Mime attachments

[A. Harry Williams]

I'm looking for a utility that would take an email file and create the
files that are mime attachments on disk.  There are several examples of the
reverse on the VM downloads page (MAILIT, etc) or there is the SENDFILE, but
there is nothing I can find that deals handling a file that has attachments
(Yes, there is MAILBOOK, but I'm looking for something for automation).

I know there would have to be some restrictions due to namespace and other
issues, and I'm willing to live with some, but I haven't seen anything out
there.  Before I look at writing something crude to do the minimum I need,
is there anything I'm missing in my search?

/ahw

Re: MONWRITE files

[Kris Buelens]

A VMARC file should be FIXED 80, (but V 80 may work as well).  To be axact:
  PIPE < MONVIEW VMARC A | FBLOCK 80 00 | > NEWFILE VMARC A F 80

2008/3/27, Austin, Alyce (CIV) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> 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 **
> >
>



-- 
Kris Buelens,
IBM Belgium, VM customer support

Re: Mime attachments

[Kris Buelens]

MAILIT with TEST option sends the result to your reader.  That is, the
mail body and the attachments.  If that format suits you, an extra
option would be easily added.  Your phrasing seems to suggest you'd
like to get two files: the mail body and the attachments.  That would
require a bit extra work to the PIPE in MAILIT's SendNetDataFile
subroutine.

2008/3/27, A. Harry Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I'm looking for a utility that would take an email file and create the
>  files that are mime attachments on disk.  There are several examples of the
>  reverse on the VM downloads page (MAILIT, etc) or there is the SENDFILE, but
>  there is nothing I can find that deals handling a file that has attachments
>  (Yes, there is MAILBOOK, but I'm looking for something for automation).
>
>  I know there would have to be some restrictions due to namespace and other
>  issues, and I'm willing to live with some, but I haven't seen anything out
>  there.  Before I look at writing something crude to do the minimum I need,
>  is there anything I'm missing in my search?
>
>
>  /ahw
>



-- 
Kris Buelens,
IBM Belgium, VM customer support

Re: Mime attachments

[Mike Walter]

What about Victor Strasser's "OFSMIME" package.  The README file includes:
--
OFSMime Package V2.1.1  2000-02-08 
== 
 
E-mail is not just text anymore.  The Multipurpose Internet Mail 
Extensions (mime) standard allows information in just about any digital 
format to be sent as an attachment to a note.  OFSMime is a mime add-on 
for OfficeVision/VM.  It requires no modifications to your OfficeVision 
environment to function, and only minor customization to fully 
integrate it for your users. 
--

Even if it's not an exact match (works great with email processed by 
PROFS, and I'm told, OV/VM), it could be a source of inspiration for your 
own perspiration.

Mike Walter 
Hewitt Associates 
Any opinions expressed herein are mine alone and do not necessarily 
represent the opinions or policies of Hewitt Associates.




"A. Harry Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 

Sent by: "The IBM z/VM Operating System" 
03/27/2008 07:48 AM
Please respond to
"The IBM z/VM Operating System" 



To
IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
cc

Subject
Mime attachments






I'm looking for a utility that would take an email file and create the
files that are mime attachments on disk.  There are several examples of 
the
reverse on the VM downloads page (MAILIT, etc) or there is the SENDFILE, 
but
there is nothing I can find that deals handling a file that has 
attachments
(Yes, there is MAILBOOK, but I'm looking for something for automation).

I know there would have to be some restrictions due to namespace and other
issues, and I'm willing to live with some, but I haven't seen anything out
there.  Before I look at writing something crude to do the minimum I need,
is there anything I'm missing in my search?

/ahw





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: Mime attachments

[David Boyes]

ftp://ftp.andrew.cmu.edu/pub/mpack/

munpack is a fairly simple C program that does what you want (eats a
MIME-formatted input file with multiple MIME elements) and writes the
individual elements to files. You'll need to tweak the filename handling
(or use it in a BFS environment), but it should compile cleanly on CMS. 

There are also Perl implementations of similar tools, which will run
with Neale's port of Perl5 for OpenVM. 

-- db

Re: Mime attachments

[David Boyes]

> There are also Perl implementations of similar tools, which will run
> with Neale's port of Perl5 for OpenVM.

In fact, here's most of what you need, using the Perl MIME::Tools
package. You'll need to add the code that writes the individual parts
out to files, but the rest of it is a few lines of Perl. 

http://www.samag.com/documents/s=1152/sam0104f/0104f.htm

(We need a CPAN for REXX. That would be really handy.)

-- db

Re: z/VM - Lightweight specific purpose file system

[Gentry, Stephen]

Hmm, what about the i370 aka Bigfoot? Other than physically, how did the
p370 differ from the s/370?
To quote from a document/webpage attributed to you:

Linux on the System/390 is an idea that has been being kicked around
since Linux's earliest days, but not much was done until 1998 or so.
Linas Vepstas and others began a port of Linux, called "Bigfoot", which
was an implementation that ran on System/370 (the 390's predecessor) and
later processors. By early December 1999, Bigfoot would boot and usually
load /bin/sh before panicking and crashing.

Granted, it says system 370 and not p370.

Inquiring minds . . yadda, yadda 
Steve G.
 
-Original Message-
From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Adam Thornton
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 6:31 PM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: z/VM - Lightweight specific purpose 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: Mime attachments

[Peter . Webb]

I have a program that sits around waiting for e-mails to arrive in its
reader queue, then strips out HTML attachments into separate files.
Would that be of interest?

Peter

-Original Message-
From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of A. Harry Williams
Sent: March 27, 2008 08:49
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Mime attachments

I'm looking for a utility that would take an email file and create the
files that are mime attachments on disk.  There are several examples of
the
reverse on the VM downloads page (MAILIT, etc) or there is the SENDFILE,
but
there is nothing I can find that deals handling a file that has
attachments
(Yes, there is MAILBOOK, but I'm looking for something for automation).

I know there would have to be some restrictions due to namespace and
other
issues, and I'm willing to live with some, but I haven't seen anything
out
there.  Before I look at writing something crude to do the minimum I
need,
is there anything I'm missing in my search?

/ahw


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: MONWRITE files

[Austin, Alyce (CIV)]

Thanks to all for your replies!

 

Alyce

 

 



From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Kris Buelens
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 5:25 AM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: MONWRITE files

 

A VMARC file should be FIXED 80, (but V 80 may work as well).  To be
axact:
  PIPE < MONVIEW VMARC A | FBLOCK 80 00 | > NEWFILE VMARC A F 80

2008/3/27, Austin, Alyce (CIV) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

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 **
>




-- 
Kris Buelens,
IBM Belgium, VM customer support 

Re: z/VM - Lightweight specific purpose file system

[Adam Thornton]

On Mar 27, 2008, at 8:33 AM, Gentry, Stephen wrote:

Hmm, what about the i370 aka Bigfoot? Other than physically, how did  
the

p370 differ from the s/370?
To quote from a document/webpage attributed to you:

Linux on the System/390 is an idea that has been being kicked around
since Linux's earliest days, but not much was done until 1998 or so.
Linas Vepstas and others began a port of Linux, called "Bigfoot",  
which
was an implementation that ran on System/370 (the 390's predecessor)  
and
later processors. By early December 1999, Bigfoot would boot and  
usually

load /bin/sh before panicking and crashing.

Granted, it says system 370 and not p370.


Yeah, Bigfoot would have run on a p/370, but it never got developed  
far enough to be usable for any actual task.


Adam

Re: z/VM - Lightweight specific purpose file system

[Rob van der Heij]

On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 11:30 PM, Adam Thornton
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>  Modern Linuxes don't run on p390-class machines anymore, I think.
>  Halfword immediate instructions maybe?

With a proper support contract you could get the microcode that
supports halfway immediate instructions. Early SLES8 kernels I could
still hack to make them run on the P/390.  But when the developers
started to take the XA I/O subsystem for granted (CHSH and friends) I
had to give up.
My last kernel:   Linux lnx00c00 2.4.21-278-rmh5 #9 SMP Wed Mar 8
23:54:13 CET 2006 s390

Rob (running 100 of those on the P/390)
--

Re: z/VM - Lightweight specific purpose file system

[David Boyes]

> >  Modern Linuxes don't run on p390-class machines anymore, I think.
> >  Halfword immediate instructions maybe?
> 
> With a proper support contract you could get the microcode that
> supports halfway immediate instructions.

Didn't that require a p390e card or an IS, though? I don't think the MCA
version ever did the G5 instructions. 

Re: z/VM - Lightweight specific purpose file system

[Rob van der Heij]

On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 5:51 PM, David Boyes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >  Modern Linuxes don't run on p390-class machines anymore, I think.
>  > >  Halfword immediate instructions maybe?
>  >
>  > With a proper support contract you could get the microcode that
>  > supports halfway immediate instructions.
>
>  Didn't that require a p390e card or an IS, though? I don't think the MCA
>  version ever did the G5 instructions.

Mine is a PCI - but non-E as far as I know.

Rob
--

Re: z/VM - Lightweight specific purpose file system

[Gary M. Dennis]

On 3/26/08 5:05 PM, "Dave Wade" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> 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.

Since z/VOS is neither emulation or paravirtualization it is conceivable
that an attorney might take exception to how the MS EULA applied to running
Windows/XP in the z/VM environment. Because Apple has been reluctant to take
a clear stance on virtualization of their products we sent their legal
department a letter asking for clarification of their position on the issue
of running OS X under z/VM and received no response.  They may still be
working their way through the letter using Wikipedia to decode some of the
acronyms.

Ultimately we don't think either company will challenge the product on the
basis of hardware platform. Here's why.

1. Its deep Green.
2. It's efficient and TCO positive
3. License sales will, in all likelihood, not go down.


> I guess they could buy VM Ware first...

If Microsoft waits until after the release of this product they maybe able
to buy VM Ware for substantially less.

Gary Dennis
Mantissa Corporation
 
> 
> 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. 
> 

--.  .-  .-.  -.--

Gary Dennis
Mantissa Corporation

CPOWNED Devices

[Schuh, Richard]

Will it kill spool if I 
1. Reliable a spool disk and
2. Chnge the entry in the cpowned list, replacing the old volser with
the new? 

Regards, 
Richard Schuh 

Re: z/VM - Lightweight specific purpose file system

[Dave Wade]

From my experiments with GCC on VM/370 I would say that the 16megs of 
address space (i.e. real i370) is not enough space to run a "modern" linux 
in, so I would think XA/ESA type hardware would be needed


Dave G4UGM
Illegitimi Non Carborundum

- Original Message - 
From: "Gentry, Stephen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 1:33 PM
Subject: Re: z/VM - Lightweight specific purpose file system


Hmm, what about the i370 aka Bigfoot? Other than physically, how did the
p370 differ from the s/370?
To quote from a document/webpage attributed to you:

Linux on the System/390 is an idea that has been being kicked around
since Linux's earliest days, but not much was done until 1998 or so.
Linas Vepstas and others began a port of Linux, called "Bigfoot", which
was an implementation that ran on System/370 (the 390's predecessor) and
later processors. By early December 1999, Bigfoot would boot and usually
load /bin/sh before panicking and crashing.

Granted, it says system 370 and not p370.

Inquiring minds . . yadda, yadda
Steve G.

-Original Message-
From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Adam Thornton
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 6:31 PM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: z/VM - Lightweight specific purpose 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: CPOWNED Devices

[Bob Bates]

I don't believe that will cause any problems. I've done it recently with
the checkpoint and warm start areas (renamed the volume they are on) and
was able to come up without a problem and find all my spool files. As
long as the volumes remain in the same slots, you should be fine. 
 

Bob Bates 
Enterprise Hosting Services - Enterprise Virtualization - z/VM and
z/Linux
 

w. (469)892-6660 
c. (214) 907-5071 

"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."


 

  _  

From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Schuh, Richard
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 2:59 PM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: CPOWNED Devices



Will it kill spool if I 
1. Reliable a spool disk and 
2. Chnge the entry in the cpowned list, replacing the old volser with
the new? 

Regards,
Richard Schuh 

Re: CPOWNED Devices

[Schuh, Richard]

Yes, but an experiment using those areas does not necessarily translate
to renaming of a spool volume. It would seem reasonable that renaming
would be OK, but it doesn't hurt to hear it from the Oracle. 
 
Regards, 
Richard Schuh 

 

 




From: The IBM z/VM Operating System
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bob Bates
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 1:29 PM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: CPOWNED Devices


I don't believe that will cause any problems. I've done it
recently with the checkpoint and warm start areas (renamed the volume
they are on) and was able to come up without a problem and find all my
spool files. As long as the volumes remain in the same slots, you should
be fine. 
 

Bob Bates 
Enterprise Hosting Services - Enterprise Virtualization - z/VM
and z/Linux
 

w. (469)892-6660 
c. (214) 907-5071 

"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."


 



From: The IBM z/VM Operating System
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Schuh, Richard
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 2:59 PM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: CPOWNED Devices



Will it kill spool if I 
1. Reliable a spool disk and 
2. Chnge the entry in the cpowned list, replacing the old volser
with the new? 

Regards,
Richard Schuh 

Re: CPOWNED Devices

[Hodge, Robert L]

I've renamed spool volumes several times, four or more years ago, but a
force start was required. I don't recall whether it was VM/ESA or z/VM.
I would recommend a spool backup before attempting it. And if it is for
a production system, then schedule enough time to reload spool, if
necessary.



From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Schuh, Richard
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 2:36 PM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: CPOWNED Devices


Yes, but an experiment using those areas does not necessarily translate
to renaming of a spool volume. It would seem reasonable that renaming
would be OK, but it doesn't hurt to hear it from the Oracle. 
 
Regards, 
Richard Schuh 

 

 




From: The IBM z/VM Operating System
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bob Bates
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 1:29 PM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: CPOWNED Devices


I don't believe that will cause any problems. I've done it
recently with the checkpoint and warm start areas (renamed the volume
they are on) and was able to come up without a problem and find all my
spool files. As long as the volumes remain in the same slots, you should
be fine. 
 

Bob Bates 
Enterprise Hosting Services - Enterprise Virtualization - z/VM
and z/Linux
 

w. (469)892-6660 
c. (214) 907-5071 

"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."


 



From: The IBM z/VM Operating System
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Schuh, Richard
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 2:59 PM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: CPOWNED Devices



Will it kill spool if I 
1. Reliable a spool disk and 
2. Chnge the entry in the cpowned list, replacing the old volser
with the new? 

Regards,
Richard Schuh 

Re: CPOWNED Devices

[Schuh, Richard]

It might be easier to drain the volume, use SPFPACK to identify files
that are wholly or partially contained on it, and vacate it using a
combination of PURGE and SPXTAPE. If it is left drained and empty until
after the IPL that gets the new volser, it might not require the FORCE
start. The FORCE start probably deletes any files having at least one
block on the disk.  

Regards, 
Richard Schuh 

 

 




From: The IBM z/VM Operating System
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hodge, Robert L
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 1:47 PM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: CPOWNED Devices


I've renamed spool volumes several times, four or more years
ago, but a force start was required. I don't recall whether it was
VM/ESA or z/VM. I would recommend a spool backup before attempting it.
And if it is for a production system, then schedule enough time to
reload spool, if necessary.



From: The IBM z/VM Operating System
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Schuh, Richard
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 2:36 PM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: CPOWNED Devices


Yes, but an experiment using those areas does not necessarily
translate to renaming of a spool volume. It would seem reasonable that
renaming would be OK, but it doesn't hurt to hear it from the Oracle. 
 
Regards, 
Richard Schuh 

 

 




From: The IBM z/VM Operating System
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bob Bates
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 1:29 PM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: CPOWNED Devices


I don't believe that will cause any problems. I've done
it recently with the checkpoint and warm start areas (renamed the volume
they are on) and was able to come up without a problem and find all my
spool files. As long as the volumes remain in the same slots, you should
be fine. 
 

Bob Bates 
Enterprise Hosting Services - Enterprise Virtualization
- z/VM and z/Linux
 

w. (469)892-6660 
c. (214) 907-5071 

"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."


 



From: The IBM z/VM Operating System
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Schuh, Richard
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 2:59 PM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: CPOWNED Devices



Will it kill spool if I 
1. Reliable a spool disk and 
2. Chnge the entry in the cpowned list, replacing the
old volser with the new? 

Regards,
Richard Schuh 

Re: CPOWNED Devices

[John Franciscovich]

>I've renamed spool volumes several times, four or more years ago, but a
>force start was required. I don't recall whether it was VM/ESA or z/VM.
>I would recommend a spool backup before attempting it. And if it is for
>a production system, then schedule enough time to reload spool, if
>necessary.

A FORCE start will be required since the new CP_Owned list does not match
the CP_Owned list that was saved in the checkpoint area when you shut
down your system.

The spool files are restored from the warmstart area during IPL, so they
should be ok. You do risk losing information that was saved in the
checkpoint area that hasn't been processed by the time the difference
in the CP_Owned list is detected.

In any event, I agree that a spool file backup is a good idea before
attempting this change.

John Franciscovich
z/VM Development

Re: CPOWNED Devices

[Schuh, Richard]

The Oracle or one of its agents has spoken. Thanks, John. 

Would marking the disk as draining in the config file prevent the loss
of anything caused by the timing of the detection of the difference that
you describe? 

Another question, would backing up only files that are at least
partially contained on the disk be sufficient? We are talking about a
spool system that normally fluctuates between 7000 and 18000 files, many
of them quite large, and we are stuck with old tape technology (3 tapes
to contain a DDR of a 3390-03). It would be my luck that it would be the
higher number when my scheduled time arrived so that backing up the
entire spool would take quite a bit of time. 
 
I envision a process like this:

Before IPL (all can be done while the system is running)
1. DRAIN the disk, including update of SYSTEM CONFIG to indicate that it
was to be drained or draining at IPL.
2. Use SPFACK to identify files that have at least 1 block on the pack.
3. PURGE unnecessary files.
4. Use SPXTAPE DUMP/LOAD to move the remaining files to the other spool
volumes.
5. Reliable the pack.
6. Update the system config with the new volser. The pack would be left
in the draining state.

After IPL
1. FORCE start.
2. Update system config so that the disk is no longer draining.
3  Start the device.

Would that be safe enough? If so, it would minimize the down time, which
is a major consideration. I would also schedule the IPL to coincide with
already scheduled activities that require the system to be down. 


Regards, 
Richard Schuh 

 

> -Original Message-
> From: The IBM z/VM Operating System 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Franciscovich
> Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 2:09 PM
> To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
> Subject: Re: CPOWNED Devices
> 
> >I've renamed spool volumes several times, four or more years 
> ago, but a 
> >force start was required. I don't recall whether it was 
> VM/ESA or z/VM.
> >I would recommend a spool backup before attempting it. And 
> if it is for 
> >a production system, then schedule enough time to reload spool, if 
> >necessary.
> 
> A FORCE start will be required since the new CP_Owned list 
> does not match the CP_Owned list that was saved in the 
> checkpoint area when you shut down your system.
> 
> The spool files are restored from the warmstart area during 
> IPL, so they should be ok. You do risk losing information 
> that was saved in the checkpoint area that hasn't been 
> processed by the time the difference in the CP_Owned list is detected.
> 
> In any event, I agree that a spool file backup is a good idea 
> before attempting this change.
> 
> John Franciscovich
> z/VM Development
> 

Re: z/VM - Lightweight specific purpose file system

[Shimon Lebowitz]

>Why would the Microsoft Licensing be "tricky"? 
>Expensive perhaps as you need 
>one license per virtual machine, but not tricky...

Is this really true??? One per *virtual*, not *real*,
machine? If I were two run two 
copies of Windows on *one* PC, using e.g. VM-Ware,
I would be required to pay twice???

Just wondering, and surprised,
Shimon

Re: z/VM - Lightweight specific purpose file system

[Marcy Cortes]

I think I remember hearing that's how it worked here for Windows and
RedHat Linux too.  Not sure about SuSE Linux since we don't run that on
Intel.
My memory is getting full though and I don't page nearly as well as VM
so I could be mistaken!



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 Shimon Lebowitz
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 3:57 PM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: [IBMVM] z/VM - Lightweight specific purpose file system

>Why would the Microsoft Licensing be "tricky"? 
>Expensive perhaps as you need
>one license per virtual machine, but not tricky...

Is this really true??? One per *virtual*, not *real*, machine? If I were
two run two copies of Windows on *one* PC, using e.g. VM-Ware, I would
be required to pay twice???

Just wondering, and surprised,
Shimon

Re: z/VM - Lightweight specific purpose file system

[David Boyes]

> Is this really true??? One per *virtual*, not *real*,
> machine? If I were two run two
> copies of Windows on *one* PC, using e.g. VM-Ware,
> I would be required to pay twice???

Depends on what version of Windows. Some versions have restrictions on
where they can legally run, and there are limitations on virtual machine
deployments. MS got into a big fuss with Parallels on the Mac on whether
Vista was permitted to run at all, and you were expected to pay for each
virtual machine copy if it were permitted. 

So, yes, it matters. Parallels forked over a big pile of cash to buy MS
off. 

Re: z/VM - Lightweight specific purpose file system

[Jon Nolting]

With Windows Server standard edition, you would indeed pay for each Windows 
guest that ran on Intel virtualization including VMware, Xen, Virtual Server, 
or Hyper-V.  If a customer licenses Windows Server Enterprise Edition (EE) to a 
host server, that license will support from 1-4 guest Windows Server guests 
with 5-8 requiring another EE license, etc.  If you choose to license Data 
Center edition to that same host, you would be allowed unlimited Windows Server 
guests on that server.



Check out 
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/howtobuy/licensing/calculator.mspx 
and select calculator 2 to show the impact of different license models as the 
size of host and virtualization density changes.



Jon Nolting

EPG Compete - CATM

Enterprise Technology Architect

(425) 707-9334 (O)

(925) 381-2375 (M)

(425) 222-7969 (H)



-Original Message-
From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 
Shimon Lebowitz
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 3:57 PM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: z/VM - Lightweight specific purpose file system



>Why would the Microsoft Licensing be "tricky"?

>Expensive perhaps as you need

>one license per virtual machine, but not tricky...



Is this really true??? One per *virtual*, not *real*,

machine? If I were two run two

copies of Windows on *one* PC, using e.g. VM-Ware,

I would be required to pay twice???



Just wondering, and surprised,

Shimon

Re: Logoff vs. Force

[Phil Smith III]

"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.

Notwithstanding the suggestions to use CP SEND or CP FOR, I'd note that I'd be 
astonished to find a case where CP FORCE was less successful than CP SEND or CP 
FOR.  All FORCE does it set a bit saying "Next time you get around to it, start 
a LOGOFF for this VMDBK".

The only difference I can see is that if the guest is quasi-hung already, CP 
SEND or CP FOR might fail, leaving you at least no WORST off than FORCE.

CLASS A, mind you, is a big deal, so CP SEND/FOR do help with that issue.

...phsiii (Having V/FORCE flashbacks!!!)