.963.8905 If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail message, please notify the sender and delete all copies immediately. The sender believes this message and any attachments were sent free of any virus, worm, Trojan horse, and other forms of malicious code. This message and its attachments could have been infected during transmission. The recipient opens any attachments at the recipient's own risk, and in so doing, the recipient accepts full responsibility for such actions and agrees to take protective and remedial action relating to any malicious code. Travelport is not liable for any loss or damage arising from this message or its attachments.
Logoff vs. Force
Does anybody have a trick on how to LOGOFF disconnected users like DISKACNT instead of using FORCE. Sometimes FORCE will cause a user to hang and it requires the forcing user to have class A. I know that the FORCE command can be change to another class, but would rather stay away from FORCE altogether. Thank you, Scott R Wandschneider Senior Systems Programmer Infocrossing Office 402.963.8905
Re: z/VM - Lightweight specific purpose file system
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 20 of our 27 years in business. A development > environment without it has never been considered an option. > > Many companies (ours included) consider running a few dozen virtual Windows® > images on a rack-mounted machine good business. We see no reason why > z/System should not support from 250 images on the low end to several > thousand on mid and high end systems. 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.) Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott
Re: z/VM - Lightweight specific purpose file system
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 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 an option. Many companies (ours included) consider running a few dozen virtual Windows® images on a rack-mounted machine good business. We see no reason why z/System should not support from 250 images on the low end to several thousand on mid and high end systems. -- Stephen Frazier Information Technology Unit Oklahoma Department of Corrections 3400 Martin Luther King Oklahoma City, Ok, 73111-4298 Tel.: (405) 425-2549 Fax: (405) 425-2554 Pager: (405) 690-1828 email: stevef%doc.state.ok.us
