Re: programmer biographies (was a long time ago: Immediate instructions )
I want to apologize to everyone for unintentionally kicking off a litany of personal histories. :-) I was just trying to raise awareness that time has marched on and that what we all have taken as gospel for decades is no longer de rigeur for assembler coders. Talking about how one learns new instructions was, uh, instructional, but we've veered rather far afield from even that tangent. In IBM we (by we I mean a few of us) have a saying: All discussions devolve to BYTE8406. BYTE8406 was the name of a 1980s-era TOOLSRUN-based forum which was the ultimate repository for I remember when :-) It is good to know that this this isn't particular to IBM. I'm sure *someone* will speak up and say, Well *I* worked on a Babbage's first difference engine. Knew the man well. He was a geek's geek. Whoever speaks up, my hat's off to you. You win! Regards, Alan Alan Altmark Sr. Software Engineer IBM z/VM Development
Re: cp_owned .v. user_volume
Thanks Alan. i -- Original Message -- Received: Tue, 05 Aug 2008 03:21:41 AM BST From: Alan Ackerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: cp_owned .v. user_volume On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 18:26:14 +0100, Ian S. Worthington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2008/8/4 Ian S. Worthington [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'm slightly confused by the difference between a volume being cp_owned (which I think it needs to be if its page, spool, disk, ...), and in the user_volume list, which seems to be where it needs to be if its perm -- at least if I want the system to attach it for me. What's the difference I'm missing here? Others have explained about CP Owned versus ATTACH TO SYSTEM volumes. There are also user volumes that are dedicated to a specific user. These are dedicated by DEDICATE in the user directory or ATTACH to user. They don't have minidisks. (Well, if they are dedicated to a VM guest, they can have minidisks at the guest level, but the top level VM does not use them for minidisks.) We use them mostly for z/OS guests. Alan Ackerman Alan (dot) Ackerman (at) Bank of America (dot) com
Re: Immediate instructions (was nonames)
You were 11 years old and had the Chicken Pox? Regards, Richard Schuh -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Alan Ackerman Sent: Monday, August 04, 2008 7:40 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Immediate instructions (was nonames) 1620 FORTRAN II, 1620 Assembler, 1620 FORTRAN II-D, 1440 Autocoder and IO= CDS, 1130 FORTRAN, 1130 Assembler, S/370 Assembler, some version of COBOL, EXEC, SA= S, CLIST, Script and GML, ISPF, EXEC2, REXX, CMS Pipelines, FORTRAN whatever (Y2K effort), HT= ML. I read the whole POP once, when it was small and I was sick in bed. No, I'm not going to say when. You have to figure that out for yourself. Alan Ackerman Alan (dot) Ackerman (at) Bank of America (dot) com
Some IBM Announcements for z/OS, z/VM, z/VSE (Aug 5, 2008)
For the participants of IBMVM, LINUX-390, and IBMMAIN who are interested in z/OS, z/VM, and z/VSE... The following announcements were made today IBM z/VM V5.4 - Extending virtualization technology for System z IBM z/OS V1.10 offers new scalability, performance, availability, economics, and solutions for enterprise information IBM z/VSE Version 4 Release 2 is generally available to help enable growth IBM C/C++ for z/VM V1.2 supports the latest programming standards You can find the ann-let text on your favorite geo announcement site, or you can also look on the z/VM site info/changes page. http://www.vm.ibm.com/siteinfo/change.html Enjoy! Regards, Pam C
Re: ADD VIRTUAL MEMORY DYNAMICALLY
On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 16:17:15 -0500, Bill Holder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrot e: To address the question of adding Linux real memory dynamically: The z/Linux support for dynamic addition of real memory has been provide d to the open source community fairly recently. (I don't know the exact date. ) When that support becomes generally available is up to the open source community and the commercial distributors of Linux. There is no support for dynamically adding real memory to z/VM itself or dynamically increasing the guest real memory (that is, DEF STOR memory) for guest of z/VM in any announced release of z/VM. - Bill Holder z/VM Development, IBM = === As of this morning's announcement of z/VM 5.4.0, z/VM support for dynamic addition of storage to z/VM itself, as well as dynamic addition and removal of storage to/from z/VM guests (if supported by the guest operating system) is now announced. - Bill Holder z/VM Development, IBM
Re: Portable z/VM help?
Have a look at IBM Softcopy Librarian and IBM Softcopy Reader (both free): http://www-306.ibm.com/software/applications/office/bkmgr/librarian.html http://www-306.ibm.com/software/applications/office/bkmgr/softcopyread.html You need Windows with Java for both. The Librarian lets you download (or import from CDs) and maintain the manuals in repository on your PC (and copy or sync that repository to a network location), while Reader lets you search and, well, read them. Both support manuals in BookManager and PDF format. I keep everything I might ever want for multiple releases of operating systems and accompanying products on my laptop and it's indeed well worth the space. BTW and OT, both these products being in Java and Softcopy Reader having a Linux version as well, one might hope there would be a Mac version at some time in the not too distant future. But then again, one may always be hopelessly naive and optimistic... Ivica
Re: Some IBM Announcements for z/OS, z/VM, z/VSE (Aug 5, 2008)
I was interested in the ability to add memory to an LPAR because we have 2 LPARs that are used infrequently and it would be nice to add their storage to VM. Then I saw this, z/VM does not support the release of real storage. Once storage has been added to a running z/VM configuration, it cannot be removed without a z/VM system shutdown, LPAR deactivation and reactivation, and z/VM system IPL. It did not take long for my bubble to burst. The new capability is absolutely useless to us. Nice boilerplate to show in sales pitches to management, perhaps, but no practical value here. Our VM is as close to 24 X 365.25 as we can make it. Taking it down to reconfigure the storage is unacceptable. Regards, Richard Schuh -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Pamela Christina in warm sunny Endicott NY Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 8:59 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Some IBM Announcements for z/OS, z/VM, z/VSE (Aug 5, 2008) For the participants of IBMVM, LINUX-390, and IBMMAIN who are interested in z/OS, z/VM, and z/VSE... The following announcements were made today IBM z/VM V5.4 - Extending virtualization technology for System z IBM z/OS V1.10 offers new scalability, performance, availability, economics, and solutions for enterprise information IBM z/VSE Version 4 Release 2 is generally available to help enable growth IBM C/C++ for z/VM V1.2 supports the latest programming standards You can find the ann-let text on your favorite geo announcement site, or you can also look on the z/VM site info/changes page. http://www.vm.ibm.com/siteinfo/change.html Enjoy! Regards, Pam C
Re: z/VM 5.4 Workloads
All it takes is programming. As a friend used to say, Given enough time and bananas, anything is possible. Regards, Richard Schuh From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lionel B. Dyck Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 9:52 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: z/VM 5.4 Workloads This is an interesting bullet in the announcement: Moving selected Linux, Windows(r), and UNIX(r) workloads to a single System z server: Moving workloads while maintaining distinct server images and current LAN topology can help reduce systems-management complexity. By managing large server farms deployed on virtual servers instead of using multiple hardware servers, the number of real hardware servers and associated physical LANs may be reduced, which may lead to cost savings. Deploying Linux workloads on z/VM V5.4 may be particularly attractive if they interact with applications or data located on the same System z server. Is IBM pre-announcing the ability to run Windows programs on System z? :-) Lionel B. Dyck, Consultant/Specialist Enterprise Platform Services, Mainframe Engineering KP-IT Enterprise Engineering 925-926-5332 (8-473-5332) | E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] AIM: lbdyck | Yahoo IM: lbdyck Kaiser Service Credo: Our cause is health. Our passion is service. We're here to make lives better. I never guess. It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts. - Sir Arthur Conan Doyle NOTICE TO RECIPIENT: If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are prohibited from sharing, copying, or otherwise using or disclosing its contents. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments without reading, forwarding or saving them. Thank you.
Re: programmer biographies (was a long time ago: Immediate instructions )
On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 2:06 AM, in message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Alan Altmark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -snip- I'm sure *someone* will speak up and say, Well *I* worked on a Babbage's first difference engine. Knew the man well. He was a geek's geek. Whoever speaks up, my hat's off to you. You win! It's more likely someone will have claimed to helped build Stonehenge, or aligned the pyramids, or Mark Post
Re: ADD VIRTUAL MEMORY DYNAMICALLY
Yes, it can add, but not subtract without LPAR deactivation. Let me know when the ability to dynamically remove previously added storage is available, and I will be more enthusiastic. Regards, Richard Schuh -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Holder Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 9:09 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: ADD VIRTUAL MEMORY DYNAMICALLY On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 16:17:15 -0500, Bill Holder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrot= e: To address the question of adding Linux real memory dynamically: The z/Linux support for dynamic addition of real memory has been provide= d to the open source community fairly recently. (I don't know the exact date.= ) When that support becomes generally available is up to the open source community and the commercial distributors of Linux. There is no support for dynamically adding real memory to z/VM itself or= dynamically increasing the guest real memory (that is, DEF STOR memory) for guest of z/VM in any announced release of z/VM. - Bill Holder z/VM Development, IBM = == === As of this morning's announcement of z/VM 5.4.0, z/VM support for dynamic addition of storage to z/VM itself, as well as dynamic addition and removal of storage to/from z/VM guests (if supported by the guest operating system) is now announced. - Bill Holder z/VM Development, IBM
Re: z/VM 5.4 Workloads
Can someone point me to the source of the announcement excerpt below? --. .- .-. -.-- Gary Dennis Mantissa Corporation On 8/5/08 11:51 AM, Lionel B. Dyck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is an interesting bullet in the announcement: Moving selected Linux, Windows®, and UNIX® workloads to a single System z server: Moving workloads while maintaining distinct server images and current LAN topology can help reduce systems-management complexity. By managing large server farms deployed on virtual servers instead of using multiple hardware servers, the number of real hardware servers and associated physical LANs may be reduced, which may lead to cost savings. Deploying Linux workloads on z/VM V5.4 may be particularly attractive if they interact with applications or data located on the same System z server. Is IBM pre-announcing the ability to run Windows programs on System z? :-) Lionel B. Dyck, Consultant/Specialist Enterprise Platform Services, Mainframe Engineering KP-IT Enterprise Engineering 925-926-5332 (8-473-5332) | E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] AIM: lbdyck | Yahoo IM: lbdyck Kaiser Service Credo: Our cause is health. Our passion is service. We're here to make lives better. I never guess. It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts. - Sir Arthur Conan Doyle NOTICE TO RECIPIENT: If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are prohibited from sharing, copying, or otherwise using or disclosing its contents. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments without reading, forwarding or saving them. Thank you.
Re: z/VM 5.4 Workloads
Gary, it's here (and watch for line wraps): http://www-01.ibm.com/common/ssi/index.wss?DocURL=http://www-01.ibm.com/common/ssi/rep_ca/9/897/ENUS208-249/index.htmlInfoType=ANInfoSubType=CAInfoDesc=Announcement+Letterspanelurl=index.wss%3Fpaneltext=Announcement%20letter%20search It's about 1/3 the way down the page. Gary M. Dennis wrote: Can someone point me to the source of the announcement excerpt below? --. .- .-. -.-- Gary Dennis Mantissa Corporation On 8/5/08 11:51 AM, Lionel B. Dyck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is an interesting bullet in the announcement: Moving selected Linux, Windows®, and UNIX® workloads to a single System z server: Moving workloads while maintaining distinct server images and current LAN topology can help reduce systems-management complexity. By managing large server farms deployed on virtual servers instead of using multiple hardware servers, the number of real hardware servers and associated physical LANs may be reduced, which may lead to cost savings. Deploying Linux workloads on z/VM V5.4 may be particularly attractive if they interact with applications or data located on the same System z server. Is IBM pre-announcing the ability to run Windows programs on System z? :-) Lionel B. Dyck, Consultant/Specialist Enterprise Platform Services, Mainframe Engineering KP-IT Enterprise Engineering 925-926-5332 (8-473-5332) | E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] AIM: lbdyck | Yahoo IM: lbdyck Kaiser Service Credo: Our cause is health. Our passion is service. We're here to make lives better. I never guess. It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts. - Sir Arthur Conan Doyle NOTICE TO RECIPIENT: If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are prohibited from sharing, copying, or otherwise using or disclosing its contents. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments without reading, forwarding or saving them. Thank you. -- DJ V/Soft z/VM and mainframe Linux expertise, training, consulting, and software development www.vsoft-software.com
Re: z/VM 5.4 Workloads
http://www.ibm.com/common/ssi/cgi-bin/ssialias?infotype=ansubtype=caappname=gpateamsupplier=897letternum=ENUS208-249 Gary M. Dennis wrote: Can someone point me to the source of the announcement excerpt below? --. .- .-. -.-- Gary Dennis Mantissa Corporation On 8/5/08 11:51 AM, Lionel B. Dyck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is an interesting bullet in the announcement: *Moving selected Linux, Windows®, and UNIX® workloads to a single System z server:* Moving workloads while maintaining distinct server images and current LAN topology can help reduce systems-management complexity. By managing large server farms deployed on virtual servers instead of using multiple hardware servers, the number of real hardware servers and associated physical LANs may be reduced, which may lead to cost savings. Deploying Linux workloads on z/VM V5.4 may be particularly attractive if they interact with applications or data located on the same System z server. Is IBM pre-announcing the ability to run Windows programs on System z? :-) *Lionel B. Dyck, Consultant/Specialist *Enterprise Platform Services, Mainframe Engineering KP-IT Enterprise Engineering 925-926-5332 (8-473-5332) | E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] AIM: lbdyck *|* Yahoo IM: lbdyck /Kaiser Service Credo: Our cause is health. Our passion is service. We're here to make lives better. // I never guess. It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts. - Sir Arthur Conan Doyle /* NOTICE TO RECIPIENT: *If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are prohibited from sharing, copying, or otherwise using or disclosing its contents. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments without reading, forwarding or saving them. Thank you. -- Rich Smrcina VM Assist, Inc. Phone: 414-491-6001 Ans Service: 360-715-2467 rich.smrcina at vmassist.com http://www.linkedin.com/in/richsmrcina Catch the WAVV! http://www.wavv.org WAVV 2009 - Orlando, FL - May 15-19, 2009
Re: Some IBM Announcements for z/OS, z/VM, z/VSE (Aug 5, 2008)
On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 12:38 PM, in message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Schuh, Richard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -snip- The new capability is absolutely useless to us. Nice boilerplate to show in sales pitches to management, perhaps, but no practical value here. Our VM is as close to 24 X 365.25 as we can make it. Taking it down to reconfigure the storage is unacceptable. Just because you view it as unusable, doesn't mean it is unusable for everyone. This is most definitely not a marketing stunt. There were a number of people at the z/VM and Linux Train the Trainer meetings last week that saw this as a very good thing for a number of their customers. If your company decides to buy more real storage, for example, you will be able to add some or all of it to your z/VM system without disruption. Would that be useless to you? Mark Post
Re: ADD VIRTUAL MEMORY DYNAMICALLY
Uh, I've never seen Linux use LESS memory. It always wants more. :) I'm happy with the ability to add memory. MA On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 12:58 PM, Schuh, Richard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, it can add, but not subtract without LPAR deactivation. Let me know when the ability to dynamically remove previously added storage is available, and I will be more enthusiastic. Regards, Richard Schuh -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Holder Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 9:09 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: ADD VIRTUAL MEMORY DYNAMICALLY On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 16:17:15 -0500, Bill Holder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrot= e: To address the question of adding Linux real memory dynamically: The z/Linux support for dynamic addition of real memory has been provide= d to the open source community fairly recently. (I don't know the exact date.= ) When that support becomes generally available is up to the open source community and the commercial distributors of Linux. There is no support for dynamically adding real memory to z/VM itself or= dynamically increasing the guest real memory (that is, DEF STOR memory) for guest of z/VM in any announced release of z/VM. - Bill Holder z/VM Development, IBM = == === As of this morning's announcement of z/VM 5.4.0, z/VM support for dynamic addition of storage to z/VM itself, as well as dynamic addition and removal of storage to/from z/VM guests (if supported by the guest operating system) is now announced. - Bill Holder z/VM Development, IBM
Re: z/VM 5.4 Workloads
On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 12:51 PM, in message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Lionel B. Dyck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -snip- Is IBM pre-announcing the ability to run Windows programs on System z? :-) Smiley notwithstanding, of course not, just the workload they represent. Although if the folks from Mantissa succeed, it may well become possible. Mark Post
Re: z/VM 5.4 Workloads
And found as well in the z/VM General Information version 5 release 4 (GC24-6095-08) pointed to by Pam's post: http://www.vm.ibm.com/pubs/hcsf8b31.pdf last bullet, at the bottom of page 7. Mike Walter Hewitt Associates Any opinions expressed herein are mine alone and do not necessarily represent the opinions or policies of Hewitt Associates. Rich Smrcina [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU 08/05/2008 12:07 PM Please respond to The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU To IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU cc Subject Re: z/VM 5.4 Workloads http://www.ibm.com/common/ssi/cgi-bin/ssialias?infotype=ansubtype=caappname=gpateamsupplier=897letternum=ENUS208-249 Gary M. Dennis wrote: Can someone point me to the source of the announcement excerpt below? --. .- .-. -.-- Gary Dennis Mantissa Corporation On 8/5/08 11:51 AM, Lionel B. Dyck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is an interesting bullet in the announcement: *Moving selected Linux, Windows®, and UNIX® workloads to a single System z server:* Moving workloads while maintaining distinct server images and current LAN topology can help reduce systems-management complexity. By managing large server farms deployed on virtual servers instead of using multiple hardware servers, the number of real hardware servers and associated physical LANs may be reduced, which may lead to cost savings. Deploying Linux workloads on z/VM V5.4 may be particularly attractive if they interact with applications or data located on the same System z server. Is IBM pre-announcing the ability to run Windows programs on System z? :-) *Lionel B. Dyck, Consultant/Specialist *Enterprise Platform Services, Mainframe Engineering KP-IT Enterprise Engineering 925-926-5332 (8-473-5332) | E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] AIM: lbdyck *|* Yahoo IM: lbdyck /Kaiser Service Credo: Our cause is health. Our passion is service. We're here to make lives better. // I never guess. It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts. - Sir Arthur Conan Doyle /* NOTICE TO RECIPIENT: *If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are prohibited from sharing, copying, or otherwise using or disclosing its contents. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments without reading, forwarding or saving them. Thank you. -- Rich Smrcina VM Assist, Inc. Phone: 414-491-6001 Ans Service: 360-715-2467 rich.smrcina at vmassist.com http://www.linkedin.com/in/richsmrcina Catch the WAVV! http://www.wavv.org WAVV 2009 - Orlando, FL - May 15-19, 2009 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: cp_owned .v. user_volume
CP will, mercifully, not allow you to DETACH the CP OWNED volumes from SYSTEM. You can DETACH all other volumes if there are no active links to them. Also, if you have a guest that wants to attach some disks by virtue of DEDICATE directory statement, that guest will like those disks FREE, so you may want to exclude them from the user volume list or detach them from SYSTEM by some other means before the said guest comes up. If you want to keep your user volume list simple, you can do the detach work in AUTOLOGx user for example. Ivica
Re: z/VM 5.4 Workloads
Key word: selected. You've been able to do this for a while -- .Net stuff with Mono, ASP stuff with various toolkits, etc. Nothing new here. *Moving selected Linux, Windows(r), and UNIX(r) workloads to a single System z server
Re: z/VM 5.4 Workloads
I think IBM isn't pre-announcing Windows on z, it's just encouraging customers to convert selected Windohs servers into Linux virtual servers that provide the same services (email, etc) This e-mail, including any attachments, may be confidential, privileged or otherwise legally protected. It is intended only for the addressee. If you received this e-mail in error or from someone who was not authorized to send it to you, do not disseminate, copy or otherwise use this e-mail or its attachments. Please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete the e-mail from your system. From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lionel B. Dyck Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 12:52 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: z/VM 5.4 Workloads This is an interesting bullet in the announcement: Moving selected Linux, Windows(r), and UNIX(r) workloads to a single System z server: Moving workloads while maintaining distinct server images and current LAN topology can help reduce systems-management complexity. By managing large server farms deployed on virtual servers instead of using multiple hardware servers, the number of real hardware servers and associated physical LANs may be reduced, which may lead to cost savings. Deploying Linux workloads on z/VM V5.4 may be particularly attractive if they interact with applications or data located on the same System z server. Is IBM pre-announcing the ability to run Windows programs on System z? :-) Lionel B. Dyck, Consultant/Specialist Enterprise Platform Services, Mainframe Engineering KP-IT Enterprise Engineering 925-926-5332 (8-473-5332) | E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] AIM: lbdyck | Yahoo IM: lbdyck Kaiser Service Credo: Our cause is health. Our passion is service. We're here to make lives better. I never guess. It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts. - Sir Arthur Conan Doyle NOTICE TO RECIPIENT: If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are prohibited from sharing, copying, or otherwise using or disclosing its contents. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments without reading, forwarding or saving them. Thank you.
Re: z/VM 5.4 Workloads
I was lucky. We had a different management when I convinced them to covert from OS/2 to z/VM and Linux. At first, there was one person who wanted the conversion to be windoze based , but we converted him. If it would have been the last management team it would be all windoze with no hope, in fact there was talk of getting rid of the mainframe Mace From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Romanowski, John (OFT) Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 1:40 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: z/VM 5.4 Workloads I think IBM isn't pre-announcing Windows on z, it's just encouraging customers to convert selected Windohs servers into Linux virtual servers that provide the same services (email, etc) This e-mail, including any attachments, may be confidential, privileged or otherwise legally protected. It is intended only for the addressee. If you received this e-mail in error or from someone who was not authorized to send it to you, do not disseminate, copy or otherwise use this e-mail or its attachments. Please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete the e-mail from your system. From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lionel B. Dyck Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 12:52 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: z/VM 5.4 Workloads This is an interesting bullet in the announcement: Moving selected Linux, Windows(r), and UNIX(r) workloads to a single System z server: Moving workloads while maintaining distinct server images and current LAN topology can help reduce systems-management complexity. By managing large server farms deployed on virtual servers instead of using multiple hardware servers, the number of real hardware servers and associated physical LANs may be reduced, which may lead to cost savings. Deploying Linux workloads on z/VM V5.4 may be particularly attractive if they interact with applications or data located on the same System z server. Is IBM pre-announcing the ability to run Windows programs on System z? :-) Lionel B. Dyck, Consultant/Specialist Enterprise Platform Services, Mainframe Engineering KP-IT Enterprise Engineering 925-926-5332 (8-473-5332) | E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] AIM: lbdyck | Yahoo IM: lbdyck Kaiser Service Credo: Our cause is health. Our passion is service. We're here to make lives better. I never guess. It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts. - Sir Arthur Conan Doyle NOTICE TO RECIPIENT: If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are prohibited from sharing, copying, or otherwise using or disclosing its contents. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments without reading, forwarding or saving them. Thank you. - The information transmitted is intended solely for the individual 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 action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this email in error please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.
Re: z/VM 5.4 Workloads
Our previous management wanted Windows only also. They even had a hardware and software group lined up to convert all the z/OS systems to equivalent Windows systems (some sort of automated process). Luckily for us, MF Tech Services was allowed to ask questions (in writing). They had few answers. (Q: How to debug a failure after the fact? A: recompile the application with debugging turned on, then single step until the error occurs again.) Current management likes AIX (or so it seems). z/OS is still slated to be sun setted, but with no time frame. I try to pitch z/VM and z/Linux (we do have some RH/Intel systems), but nobody seems to want to hear. -- John McKown Senior Systems Programmer HealthMarkets Keeping the Promise of Affordable Coverage Administrative Services Group Information Technology This message (including any attachments) contains confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose, and its content is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this message and are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this transmission, or taking any action based on it, is strictly prohibited. From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Macioce, Larry Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 12:48 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: z/VM 5.4 Workloads I was lucky. We had a different management when I convinced them to covert from OS/2 to z/VM and Linux. At first, there was one person who wanted the conversion to be windoze based , but we converted him. If it would have been the last management team it would be all windoze with no hope, in fact there was talk of getting rid of the mainframe Mace
Re: ADD VIRTUAL MEMORY DYNAMICALLY
Ah, but our Linux workloads are in different LPARs, each running its own z/VM system. Our main workload is on the system that requires the near full-time availability of VM. It is the system that recently hosted 140 concurrent TPF guests ranging in size from a minimum of 900MB to a maximum of 10GB. The future will see more of the sizes in the multiple GB range as we convert systems to z/TPF. That is the VM that could benefit from the ability to borrow storage from an unused LPAR during peak loads and give it back in the off hours. As it is, we have two LPARs that are reserved for native TPF testing. They are idle most of the time and are rarely activated during the peak load periods on the VM LPAR. They have a lot of memory that is as idle as are they. Try as you might, you have not changed my opinion. And I am not trying to change yours. Our circumstances, our problems, are different than yours. I think the feature could be improved, and that I will not be able to use it as announced. I think it is half of a solution to a problem that we have encountered in the past and will encounter again. Having the full solution would be very useful here. It would prevent the need for memory upgrades by allowing us to share that memory that now sits idle. There is a reason it sits idle, it prevents us from having to deactivate our VM LPAR to reconfigure memory so that we can run the TPF native LPARs. Right now, our only option is to have several GB of storage reserved for the native LPARs. Regards, Richard Schuh From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mary Anne Matyaz Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 10:25 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: ADD VIRTUAL MEMORY DYNAMICALLY Uh, I've never seen Linux use LESS memory. It always wants more. :) I'm happy with the ability to add memory. MA On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 12:58 PM, Schuh, Richard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, it can add, but not subtract without LPAR deactivation. Let me know when the ability to dynamically remove previously added storage is available, and I will be more enthusiastic. Regards, Richard Schuh -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Holder Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 9:09 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: ADD VIRTUAL MEMORY DYNAMICALLY On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 16:17:15 -0500, Bill Holder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrot= e: To address the question of adding Linux real memory dynamically: The z/Linux support for dynamic addition of real memory has been provide= d to the open source community fairly recently. (I don't know the exact date.= ) When that support becomes generally available is up to the open source community and the commercial distributors of Linux. There is no support for dynamically adding real memory to z/VM itself or= dynamically increasing the guest real memory (that is, DEF STOR memory) for guest of z/VM in any announced release of z/VM. - Bill Holder z/VM Development, IBM = == === As of this morning's announcement of z/VM 5.4.0, z/VM support for dynamic addition of storage to z/VM itself, as well as dynamic addition and removal of storage to/from z/VM guests (if supported by the guest operating system) is now announced. - Bill Holder z/VM Development, IBM
Re: programmer biographies (was a long time ago: Immediate instructions )
Alan Altmark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -snip- I'm sure *someone* will speak up and say, Well *I* worked on a Babbage's first difference engine. Knew the man well. He was a geek's geek. Whoever speaks up, my hat's off to you. You win! It's more likely someone will have claimed to helped build Stonehenge, or aligned the pyramids, or Well, this light thing worked out OK in the labs, so we kicked it upstairs to the Big Guy for product announcement. The customer tests with the Let There Be Light campaign seemed positive, so we told him to run with it... 8-)
Draft redbook: z/VM and Linux on IBM System z: The Virtualization Cookbook for SLES 10 SP2
Hello list, I am pleased to announce a new draft IBM Redbook on the Web at: http://www.redbooks.ibm.com/redpieces/abstracts/sg247493.html?Open A number of sections have been updated or changed from the current version that is on http://linuxvm.org/present : -The z/VM sections are updated from v5.2 to 5.4. -The Novell/Suse Linux sections are updated from SLES 10 vanilla to SLES 10 SP2. -The Linux system that is cloned is called golden image instead of master image. -The controller and the golden image are installed onto two separate user IDs, not on the same user ID. -The clone.sh script is adapted to require a from (source) user ID, to copy the 100 and 101 minidisks, and the code is hopefully cleaner. -The file system layout recommends two 3390-3s (100 and 101) instead of just one (100) and implements logical volumes for more adaptable file systems. -A section was added on Cooperative Memory Management - CMM1. The release of this book also removes some sections to help expedite getting it out the door: -The DAZL application has been removed. -The Backup and Restore chapter has been removed. Thanks to all who helped make this possible, especially, Lydia Parziale, Roy Costa and Marian Gasparovic of IBM's ITSO and Mark Post of Novell. Also, Brad Hinson of Red Hat did most of the work updating a counterpart RHEL 5.2 book which is hopefully not far behind (we're currently running one more usability test on it). Enjoy. Feedback is welcome. Mike MacIsaac [EMAIL PROTECTED] (845) 433-7061
Re: Some IBM Announcements for z/OS, z/VM, z/VSE (Aug 5, 2008)
Can't happen on the current machine without adding a book. If that happens, it is not likely that any of the storage would be left unassigned to one LPAR or another, so yes, it would still be useless to me. We still would be looked on with disfavor by our users and management if we had to once again schedule VM outages to remove borrowed storage. I do not deny that it may be useful to some, but since I was not consulted during the design of this, I thought that I might give IBM an idea about another enhancement that would make the product even more useful and attractive. Regards, Richard Schuh -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Post Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 10:12 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Some IBM Announcements for z/OS, z/VM, z/VSE (Aug 5, 2008) On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 12:38 PM, in message [EMAIL PROTECTED] , Schuh, Richard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -snip- The new capability is absolutely useless to us. Nice boilerplate to show in sales pitches to management, perhaps, but no practical value here. Our VM is as close to 24 X 365.25 as we can make it. Taking it down to reconfigure the storage is unacceptable. Just because you view it as unusable, doesn't mean it is unusable for everyone. This is most definitely not a marketing stunt. There were a number of people at the z/VM and Linux Train the Trainer meetings last week that saw this as a very good thing for a number of their customers. If your company decides to buy more real storage, for example, you will be able to add some or all of it to your z/VM system without disruption. Would that be useless to you? Mark Post
Re: Error in SMAPI Sample Program
Jack Woehr wrote: Alan Altmark wrote: Jack, you need to send in a Reader's Comment Form. e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Posting the fix here won't get the book fixed, I'm afraid. Yes, but posting here Gets the Attention of Alan Altmark Who Knows How to Do It :-) Oops, realized that was ambiguous. Meant Knows the secrets so I can proceed not Knows how to do it and should do it instead of me. Jack -- Jack J. Woehr# Self-delusion is http://www.well.com/~jax # half the battle! http://www.softwoehr.com # - Zippy the Pinhead
Re: Some IBM Announcements for z/OS, z/VM, z/VSE (Aug 5, 2008)
As a matter of fact, we have not been borrowing storage. We have had to bite the bullet and throw iron at the problem. Our current size was calculated to tide us over for 3 years. The memory used by the other LPARs sits idle until they are activated. I can see the possibility of our not making it the full 3 years with our current memory - the z/TPF machines are larger than the estimates. The use of the normally idle memory would probably suffice to get us to that point, so we may have to resort to borrowing memory from idle LPARs and taking the disruptions. That or a push to get off-budget funding for an early upgrade. There is no such thing as half a loaf. Either we disrupt operation or we don't. It doesn't matter whether it is 1 time or 10 (Decimal). For example, suppose we schedule two disruptions four hours apart - one to give memory to another LPAR and the second to re-incorporate it into the VM LPAR. That will cause a work outage somewhere around the globe and the four hours will be seen as unproductive time - they will not want to start something that might not finish before the disruptions. Another problem is the scheduling of long-running tests. They cannot be started if they will be disrupted by LPAR deactivation. So we have the problem of trying to schedule long running tests, some as long as 72 hours, around the times that native LPARs are scheduled. This can lead to some unacceptable delays to one or the other. Thus the ferrous solution because there is no way to borrow memory and give it back without disruption. Regards, Richard Schuh -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Alan Altmark Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 11:24 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Some IBM Announcements for z/OS, z/VM, z/VSE (Aug 5, 2008) On Tuesday, 08/05/2008 at 12:39 EDT, Schuh, Richard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I was interested in the ability to add memory to an LPAR because we have 2 LPARs that are used infrequently and it would be nice to add their storage to VM. The new capability is absolutely useless to us. Nice boilerplate to show in sales pitches to management, perhaps, but no practical value here. Our VM is as close to 24 X 365.25 as we can make it. Taking it down to reconfigure the storage is unacceptable. Is not half a loaf better than none? Now you can add memory without taking an outage. If you've been taking outages to add/delete memory, you've cut the number in half. Everyone likes the idea of being able to remove the memory, but waiting until we can do it (an extremely complex and expensive task) to deliver the add support was uniformly met with boos and hisses when we polled customers. Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott
Re: Error in SMAPI Sample Program
On Tuesday, 08/05/2008 at 02:47 EDT, Jack Woehr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oops, realized that was ambiguous. Meant Knows the secrets so I can proceed not Knows how to do it and should do it instead of me. Whew. Chuckie was squirming. He has quieted again. :-) Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott
Re: R.I.P -- BookMaster.....
Seconded. The script base is ugly but there's nothing I've ever used as good at BookMaster. It would be wonderful if it could be saved and made free for all. i -- Original Message -- Received: Tue, 05 Aug 2008 08:19:36 PM BST From: Dave Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: R.I.P -- BookMaster. Buried in all of the good news today about z/VM 5.4, z/OS, etc, is this sad note: Software withdrawal: IBM Publishing Systems BookMaster 1.4.0, IBM Publishing Systems ProcessMaster VM Edition 1.3.0, and IBM Publishing Systems ProcessMaster MVS Edition 1.1.0 ( http://www-01.ibm.com/common/ssi/index.wss?DocURL=http://www-01.ibm.com/common/ssi/rep_ca/2/897/ENUS908-152/index.htmlInfoType=ANInfoSubType=CAInfoDesc=Announcement+Letterspanelurl=index.wss%3Fpaneltext=Announcement%20letter%20search) We still use BookMaster 1.4 here to build documents we distribute to clients and such. I think it's about the best way ever for doing computer related documentation of most kinds. Wonder if we could ask the current product owners to put these tools up on the VM download web page, for use as is, where is? I would rely like to be able to use ProcessMaster here as well. -- DJ V/Soft z/VM and mainframe Linux expertise, training, consulting, and software development www.vsoft-software.com
Re: R.I.P -- BookMaster.....
-Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Jones Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 2:19 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: R.I.P -- BookMaster. Buried in all of the good news today about z/VM 5.4, z/OS, etc, is this sad note: Software withdrawal: IBM Publishing Systems BookMaster 1.4.0, IBM Publishing Systems ProcessMaster VM Edition 1.3.0, and IBM Publishing Systems ProcessMaster MVS Edition 1.1.0 ( http://www-01.ibm.com/common/ssi/index.wss?DocURL=http://www-0 1.ibm.com/common/ssi/rep_ca/2/897/ENUS908-152/index.htmlInfoT ype=ANInfoSubType=CAInfoDesc=Announcement+Letterspanelurl=i ndex.wss%3Fpaneltext=Announcement%20letter%20search) We still use BookMaster 1.4 here to build documents we distribute to clients and such. I think it's about the best way ever for doing computer related documentation of most kinds. Wonder if we could ask the current product owners to put these tools up on the VM download web page, for use as is, where is? I would rely like to be able to use ProcessMaster here as well. -- DJ Would be nice. Not likely as IBM probably has a replacement product and doesn't want to undercut sales of that. That is the exact reason that I am a lover of Open Source. -- 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: Some IBM Announcements for z/OS, z/VM, z/VSE (Aug 5, 2008)
On 8/5/2008 at 2:53 PM, in message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Schuh, Richard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -snip- Thus the ferrous solution because there is no way to borrow memory and give it back without disruption. Which is the whole point. This capability isn't about borrowing memory and giving it back. It was never intended for that, nor portrayed as that. It is simply the ability to buy more hardware, and add it to z/VM without a disruption. Period, end of story. This can be done today, with z/VM 5.4. At some point in the future, it _may_ become possible to go the other way. Looking at the industry as a whole, I see far less value in being able to do that than simply being able to add real storage. (Oh, and by the way, this is for real storage only, not expanded storage.) Not too many people are looking to remove real storage. So, holding up this very valuable feature until the far less valuable feature could be done, was soundly rejected by just about everyone that was asked, me included. Mark Post
Re: Some IBM Announcements for z/OS, z/VM, z/VSE (Aug 5, 2008)
To add to Mark's comment, as well as others: your need (certainly a valid one) is more encompassing than most sites. Alan already said that when polled, to paraphrase) customers did not want to wait for a whole loaf, needing sooner a half loaf. The long term need for the other half, allowing customers to slice their own bread, *may* (no inside knowledge on my part) still be on the table. That said, if you need to move memory around between systems, there's this thingy called z/VM which has been doing it for years without bringing the whole system down to do it. It shares its toys and plays well with others. But then, you already knew that. Your business need may not permit you to move everything into the same CEC. Wanna buy a 64-way z10? ;-) Mike Walter Hewitt Associates Any opinions expressed herein are mine alone and do not necessarily represent the opinions or policies of Hewitt Associates. Mark Post [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU 08/05/2008 02:28 PM Please respond to The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU To IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU cc Subject Re: Some IBM Announcements for z/OS, z/VM, z/VSE (Aug 5, 2008) On 8/5/2008 at 2:53 PM, in message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Schuh, Richard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -snip- Thus the ferrous solution because there is no way to borrow memory and give it back without disruption. Which is the whole point. This capability isn't about borrowing memory and giving it back. It was never intended for that, nor portrayed as that. It is simply the ability to buy more hardware, and add it to z/VM without a disruption. Period, end of story. This can be done today, with z/VM 5.4. At some point in the future, it _may_ become possible to go the other way. Looking at the industry as a whole, I see far less value in being able to do that than simply being able to add real storage. (Oh, and by the way, this is for real storage only, not expanded storage.) Not too many people are looking to remove real storage. So, holding up this very valuable feature until the far less valuable feature could be done, was soundly rejected by just about everyone that was asked, me included. Mark Post 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: ADD VIRTUAL MEMORY DYNAMICALLY
As now, we can mix and match 390 engines with IFLs (and other engine types) in the same LPAR, it might be good to reduce the number of LPARs back to 1. You gain the memory used by the other copies of VM, and you only need to add memory to the LPAR when you buy more memory. I do know there are reasons for having multiple LPARs, but now with mixing engine types, there is 1 less reason. Everything under vswitch, and no hipersockets. Is that a performance benefit? Now...how about basic mode again? G Tom Duerbusch THD Consulting Mary Anne Matyaz [EMAIL PROTECTED] 8/5/2008 12:25 PM Uh, I've never seen Linux use LESS memory. It always wants more. :) I'm happy with the ability to add memory. MA On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 12:58 PM, Schuh, Richard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, it can add, but not subtract without LPAR deactivation. Let me know when the ability to dynamically remove previously added storage is available, and I will be more enthusiastic. Regards, Richard Schuh
Re: R.I.P -- BookMaster.....
We still use BookMaster 1.4 here to build documents we distribute to clients and such. I think it's about the best way ever for doing computer related documentation of most kinds. Me too. Doc tools written by people who actually have to *use* them. Best system I've seen. Wonder if we could ask the current product owners to put these tools up on the VM download web page, for use as is, where is? I would rely like to be able to use ProcessMaster here as well. Second the motion. Anyone know who the current product owner is? It'd be a good place to start begging.
Re: Some IBM Announcements for z/OS, z/VM, z/VSE (Aug 5, 2008)
The problem is that in the TPF world, native testing is a requirement. The more native testing lpars you have lying around, the more memory you have sitting idle most of the time. Migrating from TPF 4.1 to z/TPF is non-trivial, so frustration about having all that memory that could be used elsewhere has a long time to fester. From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Walter Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 3:55 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Some IBM Announcements for z/OS, z/VM, z/VSE (Aug 5, 2008) To add to Mark's comment, as well as others: your need (certainly a valid one) is more encompassing than most sites. Alan already said that when polled, to paraphrase) customers did not want to wait for a whole loaf, needing sooner a half loaf. The long term need for the other half, allowing customers to slice their own bread, *may* (no inside knowledge on my part) still be on the table. That said, if you need to move memory around between systems, there's this thingy called z/VM which has been doing it for years without bringing the whole system down to do it. It shares its toys and plays well with others. But then, you already knew that. Your business need may not permit you to move everything into the same CEC. Wanna buy a 64-way z10? ;-) Mike Walter Hewitt Associates Any opinions expressed herein are mine alone and do not necessarily represent the opinions or policies of Hewitt Associates. Mark Post [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU 08/05/2008 02:28 PM Please respond to The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU To IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU cc Subject Re: Some IBM Announcements for z/OS, z/VM, z/VSE (Aug 5, 2008) On 8/5/2008 at 2:53 PM, in message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Schuh, Richard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -snip- Thus the ferrous solution because there is no way to borrow memory and give it back without disruption. Which is the whole point. This capability isn't about borrowing memory and giving it back. It was never intended for that, nor portrayed as that. It is simply the ability to buy more hardware, and add it to z/VM without a disruption. Period, end of story. This can be done today, with z/VM 5.4. At some point in the future, it _may_ become possible to go the other way. Looking at the industry as a whole, I see far less value in being able to do that than simply being able to add real storage. (Oh, and by the way, this is for real storage only, not expanded storage.) Not too many people are looking to remove real storage. So, holding up this very valuable feature until the far less valuable feature could be done, was soundly rejected by just about everyone that was asked, me included. Mark Post 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: R.I.P -- BookMaster.....
On Tuesday, 08/05/2008 at 03:22 EDT, Dave Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Buried in all of the good news today about z/VM 5.4, z/OS, etc, is this sad note: Software withdrawal: IBM Publishing Systems BookMaster 1.4.0, IBM Publishing Systems ProcessMaster VM Edition 1.3.0, and IBM Publishing Systems ProcessMaster MVS Edition 1.1.0 Wonder if we could ask the current product owners to put these tools up on the VM download web page, for use as is, where is? I would rely like to be able to use ProcessMaster here as well. Withdrawal from marketing just means you can't order it any more. You can keep using it as long as you keep paying, and you continue to be entitled to service. If we subsequently withdraw it from service, then you can still keep using it as long as you keep paying for it. Pay. Use. Repeat ad infinitum. See the pattern? ;-) Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott
Re: ADD VIRTUAL MEMORY DYNAMICALLY
On Tuesday, 08/05/2008 at 04:14 EDT, Tom Duerbusch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As now, we can mix and match 390 engines with IFLs (and other engine types) in the same LPAR, it might be good to reduce the number of LPARs back to 1. You gain the memory used by the other copies of VM, and you only need to add memory to the LPAR when you buy more memory. I do know there are reasons for having multiple LPARs, but now with mixing engine types, there is 1 less reason. Everything under vswitch, and no hipersockets. Is that a performance benefit? Measure. Change. Measure. Compare. But I should mention that when running z/VM in a z/VM LPAR, the license fee is based on the total number of standard CPs and IFLs in the CEC. If you already had z/VM on the CP side and the IFL side, then there's no diff in price. Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott
Re: ADD VIRTUAL MEMORY DYNAMICALLY
Reduce numbers, maybe, but we will never get it down to one. There are requirements for separating production from development that will prevent it. There are, understandably so, very strict prohibitions against mixing the financial network and the testing and development network. Those prohibitions do not allow them to be connected to the same LPAR, even if they use physically separate OSAs (which they do), attached to different users (which, if it were allowed, would be the case). Furthermore, the SLAs are such that it is unwise to put the production Linux machines under the production z/VM system which supports a special TPF machine. Their outage window requirements, and therefore their SLAs, are incompatible. That leaves us with at least 3 LPARS plus whatever is needed for native TPF test systems. So far, I think that the largest native TPF configuration we have run is 3 LPARS, 2 on the same CEC as VM plus 1 on a different box. So our net gain would be the possible elimination of one LPAR. But even that will evaporate next year, when the second Linux LPAR becomes production. Do I hear some humming Perry Como's theme song in the background? Regards, Richard Schuh -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom Duerbusch Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 1:13 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: ADD VIRTUAL MEMORY DYNAMICALLY As now, we can mix and match 390 engines with IFLs (and other engine types) in the same LPAR, it might be good to reduce the number of LPARs back to 1. You gain the memory used by the other copies of VM, and you only need to add memory to the LPAR when you buy more memory. I do know there are reasons for having multiple LPARs, but now with mixing engine types, there is 1 less reason. Everything under vswitch, and no hipersockets. Is that a performance benefit? Now...how about basic mode again? G Tom Duerbusch THD Consulting Mary Anne Matyaz [EMAIL PROTECTED] 8/5/2008 12:25 PM Uh, I've never seen Linux use LESS memory. It always wants more. :) I'm happy with the ability to add memory. MA On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 12:58 PM, Schuh, Richard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, it can add, but not subtract without LPAR deactivation. Let me know when the ability to dynamically remove previously added storage is available, and I will be more enthusiastic. Regards, Richard Schuh
Re: ADD VIRTUAL MEMORY DYNAMICALLY
Right. It is not a price difference, it is a resource difference. Less LPARs (down to 1) vs more LPARs: Less copies of VM running (along with all the service machines) a couple 3390 drives (still may need the same total number of paging/spool packs as well as SFS packs) Less real memory resident due to less copies of VM and service machines. (Letting VM manage the memory vs the fairly non-dynamic way LPARs obtain memory) Less real memory wasted that is needed for lessor used LPARs. Less consoles needed and needed to be monitored. Of course, there are good reasons for having LPARs. In this shop, we were forced into it due to having an IFL engine. I might go back to 1 LPAR for all 390 images and production zLinux images. Occasionally each LPAR starts paging, at different times (for somewhat valid reasons, sometimes not G). But then, no one notices enough to complain. The DS6800 can easily handle a few hundred page I/O per second without users complaining. Then things settle down to our normal couple page I/Os per second and life goes on. Nice that VM got back to being able to schedule based on engine type, like VM/SP did G. (Yes, I assume that scheduling is much different/better then the old days of VM/SP.) Anyway, I've been thinking about Linux pricing, that is, per engine pricing. Currently, we are being charged based on our single IFL engine. And since the IFL engine was alone in its own LPAR, that would be reasonable. But now, if we mix a 390 engine, with the IFL engine in the same LPAR, would CP sechedule Linux work on a 390 engine (assuming 390 engine wasn't too busy)? Then, would we be in violation of our licensing agreements? I sure wouldn't want to pay full engine price for a 89 MIP, 390 engine G. Tom Duerbusch THD Consulting Law of Dinner Table Attendance Cats must attend all meals when anything good is served. Alan Altmark [EMAIL PROTECTED] 8/5/2008 3:35 PM On Tuesday, 08/05/2008 at 04:14 EDT, Tom Duerbusch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As now, we can mix and match 390 engines with IFLs (and other engine types) in the same LPAR, it might be good to reduce the number of LPARs back to 1. You gain the memory used by the other copies of VM, and you only need to add memory to the LPAR when you buy more memory. I do know there are reasons for having multiple LPARs, but now with mixing engine types, there is 1 less reason. Everything under vswitch, and no hipersockets. Is that a performance benefit? Measure. Change. Measure. Compare. But I should mention that when running z/VM in a z/VM LPAR, the license fee is based on the total number of standard CPs and IFLs in the CEC. If you already had z/VM on the CP side and the IFL side, then there's no diff in price. Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott
Re: Some IBM Announcements for z/OS, z/VM, z/VSE (Aug 5, 2008)
I have not said that it will not be good for some users. I have said that it does nothing to solve problems that we have had in the past and will most likely have again. Without the other piece, dynamic removal of storage, the only solution we see for our problems, when we become constrained, is to buy more iron. If the dynamic removal were included, it could delay upgrades and save money. Yes, being able to add new storage will be nice. When we have a z10 with z/VM 5.4, the memory upgrades may become easier; however, there is still the question of the storage that is getting moldy waiting for its LPAR to be activated. Storage that could be used if there were some way to release it without the LPAR activation outage. Having the release, that or having LPAR storage virtualized, would be the best of all possible worlds (until someone sees another pie floating in the stratosphere). Regards, Richard Schuh From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of James Vincent Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 11:29 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Some IBM Announcements for z/OS, z/VM, z/VSE (Aug 5, 2008) Richard, there are good number of folks that -will- find this useful to an unbelievable level. Imagine having LPARs loaded with Linux guests - hundreds of them that cross all lines of business at a company. Any outage on any of those LPARs takes over six to eight hours and will only be allowed on Sundays starting at midnight, because everyone and their little sister has to be involved to check, fix and diagnose issues on their applications after things start back up (or don't). Now imagine that company is growing the Linux LPARs because more and more work is going there, and every quarter they need to add 16-32G on each LPAR. Taking outages like that are painful. Very painful. The 'technical' part of the outage is the easy part; dealing with apps/servers that are not behaving well or application support that just don't understand how things work is the hard part. That company can now save the outage time, the time required for planning the outages, probable outages later due to miss-configured apps/servers, etc etc. With z/VM 5.4, you issue a command and the memory is there (assuming you have done good planning and set the reserve memory when you installed z/VM 5.4!) I do completely understand what you mean in your specific case though. You have spare memory on your machine you could use, but would have to give it back when those other LPARs need to run. Maybe there are others like you that require the release the memory and would consider entering a requirement to IBM for it. I am sure that concept was probably discussed at some point in the design - it had to be. Any z/VM'er worth their salt will ask if I can turn it on, can I turn it off? Can I have different colors, hot coffee and an extra week off work with it too? Just getting the ability to add real memory dynamically is a huge boon and lays the foundation for possibly more feature/function later on. Jim Vincent On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 12:38 PM, Schuh, Richard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ...snip... The new capability is absolutely useless to us. Nice boilerplate to show in sales pitches to management, perhaps, but no practical value here. Our VM is as close to 24 X 365.25 as we can make it. Taking it down to reconfigure the storage is unacceptable. Regards, Richard Schuh
Re: ADD VIRTUAL MEMORY DYNAMICALLY
-Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom Duerbusch Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 4:08 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: ADD VIRTUAL MEMORY DYNAMICALLY [snip] Anyway, I've been thinking about Linux pricing, that is, per engine pricing. Currently, we are being charged based on our single IFL engine. And since the IFL engine was alone in its own LPAR, that would be reasonable. But now, if we mix a 390 engine, with the IFL engine in the same LPAR, would CP sechedule Linux work on a 390 engine (assuming 390 engine wasn't too busy)? Then, would we be in violation of our licensing agreements? I sure wouldn't want to pay full engine price for a 89 MIP, 390 engine G. Tom Duerbusch THD Consulting I don't know for a fact, but I'll bet that z/VM will not allow you to have a single guest run on both an IFL and a CP. I'd bet that the directory for the user will need designate either CP or IFL. If this were not true, then it might be possible to have z/OS in a mixed envirnoment where it IPLs on a CP, but runs some user code on an IFL. Some smart person MIGHT be able to hinky the dispatcher so that supervisor state code only runs on the CP. But I'm likely wrong. -- 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: Some IBM Announcements for z/OS, z/VM, z/VSE (Aug 5, 2008)
It is not a problem of removing real memory from the machine. Rather, it is one of being able to better utilize what we already have, utilize it in a way that may be financially beneficial to us. Isn't that the point of all of this talk about virtualization - putting resources to use? I am looking at all of that memory that is unused and unusable 90% of the time and wondering if there shouldn't be some way to put it to use. And the answer, even with this announcement, is a resounding NO. Maybe this is only the first shot and the other is in the offing, I do not know. Maybe it is time for LPAR memory to be virtualized, so that it can be doled out by the page or segment, in pieces that may be discontiguous. Regards, Richard Schuh -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Post Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 12:28 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Some IBM Announcements for z/OS, z/VM, z/VSE (Aug 5, 2008) On 8/5/2008 at 2:53 PM, in message [EMAIL PROTECTED] , Schuh, Richard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -snip- Thus the ferrous solution because there is no way to borrow memory and give it back without disruption. Which is the whole point. This capability isn't about borrowing memory and giving it back. It was never intended for that, nor portrayed as that. It is simply the ability to buy more hardware, and add it to z/VM without a disruption. Period, end of story. This can be done today, with z/VM 5.4. At some point in the future, it _may_ become possible to go the other way. Looking at the industry as a whole, I see far less value in being able to do that than simply being able to add real storage. (Oh, and by the way, this is for real storage only, not expanded storage.) Not too many people are looking to remove real storage. So, holding up this very valuable feature until the far less valuable feature could be done, was soundly rejected by just about everyone that was asked, me included. Mark Post
Re: Some IBM Announcements for z/OS, z/VM, z/VSE (Aug 5, 2008)
A 64 way z10. Don't laugh. That may seriously be under consideration - as soon as someone solves the problems encountered by TPF when attempting to use more that 12 (or 16 or whatever the current number is - there is a definite point of diminishing return) engines. Sixty four may not even be enough. And storage measured by the TB may not be too far away, either. As far as using z/VM, our need to do performance testing of changes to the TPF environment somewhat limits that as a solution. We need LPARs for that. We do use z/VM quite heavily, as I am sure you know. Maybe that 64-way z10 is a good fit, too. After all, we will get one for VM before it goes into production on one of the TPF systems. Regards, Richard Schuh From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Walter Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 12:55 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Some IBM Announcements for z/OS, z/VM, z/VSE (Aug 5, 2008) To add to Mark's comment, as well as others: your need (certainly a valid one) is more encompassing than most sites. Alan already said that when polled, to paraphrase) customers did not want to wait for a whole loaf, needing sooner a half loaf. The long term need for the other half, allowing customers to slice their own bread, *may* (no inside knowledge on my part) still be on the table. That said, if you need to move memory around between systems, there's this thingy called z/VM which has been doing it for years without bringing the whole system down to do it. It shares its toys and plays well with others. But then, you already knew that. Your business need may not permit you to move everything into the same CEC. Wanna buy a 64-way z10? ;-) Mike Walter Hewitt Associates Any opinions expressed herein are mine alone and do not necessarily represent the opinions or policies of Hewitt Associates. Mark Post [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU 08/05/2008 02:28 PM Please respond to The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU To IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU cc Subject Re: Some IBM Announcements for z/OS, z/VM, z/VSE (Aug 5, 2008) On 8/5/2008 at 2:53 PM, in message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Schuh, Richard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -snip- Thus the ferrous solution because there is no way to borrow memory and give it back without disruption. Which is the whole point. This capability isn't about borrowing memory and giving it back. It was never intended for that, nor portrayed as that. It is simply the ability to buy more hardware, and add it to z/VM without a disruption. Period, end of story. This can be done today, with z/VM 5.4. At some point in the future, it _may_ become possible to go the other way. Looking at the industry as a whole, I see far less value in being able to do that than simply being able to add real storage. (Oh, and by the way, this is for real storage only, not expanded storage.) Not too many people are looking to remove real storage. So, holding up this very valuable feature until the far less valuable feature could be done, was soundly rejected by just about everyone that was asked, me included. Mark Post 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.
What's New in z/VM 5.4
For posterity, here's a summary of what's in z/VM 5.4: - System z10 processor instruction exploitation - z/VM-mode LPAR support - System ID verification on the SHUTDOWN command - DAT table performance enhancements - Dynamic LPAR memory upgrade - Dynamic virtual machine memory upgrade - Virtual CPU SHARE redistribution - Guest FCP dump - DCSS addressing above 2 GB - OSA-Express3 Multi-Port support - Usability enhancements for QUERY VSWITCH - CMS command to issue SNMP traps - Telnet IPv6 support - TCP/IP OSD Layer 2 support - VM TCP/IP Path MTU discovery - LDAP upgrade to z/OS 1.10 level - RACF LDAP change logging and password/phrase enveloping - RACF installation defaults to DES encryption of passwords (Who loves ya?) - CMS-based SSL server with improved certificate management (available later this year) - Linux-on-z/VM installation using the Hardware Management Console (HMC) - z/VM system management API (SMAPI) enhancements - Performance Toolkit and DirMaint support enhancements - LE, C/C++, and Binder upgrades Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott
Re: Some IBM Announcements for z/OS, z/VM, z/VSE (Aug 5, 2008)
I understand Richard. Your need to add -and- remove the memory for your environment is as important as just the adding is for a lot of others. It sounds like you have compelling reasons to ask for the 'next step' to be done - to remove real memory dynamically. I have not heard anything formal from IBM about it being on the road map, but I know they know people have asked about it. Asking as formally, compellingly and often is the best way to move it forward. Being able to add and remove memory on the fly could be a boon for the live guest migration that is being worked on too (another spin on making the work viable for IBM to do). For instance, an LPAR needs to be taken down for maintenance and you want to move servers from it to another, but the target LPAR is not sized to handle the memory needs. So -reduce- memory on the source LPAR and increase it on the target. Move the servers. Do the LPAR work, and reverse the memory too. We are all with you Richard, and I sure do understand your disappointment in not getting to use all your machine's resouces as best as they could be. Hang in there and keep voicing your concerns! Jim Vincent On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 5:10 PM, Schuh, Richard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have not said that it will not be good for some users. I have said that it does nothing to solve problems that we have had in the past and will most likely have again. Without the other piece, dynamic removal of storage, the only solution we see for our problems, when we become constrained, is to buy more iron. If the dynamic removal were included, it could delay upgrades and save money. Yes, being able to add new storage will be nice. When we have a z10 with z/VM 5.4, the memory upgrades may become easier; however, there is still the question of the storage that is getting moldy waiting for its LPAR to be activated. Storage that could be used if there were some way to release it without the LPAR activation outage. Having the release, that or having LPAR storage virtualized, would be the best of all possible worlds (until someone sees another pie floating in the stratosphere). Regards, Richard Schuh
Re: ADD VIRTUAL MEMORY DYNAMICALLY
On 8/5/2008 at 5:13 PM, in message [EMAIL PROTECTED], McKown, John [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -snip- I don't know for a fact, but I'll bet that z/VM will not allow you to have a single guest run on both an IFL and a CP. I'd bet that the directory for the user will need designate either CP or IFL. That's pretty much what we were told at the T3 last week. CP will schedule Linux only IFLs, and the CP Directory entries for the Linux systems will need to say use IFLs. So, the pricing is the same as before. If you have your Linux guests use CPs, then you pay for all the CPs. If only on IFLs, then you only pay for the number of IFLs. Mark Post
Randy Burton is out of the office on Wed. 8/6
I will be out of the office starting 08/06/2008 and will not return until 08/07/2008. I will be out of the office on Wed. 8/6, returning Thu. 8/7. 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).
Flying Pig Need
Any of you VM dudes and dudesses into graphic arts? The PigIron project could use a scalable image (or a couple of images, one big and one icon sized) of a Flying Pig Embracing a z/Series box! It would go, for a start, on http://pigiron.sourceforge.net/ -- Jack J. Woehr# Self-delusion is http://www.well.com/~jax # half the battle! http://www.softwoehr.com # - Zippy the Pinhead
