Re: VTAM R.I.P.
Rob van der Heij [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote :- Z NET,QUICK Couldn't be 'QUICK' enough for us. We managed to eliminate it from VM by the middle of last year. We went back to using basic mode CTC connections to z/OS until they got themselves up to 1.7 with the ability to use TCPNJE. The interesting thing was that it was the huge cost of VTAM that was the main motivation for us. Given that the product was functionally stabilised and needed virtually zero support for a number of years we were struggling to see why. Once we looked at VTAM, and eliminated it, this led us to look at a number of other relatively high cost products that we have ways to eliminate, replace or reduce. I am not saying that we would not have looked at these anyway but the high cost of VTAM was the catalyst to start looking. Colin Allinson Amadeus Data Processing GmbH
Re: VTAM R.I.P.
I was basing that on what an MVS sysprog told me. I will stand by my stmt, tho, that HPO 4 was the most unstable operating system release I've seen in 41+ years of working in this racket. Also that it was one of the shortest lived releases. Jim Alan Altmark wrote: On Wednesday, 04/02/2008 at 09:30 EDT, Jim Bohnsack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: R4 was the release with native VTAM support. VTAM had been supported for a while with VS/1 or DOS/VS hosting VTAM but someone decided that GCS was the way to go. They took a gutted MVS/XA and quickly fitted it into VM. Nonsense. There is no more MVS/XA code in GCS than there is in CMS. Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott -- Jim Bohnsack Cornell University (607) 255-1760 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: VTAM R.I.P.
Gee, next it will be the high cost of z/OS that you will be looking at. How much do you save if you move an application from z/OS to z/Linux? Colin Allinson wrote: Rob van der Heij [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote :- Z NET,QUICK Couldn't be 'QUICK' enough for us. We managed to eliminate it from VM by the middle of last year. We went back to using basic mode CTC connections to z/OS until they got themselves up to 1.7 with the ability to use TCPNJE. The interesting thing was that it was the huge cost of VTAM that was the main motivation for us. Given that the product was functionally stabilised and needed virtually zero support for a number of years we were struggling to see why. Once we looked at VTAM, and eliminated it, this led us to look at a number of other relatively high cost products that we have ways to eliminate, replace or reduce. I am not saying that we would not have looked at these anyway but the high cost of VTAM was the catalyst to start looking. Colin Allinson Amadeus Data Processing GmbH
Re: VTAM R.I.P.
Yeah, it was a gutted OS/360 MFT system. MVS/XA was not even a gleam in its daddy's eye. Those first days of either a DOS or a VS1 system to run VTAM were the pits. I remember the announcement of VM/VTAM at Guide (my employer at the time viewed SHARE as a bunch of Hippies getting together to have a party, while Guide was for serious business people). That announcement was greeted with all the enthusiasm it deserved. People were either silent or they booed and hissed. And the presenters seemed shocked. Regards, Richard Schuh -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Alan Altmark Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 10:53 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: VTAM R.I.P. On Wednesday, 04/02/2008 at 09:30 EDT, Jim Bohnsack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: R4 was the release with native VTAM support. VTAM had been supported for a while with VS/1 or DOS/VS hosting VTAM but someone decided that GCS was the way to go. They took a gutted MVS/XA and quickly fitted it into VM. Nonsense. There is no more MVS/XA code in GCS than there is in CMS. Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott
Re: VTAM R.I.P.
Still have the VTAM cow here though it may have gone to its final lonely pasture. (NETVIEW, SAS and other cows are gone now). From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Colin Allinson Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 3:47 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: VTAM R.I.P. Rob van der Heij [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote :- Z NET,QUICK Couldn't be 'QUICK' enough for us. We managed to eliminate it from VM by the middle of last year. We went back to using basic mode CTC connections to z/OS until they got themselves up to 1.7 with the ability to use TCPNJE. The interesting thing was that it was the huge cost of VTAM that was the main motivation for us. Given that the product was functionally stabilised and needed virtually zero support for a number of years we were struggling to see why. Once we looked at VTAM, and eliminated it, this led us to look at a number of other relatively high cost products that we have ways to eliminate, replace or reduce. I am not saying that we would not have looked at these anyway but the high cost of VTAM was the catalyst to start looking. Colin Allinson Amadeus Data Processing GmbH * This communication, including attachments, is for the exclusive use of addressee and may contain proprietary, confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, copying, disclosure, dissemination or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, delete this communication and destroy all copies. *
Re: VTAM R.I.P.
VM/SP1 may have it beat. I remember the Vulture with the inscription VM/SP is waiting for you that Jim Bergsten created for it. We actually did not have much trouble with HPO4 at Piedmont Airlines. Compared to today's systems, it did have some stability issues; however, it was nowhere near as bad as SP1 or, for that matter, the earlier releases of VM. I remember some of the nightmares of the VM/370 Release 2 days. Regards, Richard Schuh -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jim Bohnsack Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 5:13 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: VTAM R.I.P. I was basing that on what an MVS sysprog told me. I will stand by my stmt, tho, that HPO 4 was the most unstable operating system release I've seen in 41+ years of working in this racket. Also that it was one of the shortest lived releases. Jim Alan Altmark wrote: On Wednesday, 04/02/2008 at 09:30 EDT, Jim Bohnsack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: R4 was the release with native VTAM support. VTAM had been supported for a while with VS/1 or DOS/VS hosting VTAM but someone decided that GCS was the way to go. They took a gutted MVS/XA and quickly fitted it into VM. Nonsense. There is no more MVS/XA code in GCS than there is in CMS. Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott -- Jim Bohnsack Cornell University (607) 255-1760 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: VTAM R.I.P.
None of those hold a candle to the shortly lived, thank God, VM/IS.
What an ill conceived, poorly implemented, piece-o-doodoo that was.
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 12:18 PM, Schuh, Richard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
VM/SP1 may have it beat. I remember the Vulture with the inscription
VM/SP is waiting for you that Jim Bergsten created for it. We actually
did not have much trouble with HPO4 at Piedmont Airlines. Compared to
today's systems, it did have some stability issues; however, it was
nowhere near as bad as SP1 or, for that matter, the earlier releases of
VM. I remember some of the nightmares of the VM/370 Release 2 days.
Regards,
Richard Schuh
-Original Message-
From: The IBM z/VM Operating System
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jim Bohnsack
Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 5:13 AM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: VTAM R.I.P.
I was basing that on what an MVS sysprog told me. I will
stand by my stmt, tho, that HPO 4 was the most unstable
operating system release I've seen in 41+ years of working in
this racket. Also that it was one of the shortest lived releases.
Jim
Alan Altmark wrote:
On Wednesday, 04/02/2008 at 09:30 EDT, Jim Bohnsack
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
R4 was the release
with native VTAM support. VTAM had been supported for a
while with
VS/1 or DOS/VS hosting VTAM but someone decided that GCS
was the way
to go. They took a gutted MVS/XA and quickly fitted it into VM.
Nonsense. There is no more MVS/XA code in GCS than there is in CMS.
Alan Altmark
z/VM Development
IBM Endicott
--
Jim Bohnsack
Cornell University
(607) 255-1760
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Mark Pace
Mainline Information Systems
Re: VTAM R.I.P.
I second that. VM/IS R4 - module replacement only. No service available, a manager was supposed to be able to install it. And I've never seen it on a historical timeline of VM. - Dave Hansen Hennepin County Mark Pace [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU To IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU cc 04/03/2008 11:49 AM Subject Re: VTAM R.I.P. Please respond to The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU None of those hold a candle to the shortly lived, thank God, VM/IS. What an ill conceived, poorly implemented, piece-o-doodoo that was. On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 12:18 PM, Schuh, Richard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: VM/SP1 may have it beat. I remember the Vulture with the inscription VM/SP is waiting for you that Jim Bergsten created for it. We actually did not have much trouble with HPO4 at Piedmont Airlines. Compared to today's systems, it did have some stability issues; however, it was nowhere near as bad as SP1 or, for that matter, the earlier releases of VM. I remember some of the nightmares of the VM/370 Release 2 days. Regards, Richard Schuh -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jim Bohnsack Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 5:13 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: VTAM R.I.P. I was basing that on what an MVS sysprog told me. I will stand by my stmt, tho, that HPO 4 was the most unstable operating system release I've seen in 41+ years of working in this racket. Also that it was one of the shortest lived releases. Jim Alan Altmark wrote: On Wednesday, 04/02/2008 at 09:30 EDT, Jim Bohnsack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: R4 was the release with native VTAM support. VTAM had been supported for a while with VS/1 or DOS/VS hosting VTAM but someone decided that GCS was the way to go. They took a gutted MVS/XA and quickly fitted it into VM. Nonsense. There is no more MVS/XA code in GCS than there is in CMS. Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott -- Jim Bohnsack Cornell University (607) 255-1760 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Mark Pace Mainline Information Systems Disclaimer: Information in this message or an attachment may be government data and thereby subject to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, may be subject to attorney-client or work product privilege, may be confidential, privileged, proprietary, or otherwise protected, and the unauthorized review, copying, retransmission, or other use or disclosure of the information is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please immediately notify the sender of the transmission error and then promptly delete this message from your computer system.
Re: VTAM R.I.P.
My recollection of SP and HPO 4 are probably tainted by the fact that were ran ESP code until it shipped GA. As bad as the ESP was, I'm surprised IBM went GA with it and it was only a few months before HPO 4.3 was announced. Jim Schuh, Richard wrote: VM/SP1 may have it beat. I remember the Vulture with the inscription VM/SP is waiting for you that Jim Bergsten created for it. We actually did not have much trouble with HPO4 at Piedmont Airlines. Compared to today's systems, it did have some stability issues; however, it was nowhere near as bad as SP1 or, for that matter, the earlier releases of VM. I remember some of the nightmares of the VM/370 Release 2 days.=20 Regards,=20 Richard Schuh=20 =20 -- Jim Bohnsack Cornell University (607) 255-1760 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Question about virtual tape in a zVM environment
Les and JR, Firstly : Thanks to gave me the info 'PMH 84921,004,000'. I asked our hardware to l ook at this. I don't have a feedback yet. Secondly : I was able to IPL our z/VM530 today and ... - from z/VM440, I ipled z/VM530 2nd lvl and did a test about the target : nothing changed. Problem still alive :( - I ipled z/VM530 1st lvl and did a test, then did it again and again to be absolutely sure. I washed my glasses and yes our problem disappeared. NO MORE PROBLEM !!! So it was not a hardware problem. Glad to see this has been corrected in the z/VM version. Regards Thanks to both for your contiguous support Alain Benveniste
Re: VTAM R.I.P.
On Thursday, 04/03/2008 at 11:58 EDT, Schuh, Richard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yeah, it was a gutted OS/360 MFT system. MVS/XA was not even a gleam in its daddy's eye. My unmade point: GCS was cloned from CMS as it existed in VM/SP 3. Additional code added to tighten file system security, support cross-virtual machine multitasking and to run applications in problem state is VM-written code. We did not import code from OS/360 MFT. I know this: I was there, writing the code for the GCS recovery machine, as well as working on DEB security in the OS simulation for READ, WRITE, POINT, GET, and PUT. Where the existing CMS MVS/SP (at the time) simulation was not sufficient to meet VTAM's and NetView's requirements, the GCS versions of those interfaces were updated with extra function. Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott
Re: VTAM R.I.P.
Whilst I never had the luxury of working in the labs I did do a lot of work on implementing code on GCS. When SP4 came out I was working for the University of Salford who at the time, in conjunction with IBM UK, produced a package of software and hardware that allowed VM to be connected to an X.25 network. The software consisted of service machine that was basically an X.25 switch, and which talked to X.25 via a Series/1 on the channel, and to other virtual machines via IUCV. When GCS and VTAM came out we modified the service machine to run in GCS. Initially it still talked to the Series/1 via the channel cards, but we then modified it to talk to X.25 via VTAM and NPSI. Appart from a few minor changes to WAITCB code and copying the LINEDIT code from CMS we made virtually no changes to the code to get it running on GCS. I am pretty sure we had access to the GCS source, (on fiche perhaps, my memory starts to fail at this point) and it looked very like the equivalent CMS code. What I really don't understand is why they didn't put more of the enhanced OS Support back into the original CMS. That would have been really usefull Dave P.S. still no VM at work. Corrupt HMC disks -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Alan Altmark Sent: 03 April 2008 20:22 To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: VTAM R.I.P. On Thursday, 04/03/2008 at 11:58 EDT, Schuh, Richard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yeah, it was a gutted OS/360 MFT system. MVS/XA was not even a gleam in its daddy's eye. My unmade point: GCS was cloned from CMS as it existed in VM/SP 3. Additional code added to tighten file system security, support cross-virtual machine multitasking and to run applications in problem state is VM-written code. We did not import code from OS/360 MFT. I know this: I was there, writing the code for the GCS recovery machine, as well as working on DEB security in the OS simulation for READ, WRITE, POINT, GET, and PUT. Where the existing CMS MVS/SP (at the time) simulation was not sufficient to meet VTAM's and NetView's requirements, the GCS versions of those interfaces were updated with extra function. Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott
Re: VTAM R.I.P.
With all the bad mouthing that poor old VTAM has been copping I will jump to its defence. Some of the most interesting things I got to play with were due to it and GCS. First off we modified our OS/PLI 2.3 source code and added some function to GCS such that we could write apps in proper multi-tasking PL/I. We created some VTAM support routines and we were able to create a system that allowed us to switch messages from our VSE systems to our Series/1 (yes we had these babies too). When we phased out the Series/1s, which were responsible for talking an async protocol to the racecourses around the state to combine pools, we used the DATE support of NPSI to bring that function into a virtual machine. I used to talk to VMSHARE using another GATE-based NPSI application. All this was written in PL/I and served us for years and made the company a lot of money. Now as far as the joys of NCP generation and VTAM topologies, and SNA protocols in general yes I am happy to live without them now. It reminds me of an ancient joke: John Akers answers the phone: Hello Caller: John Akers? JA: Yes. Caller: John Akers of IBM? JA: Yes. Caller: John Akers of IBM, White Plains? JA: Yes! Caller: John Akers of IBM, White Plains, NY, USA? JA: Yes, WTF do you want!!! Caller: Just wanted to let you know how it feels to set up an SNA session.
Re: VTAM R.I.P.
On Thursday, 04/03/2008 at 04:58 EDT, Dave Wade [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Whilst I never had the luxury of working in the labs I did do a lot of work on implementing code on GCS. When SP4 came out I was working for the University of Salford who at the time, in conjunction with IBM UK, produced a package of software and hardware that allowed VM to be connected to an X.25 network. The software consisted of service machine that was basically an X.25 switch, and which talked to X.25 via a Series/1 on the channel, and to other virtual machines via IUCV. When GCS and VTAM came out we modified the service machine to run in GCS. Initially it still talked to the Series/1 via the channel cards, but we then modified it to talk to X.25 via VTAM and NPSI. z/VM 5.3 is the end of the line for X25IPI, the SNA X.25 NPSI device driver for VM TCP/IP. Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott
Re: VTAM R.I.P.
I am not sure that you were defending VTAM. All of the interesting things that you did were done to overcome deficiencies. That seems quite the opposite of a defense. Regards, Richard Schuh -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Neale Ferguson Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 2:25 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: VTAM R.I.P. With all the bad mouthing that poor old VTAM has been copping I will jump to its defence. Some of the most interesting things I got to play with were due to it and GCS. First off we modified our OS/PLI 2.3 source code and added some function to GCS such that we could write apps in proper multi-tasking PL/I. We created some VTAM support routines and we were able to create a system that allowed us to switch messages from our VSE systems to our Series/1 (yes we had these babies too). When we phased out the Series/1s, which were responsible for talking an async protocol to the racecourses around the state to combine pools, we used the DATE support of NPSI to bring that function into a virtual machine. I used to talk to VMSHARE using another GATE-based NPSI application. All this was written in PL/I and served us for years and made the company a lot of money. Now as far as the joys of NCP generation and VTAM topologies, and SNA protocols in general yes I am happy to live without them now. It reminds me of an ancient joke: John Akers answers the phone: Hello Caller: John Akers? JA: Yes. Caller: John Akers of IBM? JA: Yes. Caller: John Akers of IBM, White Plains? JA: Yes! Caller: John Akers of IBM, White Plains, NY, USA? JA: Yes, WTF do you want!!! Caller: Just wanted to let you know how it feels to set up an SNA session.
Re: VTAM R.I.P.
Our management came up with: Per MIP Cost Analysis Environment Onetime Ongoing z/OS$7,300 $1,980 z/Linux $447$61 Of course, this does not include the cost of any Velocity Software products on z/VM :) -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Barton Robinson Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 12:38 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: VTAM R.I.P. Gee, next it will be the high cost of z/OS that you will be looking at. How much do you save if you move an application from z/OS to z/Linux? Colin Allinson wrote: Rob van der Heij [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote :- Z NET,QUICK Couldn't be 'QUICK' enough for us. We managed to eliminate it from VM by the middle of last year. We went back to using basic mode CTC connections to z/OS until they got themselves up to 1.7 with the ability to use TCPNJE. The interesting thing was that it was the huge cost of VTAM that was the main motivation for us. Given that the product was functionally stabilised and needed virtually zero support for a number of years we were struggling to see why. Once we looked at VTAM, and eliminated it, this led us to look at a number of other relatively high cost products that we have ways to eliminate, replace or reduce. I am not saying that we would not have looked at these anyway but the high cost of VTAM was the catalyst to start looking. Colin Allinson Amadeus Data Processing GmbH This email is intended for the recipient only. If you are not the intended recipient please disregard, and do not use the information for any purpose.
Re: VTAM R.I.P.
What type of things are you still using it for? On 4/3/08 5:52 PM, Burch, Aubrey Dennis CIV DISA GS4B [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Coincidentally, our contracting office called me today because we are planning to expand our VTAM license to an IFL LPAR. It appears VTAM is available for IFLs only via special pricing.
Re: VTAM R.I.P.
WOW, I really had no idea it would be this significant. No wonder IBM sales people don't sell Linux to replace z/OS. So conservatively, 90% reduction in costs for any application that moves? So about 5 mips (a p390 worth) would pay for any Velocity costs? Amazing. Said, Nick wrote: Our management came up with: Per MIP Cost Analysis Environment Onetime Ongoing z/OS $7,300 $1,980 z/Linux $447 $61 Of course, this does not include the cost of any Velocity Software products on z/VM :) -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Barton Robinson Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 12:38 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: VTAM R.I.P. Gee, next it will be the high cost of z/OS that you will be looking at. How much do you save if you move an application from z/OS to z/Linux? Colin Allinson wrote: Rob van der Heij [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote :- Z NET,QUICK Couldn't be 'QUICK' enough for us. We managed to eliminate it from VM by the middle of last year. We went back to using basic mode CTC connections to z/OS until they got themselves up to 1.7 with the ability to use TCPNJE. The interesting thing was that it was the huge cost of VTAM that was the main motivation for us. Given that the product was functionally stabilised and needed virtually zero support for a number of years we were struggling to see why. Once we looked at VTAM, and eliminated it, this led us to look at a number of other relatively high cost products that we have ways to eliminate, replace or reduce. I am not saying that we would not have looked at these anyway but the high cost of VTAM was the catalyst to start looking. Colin Allinson Amadeus Data Processing GmbH This email is intended for the recipient only. If you are not the intended recipient please disregard, and do not use the information for any purpose.
Re: VTAM R.I.P.
You certainly will not get any of the updates and enhancements that z/OS gets. The push here, not a very hard push, was to create a Linux instance that runs Comm. Server. It was easier and cheaper to convert our TPX users to TN3270 and our NJE links to TCPNJE. Regards, Richard Schuh -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Neale Ferguson Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 2:55 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: VTAM R.I.P. What type of things are you still using it for? On 4/3/08 5:52 PM, Burch, Aubrey Dennis CIV DISA GS4B [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Coincidentally, our contracting office called me today because we are planning to expand our VTAM license to an IFL LPAR. It appears VTAM is available for IFLs only via special pricing.
Re: VTAM R.I.P.
We have an elaborate remote logon architecture that requires VTAM for logins. It was designed with our dozens of z/OS LPARs in mind, and is the only *security-approved* logon access method for z/OS and z/VM. Telnet, even SSL, is no longer allowed in and out of our networks due to DOD port restrictions. I also use VTAM for SNANJE connections since I have it (along with the RSCS Communications feature). Denny -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Neale Ferguson Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 17:55 To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: VTAM R.I.P. What type of things are you still using it for? On 4/3/08 5:52 PM, Burch, Aubrey Dennis CIV DISA GS4B [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Coincidentally, our contracting office called me today because we are planning to expand our VTAM license to an IFL LPAR. It appears VTAM is available for IFLs only via special pricing.
Re: Question about virtual tape in a zVM environment
Les and JR, Firstly : Thanks to gave me the info 'PMH 84921,004,000'. I asked our hardware to l ook at this. I don't have a feedback yet. Secondly : I was able to IPL our z/VM530 today and ... - from z/VM440, I ipled z/VM530 2nd lvl and did a test about the target : nothing changed. Problem still alive :( - I ipled z/VM530 1st lvl and did a test, then did it again and again to be absolutely sure. I washed my glasses and yes our problem disappeared. NO MORE PROBLEM !!! So it was not a hardware problem. Glad to see this has been corrected in the z/VM version. There isn't anything in a newer release of z/VM that would change the behavior of this problem. It really is a hardware problem. This problem only occurs when you use VOLSPECIFIC as a target category on a mount request. Best Regards, Les Geer IBM z/VM and Linux Development
Re: Question about virtual tape in a zVM environment
Hmmm ... Les, Alain did say z/VM FOUR.FOUR ... it's for sure there are likely CP changes (DIAG 254 things come to mind) that might effect this behavior in some way ... again keeping in mind his HOST is running z/VM 4.4.0 (except for the test when everything WORKED! [when he had z/VM 5.3 running 1st level in addition to his test guest system]). In any case, I have no way to go back to prove this ... all our hosts are z/VM 5.3 and we generally are running the GA release of z/VM at GA for all our hosts. So it's been a LONG time since we've had z/VM 4.anything as top dog. JR JR (Steven) Imler CA Senior Software Engineer Tel: +1 703 708 3479 Fax: +1 703 708 3267 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Les Geer (607-429-3580) Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 08:42 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Question about virtual tape in a zVM environment Les and JR, Firstly : Thanks to gave me the info 'PMH 84921,004,000'. I asked our hardware to l ook at this. I don't have a feedback yet. Secondly : I was able to IPL our z/VM530 today and ... - from z/VM440, I ipled z/VM530 2nd lvl and did a test about the target : nothing changed. Problem still alive :( - I ipled z/VM530 1st lvl and did a test, then did it again and again to be absolutely sure. I washed my glasses and yes our problem disappeared. NO MORE PROBLEM !!! So it was not a hardware problem. Glad to see this has been corrected in the z/VM version. There isn't anything in a newer release of z/VM that would change the behavior of this problem. It really is a hardware problem. This problem only occurs when you use VOLSPECIFIC as a target category on a mount request. Best Regards, Les Geer IBM z/VM and Linux Development
Randy Burton is out of the office on Fri. 4/4/2008
I will be out of the office starting 04/03/2008 and will not return until 04/07/2008. I will be out of the office on Fri. 4/4, returning on Mon. 4/7. I will have no access to Email or voice mail. If you need assistance while I am out, please contact Scott Hutula ([EMAIL PROTECTED], 704-427-1924).
