Re: R.I.P -- BookMaster.....

[Alan Altmark]

On Wednesday, 08/06/2008 at 08:13 EDT, Roger Bolan/US/InfoPrint/[EMAIL 
PROTECTED] 
wrote:
> I'm afraid there's more.  See
> 
http://www-01.ibm.com/common/ssi/cgi-bin/ssialias?subtype=ca&infotype=an&appname
> =iSource&supplier=897&letternum=ENUS908-180
> 
> It says there is no replacement product, and service will be 
discontinued
> too.   The document above lists BookMaster under the section for
> Service withdrawal date: September 30, 2009

Nonetheless, w/d from service doesn't mean you can't use it.  As long as 
you keep paying the MLC, you have a license to use to the software.

Alan Altmark
z/VM Development
IBM Endicott

Re: Some IBM Announcements for z/OS, z/VM, z/VSE (Aug 5, 2008)

[Marcy Cortes]

Maybe they can just instead use those development dollars to reduce the
COST of the memory so we could install what we need and then more and
not underutilize such an expensive asset :)

Marcy 

"This message may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If
you are not the addressee or authorized to receive this for the
addressee, you must not use, copy, disclose, or take any action based on
this message or any information herein. If you have received this
message in error, please advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail
and delete this message. Thank you for your cooperation."

 



From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of James Vincent
Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 2:49 PM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: [IBMVM] 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

[Marcy Cortes]

>Do people really have Linux systems that run 7 x 24?

Yes, silly people want to withdraw money (legit or illegit) at any hour
of the day or night from an ATM.

But Jim should have just bought another z10 and put those with
continuous availability (a.k.a. 24x7x365)  requirements on duplicate
servers on different boxes rather than having IBM add him a feachur ;).
Kidding, Jim - dynamic memory is a *good thing* especially if z/OS can
do it too :)

WebSphere clustering, DB2 HADR, Oracle Data Guard... All those things
and more make it possible.
Planned outages happen here nearly every weekend (not that that is
desirable either :)

Marcy 

 
"This message may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If
you are not the addressee or authorized to receive this for the
addressee, you must not use, copy, disclose, or take any action based on
this message or any information herein. If you have received this
message in error, please advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail
and delete this message. Thank you for your cooperation."


-Original Message-
From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Alan Ackerman
Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 11:06 PM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: [IBMVM] ADD VIRTUAL MEMORY DYNAMICALLY

On Tue, 5 Aug 2008 09:58:58 -0700, 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

Deleting memory is a lot harder. 

What if there are control blocks in there? You could use handles
(pointer= s to pointers) but that is a complete rewrite. If a control
block can move, you cannot trust a registe= r to continue to point to
it. I think this would require a new instruction set to do the pointer
to=  pointer resolution directly.

Or you can fence off areas and say "no control blocks allowed in here".
T= hat would increase the complexity of operating systems, though. Such
storage could only be used = to back up guest or pageable operating
system pages. 

If you wanted to remove a block of memory, you would have to initiate a
m= ass page-out to clear the area. I'd rather not have to resolve the
performance issues that migh= t occur.

Does z/OS do this?

I don't think the ability to remove memory is something I want IBM to
spe= nd scarce z/VM development dollars on.

Another thought:

The need to add memory may be an emergency situation. The need to remove
= it again is not an emergency and can be planned. How important
avoiding an IML may be depend= s on whether you really want to achieve 7
x 24 operation. 7 x 24 operation is going to cos= t you something --
including adequate capacity and memory. 

There are other ways to achieve 7 x 24 operation. We don't run any
system= s with true 7 x 24 requirements. We may run pairs of systems, or
sysplexes of systems, but n= ot single systems.

Do people really have Linux systems that run 7 x 24?

Alan Ackerman
Alan (dot) Ackerman (at) Bank of America (dot) com 

Re: G4 Powerbook Wireless

[Derick Centeno]

Hi Barry!

I've got the same type of computer you do.  According to the references I found
on-line regarding wl-4.80.53.0, for whatever reason, it is buggy and doesn't
work.  The only way around this is to have OS X running s









  
  [CMake] Add_library shared or module: problem with mingw32
  
  
  
  
  
  

Re: R.I.P -- BookMaster.....

[Roger Bolan]

I'm afraid there's more.  See 
http://www-01.ibm.com/common/ssi/cgi-bin/ssialias?subtype=ca&infotype=an&appname=iSource&supplier=897&letternum=ENUS908-180

It says there is no replacement product, and service will be discontinued 
too.   The document above lists BookMaster under the section for
Service withdrawal date: September 30, 2009 

I would like to point out that BookMaster was a separate application 
running on top of DCF (Document Composition Facility, a.k.a. "Script") and 
DCF continues to be marketed and supported.  It also contains its own 
"Starter Set" of GML tags, which are similar to BookMaster, but limited to 
more basic document functions.

I would also like to suggest strongly that if you have existing documents 
that were produced by BookMaster that you make sure that you hang onto any 
fonts you got from BookMaster so that you can continue to print those 
documents saved as AFP files.

Roger Bolan


The IBM z/VM Operating System  wrote on 
08/05/2008 02:22:56 PM:

> 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: Next Baybunch at IBM San Francisco-Friday Aug 6

[Mike Walter]

> Friday Aug 6
Earlier?  Ok, how about having 2 extra days?  Consider the new date; Friday, 
August 8.
That work any better?  :-)

(My evil plan to spread Calendar Disorder Disorder is finally working!  
Hoo-haa-Haa!)

Mike Walter



- Original Message -
From: "Daniel Allen" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 08/06/2008 04:29 PM MST
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: Next Baybunch at IBM San Francisco-Friday Aug 6



I wish this announcement could have come earlier. Then I can make plans
to attend.

-Original Message-
From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Pamela Christina - warm and sunny Endicott NY
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 3:34 PM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Next Baybunch at IBM San Francisco-Friday Aug 6

For those of you who near San Francisco Bay area this Friday and who are
interested in hearing z/VM and Linux presentations.

The next Baybunch meeting is on Friday August 6 at IBM San Francisco -
425 Market St.

Send an RSVP email to Karen Reed at [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Meet with the Baybunch user group on Friday, August 8

Alan Altmark presents:
- z/VM Platform Update - Hear about z/VM V5.4 (just announced!)
- Securing Linux with RACF

Jim Elliott presents:
- Linux on System z: A strategic

Details in the PDF:
http://www.vm.ibm.com/events/bayb0806.pdf

Regards,
Pam C

**
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended 
solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. Any 
unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are 
not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and 
destroy all copies of the original message.
**





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. 

Next Baybunch at IBM San Francisco-Friday Aug 8 (not the 6th)

[Pamela Christina - last posting - going home]

Let me try this again...

For those of you who are near San Francisco Bay area this Friday
and who are interested in hearing z/VM and Linux presentations.

The next Baybunch meeting is on Friday August 8 at
IBM San Francisco - 425 Market St.

Send an RSVP email to Karen Reed at [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Meet with the Baybunch user group on Friday, August 8 (not the 6th)

Alan Altmark presents:
- z/VM Platform Update - Hear about z/VM V5.4 (just announced!)
- Securing Linux with RACF

Jim Elliott presents:
- Linux on System z: A Strategic View

Details in the PDF:
http://www.vm.ibm.com/events/bayb0808.pdf

Regards,
Pam C

Re: Next Baybunch at IBM San Francisco-Friday Aug 6

[John P. Baker]

Since there is NO Friday, August 6th until 2010, we will assume a TOD
malfunction, and reschedule for Friday, August 8th, 2008. 

John P. Baker

-Original Message-
From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Pamela Christina - warm and sunny Endicott NY
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 6:34 PM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Next Baybunch at IBM San Francisco-Friday Aug 6

For those of you who near San Francisco Bay area this Friday
and who are interested in hearing z/VM and Linux presentations.

The next Baybunch meeting is on Friday August 6 at
IBM San Francisco - 425 Market St.

Send an RSVP email to Karen Reed at [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Meet with the Baybunch user group on Friday, August 8

Alan Altmark presents:
- z/VM Platform Update - Hear about z/VM V5.4 (just announced!)
- Securing Linux with RACF

Jim Elliott presents:
- Linux on System z: A strategic

Details in the PDF:
http://www.vm.ibm.com/events/bayb0806.pdf

Regards,
Pam C

Re: Next Baybunch at IBM San Francisco-Friday Aug 6

[Daniel Allen]

I wish this announcement could have come earlier. Then I can make plans
to attend. 

-Original Message-
From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Pamela Christina - warm and sunny Endicott NY
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 3:34 PM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Next Baybunch at IBM San Francisco-Friday Aug 6

For those of you who near San Francisco Bay area this Friday and who are
interested in hearing z/VM and Linux presentations.

The next Baybunch meeting is on Friday August 6 at IBM San Francisco -
425 Market St.

Send an RSVP email to Karen Reed at [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Meet with the Baybunch user group on Friday, August 8

Alan Altmark presents:
- z/VM Platform Update - Hear about z/VM V5.4 (just announced!)
- Securing Linux with RACF

Jim Elliott presents:
- Linux on System z: A strategic

Details in the PDF:
http://www.vm.ibm.com/events/bayb0806.pdf

Regards,
Pam C

**
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended 
solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. Any 
unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are 
not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and 
destroy all copies of the original message. 
**

Re: ADD VIRTUAL MEMORY DYNAMICALLY

[Mike Harding]

The IBM z/VM Operating System  wrote on 
08/06/2008 03:40:56 PM:

> On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 11:48 PM, Bill Holder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > Just to emphasize the point - the fact that most of CP's storage is 
now
> > mapped into virtual(the System Execution Space) is really irrelevant 
to the
> > question of detaching memory.  Although that mapping is indeed 
the"default"
> 
> I did not mean to make it sound easy. Being able to page it would be a
> much harder one that being able to move it. At least we don't need to
> walk all control blocks for pointers to the blocks in the page that we
> moved. But you still need everyone out of the way when you move it
> (unless that is an atomic operation).
> -Rob

An alternative - which might even satisfy Mr. Schuh - could be to restrict 
"detachable" memory to that which has been dynamically added after CP was 
iplled.  I wouldn't think the SXS would extend into such, which would make 
it easier to clear.  Of course it's been a while since I did much perusing 
of CP internals...
--Mike

August 20 LVC (webcast) - z/VM Update - Introducing z/VM V5.4

[-)]

For readers of IBMMAIN, IBMVM, and Linux390 who
are interested in the no-charge education via webcast
(aka Live Virtual Classes).

Here's a PDF flyer with details:
http://www.vm.ibm.com/education/lvc/lvcv0820.pdf

Wednesday, August 20th at 11:00 AM EDT.
There is no charge to participate in this technical education session.

 z/VM Platform Update - Advancing the Art of Virtualization
 with  z/VM Version 5 Release 4
 by Reed Mullen, IBM System z Virtualization Technology Product Manager

Abstract:  Join us as Reed Mullen, IBM System z  Virtualization
Technology Product Manager, provides an overview of the new functions
 introduced with the recently announced z/VM V5.4.  Reed will also
 highlight the new z/VM V5.3 Evaluation Edition for IBM System z10.

Date:  Wednesday August 20, 2008
Time:  11:00 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time ( New York)
   10:00 AM Central Daylight Time
   London 3:00 PM, Frankfurt 4:00 PM, Moscow 6:00 PM
Duration: 75 minutes
TimeZone: Use the World Clock to translate the time for this meeting to
your local time!
http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converter.html

How to attend:
Connect to the Live Virtual Class (LVC) session using the following url:
   https://asp22.centra.com:443/GA/main/00aecb09011b3a2875fda813
OR
Connect from the z/VM LVC Website at:
http://www.vm.ibm.com/education/lvc


You can connect to the LVC session up to 10 minutes prior to the start of
the session.

You do not have to pre-register to attend the webcast, but you will need
to enter your email to join the call.

The REPLAY will be available on the web using the same "connect" URL
approximately 4 hours after the event.

If you are unable to connect to the Live Virtual Class session, you can
download the presentation from the z/VM LVC website the day
before the webcast and listen to the audio portion of the session via
telephone using the following:

Call info:1 - 888-240-4148  Toll:  1 - 719-234-0214
Passcode:   893049

Note: use of the telephone connection does not provide capability for you
to ask questions during the session.

Replays:
As a reminder, the 2007/2008 sessions are available for replay
from the z/VM website at:
http://www.vm.ibm.com/education/lvc

 Please direct any questions to Julie Liesenfelt at [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Regards,
Pam C

Re: ADD VIRTUAL MEMORY DYNAMICALLY

[Rob van der Heij]

On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 11:48 PM, Bill Holder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Just to emphasize the point - the fact that most of CP's storage is now
> mapped into virtual(the System Execution Space) is really irrelevant to the
> question of detaching memory.  Although that mapping is indeed the "default"

I did not mean to make it sound easy. Being able to page it would be a
much harder one that being able to move it. At least we don't need to
walk all control blocks for pointers to the blocks in the page that we
moved. But you still need everyone out of the way when you move it
(unless that is an atomic operation).
-Rob

Next Baybunch at IBM San Francisco-Friday Aug 6

[Pamela Christina - warm and sunny Endicott NY]

For those of you who near San Francisco Bay area this Friday
and who are interested in hearing z/VM and Linux presentations.

The next Baybunch meeting is on Friday August 6 at
IBM San Francisco - 425 Market St.

Send an RSVP email to Karen Reed at [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Meet with the Baybunch user group on Friday, August 8

Alan Altmark presents:
- z/VM Platform Update - Hear about z/VM V5.4 (just announced!)
- Securing Linux with RACF

Jim Elliott presents:
- Linux on System z: A strategic

Details in the PDF:
http://www.vm.ibm.com/events/bayb0806.pdf

Regards,
Pam C

Re: ADD VIRTUAL MEMORY DYNAMICALLY

[Brian Nielsen]

On Wed, 6 Aug 2008 16:48:13 -0500, Bill Holder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
:

>On Wed, 6 Aug 2008 09:17:24 +0200, Rob van der Heij <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 

wrote:
>
>>On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 8:06 AM, Alan Ackerman
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> Deleting memory is a lot harder.
>>
>>Many delicate CP areas now also are in virtual memory as a result of
>>the 2G relief, even though not all may be paged.
>>It depends a lot on the granularity of the next level of mapping. When
>>90% of your in-use pages is virtual machine pages, you can probably
>>find 16 MB worth of individual pages to give up. But evacuating pages
>>at random in the hope to free an entire 16MB chunk is less attractive
>>(I think some time ago pages under the bar would be freed like that).
>>
>...
>>
>>Rob
>>
=

>
>Just to emphasize the point - the fact that most of CP's storage is now 

>mapped into virtual(the System Execution Space) is really irrelevant to 

the
>question of detaching memory.  Although that mapping is indeed 
the "default" 
>CP storage usage and CP code has to go "out of its way" to touch real 

>storage directly, all SXS mappings are defined to be static at least for
 
the
>duration of the usage, and many (like the nucleus and prefix areas) are 

>outright permanent.  A CP thread having rights to a given SXS virtual 

>address gives it implicit rights for the same duration to the real 
address 
>backing it.  
>
>So I basically agree with Alan's two choices - either we'd have to 
rewrite 
>virtually everything to tolerate pageable (or at least re-assignable) CP
 
>storage, or we'd have to rewrite all of storage allocation to know that 

>there's an area that might have to be depopulated on demand at some poin
t 
in
>the future, such that only truly pageable uses can be allocated out of 

it.  
>The latter approach is certainly simpler, but also more restrictive,
>requiring pre-planning and definition of the area subject to later 
removal.
>Quite a lot of work, and more than a few nasty complications, either 
way.  
>
>- Bill Holder, z/VM Development, IBM


Perhaps I'm missing something, but doesn't XSTORE already meet those 
criteria?  If so, adding the new storage as XSTORE to the LPAR and later 

removing said XSTORE from the LPAR is a much simpler task.

Brian Nielsen

Re: ADD VIRTUAL MEMORY DYNAMICALLY

[Bill Holder]

On Wed, 6 Aug 2008 09:17:24 +0200, Rob van der Heij <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> w
rote:

>On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 8:06 AM, Alan Ackerman
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Deleting memory is a lot harder.
>
>Many delicate CP areas now also are in virtual memory as a result of
>the 2G relief, even though not all may be paged.
>It depends a lot on the granularity of the next level of mapping. When
>90% of your in-use pages is virtual machine pages, you can probably
>find 16 MB worth of individual pages to give up. But evacuating pages
>at random in the hope to free an entire 16MB chunk is less attractive
>(I think some time ago pages under the bar would be freed like that).
>
...
>
>Rob
>
=


Just to emphasize the point - the fact that most of CP's storage is now 

mapped into virtual(the System Execution Space) is really irrelevant to t
he
question of detaching memory.  Although that mapping is indeed the "defau
lt" 
CP storage usage and CP code has to go "out of its way" to touch real 
storage directly, all SXS mappings are defined to be static at least for 
the
duration of the usage, and many (like the nucleus and prefix areas) are 

outright permanent.  A CP thread having rights to a given SXS virtual 
address gives it implicit rights for the same duration to the real addres
s 
backing it.  

So I basically agree with Alan's two choices - either we'd have to rewrit
e 
virtually everything to tolerate pageable (or at least re-assignable) CP 

storage, or we'd have to rewrite all of storage allocation to know that 

there's an area that might have to be depopulated on demand at some point
 in
the future, such that only truly pageable uses can be allocated out of it
.  
The latter approach is certainly simpler, but also more restrictive,
requiring pre-planning and definition of the area subject to later remova
l.
Quite a lot of work, and more than a few nasty complications, either way.
  

- Bill Holder, z/VM Development, IBM

Re: OSA Adapter TCP/IP stack association limit?

[Alan Altmark]

On Wednesday, 08/06/2008 at 04:42 EDT, Rob van der Heij 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 8:35 PM, Mark Post <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> 
> >> Is that stack association limit correct? If this is the case, is 
there a
> >> circumvention? Can multiple OSA adapters be associated with a single 
VLAN?
> >
> > Use a VSWITCH, since you've already decided this is going to be run on 
z/VM.
> 
> The limit is model dependent, for z9 way more than 640 IIRC.
> 
> The way to get around it (once) is to make the VM system primary
> router so it will get all packets for which the OSA has no entry in
> the OAT. I think the limit also applies to the number of stacks on the
> VSWITCH. There isn't a way for VSWITCH to set primary router, is
> there?

Yes, there is (the PRIROUTER option), but who cares?  Define the VSWITCH 
as ETHERNET (layer 2), not IP.

Alan Altmark
z/VM Development
IBM Endicott

Re: OSA Adapter TCP/IP stack association limit?

[Rob van der Heij]

On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 8:35 PM, Mark Post <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


>> Is that stack association limit correct? If this is the case, is there a
>> circumvention? Can multiple OSA adapters be associated with a single VLAN?
>
> Use a VSWITCH, since you've already decided this is going to be run on z/VM.

The limit is model dependent, for z9 way more than 640 IIRC.

The way to get around it (once) is to make the VM system primary
router so it will get all packets for which the OSA has no entry in
the OAT. I think the limit also applies to the number of stacks on the
VSWITCH. There isn't a way for VSWITCH to set primary router, is
there?

Rob

Re: OSA Adapter TCP/IP stack association limit?

[Gary M. Dennis]

Will using VSWITCH get us around the 640 limit per OSA adapter?

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

Gary Dennis

On 8/6/08 1:35 PM, "Mark Post" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

 On 8/6/2008 at  2:24 PM, in message
 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Gary M. Dennis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Did I read somewhere (the "where" being a place I cannot at this point
>> locate) that the number of IP stacks which could be associated with a single
>> OSA adapter was 640?
> 
> That sounds right.
> 
> -snip-
>> Is that stack association limit correct? If this is the case, is there a
>> circumvention? Can multiple OSA adapters be associated with a single VLAN?
> 
> Use a VSWITCH, since you've already decided this is going to be run on z/VM.
> 
> 
> Mark Post
> 

Re: ADD VIRTUAL MEMORY DYNAMICALLY

[Bill Holder]

On Wed, 6 Aug 2008 08:50:31 -0700, Schuh, Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
:

>How long of a period is 24 X 7 X 365? ...
>
>Regards, 
>Richard Schuh 
>
> 
> 
>
=
===

I always thought it meant "planned outages on Leap Days"!  %-) 

- Bill Holder, z/VM Development, IBM

Re: SSL connection problem after IPL

[Tim Joyce]

I think we have our problem resolved. We had an incorrect comment
placement on the last OBEYFILE PORT setting for port 8823.

Thanks for the help,

Tim

-Original Message-
From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Tim Joyce
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 1:52 PM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: SSL connection problem after IPL

Hey Alan,

I used OBEYFILE to change port  to:

PORT
   TCP SSLSERV   ; SSL SERVER - ADMINISTRATION  
;   

Here is the 'netstat conn (select vtubessl' results:

VM TCP/IP Netstat Level 520

 

Active IPv4 Transmission Blocks:

 

User Id  ConnLocal SocketForeign Socket  State

 --  - ----- --  -

VTUBESSL 1201*..8823 *..*Listen

VTUBESSL 127110.1.4.60..8823 10.4.2.193..1302
Established  
VTUBESSL 109010.1.4.60..8823 10.2.5.17..1735
Established  
VTUBESSL 107310.1.4.60..8823 10.2.4.44..1132
Established  
VTUBESSL 128910.1.4.60..8823 10.2.4.67..4782
Established  
VTUBESSL 105810.1.4.60..8823 10.2.4.56..1508
Established  
VTUBESSL 110110.1.4.60..8823 10.2.4.101..1129
Established  
VTUBESSL 116510.1.4.60..8823 10.2.4.86..2168
Established  
VTUBESSL 108010.1.4.60..8823 10.2.5.17..2897
Established  
VTUBESSL 101010.1.4.60..8823 10.4.2.93..1839
Established  
VTUBESSL 120610.1.4.60..8823 10.2.5.82..4135
Established  
 

Keep in mind, to get our SSL users using port 8823 in to VTUBESSL, we
had them specify "SECURITY NONE" on there client, so they are not coming
in secure until we get this resolved. 

Also, When I issue a SSLADMIN TRACE NORMAL ALL  or  SSLADMIN TRACE CONN
ALL and then try to SECURE TELNET (waiting for SSL handshake error) then
SSLADMIN LOG to check the log, I get nothing :

00470 DTCSSL003I  SSLADMIN received: TRACECONNECTIONS NODATA ALL 
00471 DTCSSL047I  Trace established  
00472 DTCSSL003I  SSLADMIN received: LOG 

Would this not indicate that the handshake request is not getting to the
SSLSERV?

Tim


-Original Message-
From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Alan Altmark
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 1:34 PM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: SSL connection problem after IPL

On Wednesday, 08/06/2008 at 11:25 EDT, Tim Joyce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Yep,  running z/VM 5.2. Here is my secure telnet PORT  statement:
>  
> 8823 TCP VTUBESSL SECURE ALCERT ; SECURE TELNET TO  VTUBESSL

(And please remove the SECURE statement from port .  It doesn't go
there.)

 
> User Id  ConnLocal  SocketForeign  Socket  
State
>  --  -  -----  --  
-
> SSLSERV  1226 *..1025  *..*
Listen   
> SSLSERV  1046 127.0.0.0..  *..*
Listen   
> 
 

> Active IPv6 Transmission Blocks: 
None 
>  
> Should I not have a port  8823 socket, or would it only show for an
active 
> session? What is the 1025  for?

You need to look at the socket connections for VTUBESSL, not SSLSERV.
Port
1025 is the SSL server listening for new SSL connections from the stack.

(We probably shouldn't display that.)

Alan Altmark
z/VM Development
IBM Endicott

Re: ADD VIRTUAL MEMORY DYNAMICALLY

[Rob van der Heij]

On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 7:16 PM, Schuh, Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Just because it is widely used doesn't make it correct or accurate.

I suppose the X is not the multiplication like in math, but a
marketing operator.

OT: We have a cigarette paper over here that uses the marketing slogan
  "3 times better: rolls better, sticks better, burns better"
Clear abuse of mathematics. http://www.mascotte.nl/

Along those lines: "planned outages add up, unplanned outages multiply"

-Rob

Re: OSA Adapter TCP/IP stack association limit?

[Mark Post]

>>> On 8/6/2008 at  2:24 PM, in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Gary M. Dennis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 
> Did I read somewhere (the "where" being a place I cannot at this point
> locate) that the number of IP stacks which could be associated with a single
> OSA adapter was 640?

That sounds right.

-snip-
> Is that stack association limit correct? If this is the case, is there a
> circumvention? Can multiple OSA adapters be associated with a single VLAN?

Use a VSWITCH, since you've already decided this is going to be run on z/VM.


Mark Post

Re: PigIron design comments - visit forum

[Jack Woehr]

Mark Pace wrote:



  Permission Denied

Access to this page is restricted (either to project members or to 
project administrators) and you do not meet the requirements to access 
this page. Please contact the administrator of this project for 
further assistance.


Oops, I didn't get the ambiance of SourceForge. The Developer Forum is 
apparently intended only
for those with checkin power.  Instead visit 
http://sourceforge.net/projects/pigiron/ and choose
Open Discussion from the Forums menu. I'll post my comments there for 
appraisal.


Jack



On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 1:57 AM, Jack Woehr <[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> wrote:


If anybody is interested in PigIron design, the discussion is
here:
http://sourceforge.net/forum/forum.php?thread_id=2154830&forum_id=852410


I should have some working code checked in later this week or
Monday or Tuesday at the latest.

-- 
Jack J. Woehr# "Self-delusion is

http://www.well.com/~jax  #  half the
battle!"
http://www.softwoehr.com #  - Zippy the Pinhead




--
Mark Pace
Mainline Information Systems
1700 Summit Lake Drive
Tallahassee, FL. 32317



--
Jack J. Woehr# "Self-delusion is
http://www.well.com/~jax #  half the battle!"
http://www.softwoehr.com #  - Zippy the Pinhead

OSA Adapter TCP/IP stack association limit?

[Gary M. Dennis]

Did I read somewhere (the "where" being a place I cannot at this point
locate) that the number of IP stacks which could be associated with a single
OSA adapter was 640?  Running several thousand desktop systems on System z
is meaningful only if those operating systems can access a (the) network.

Is that stack association limit correct? If this is the case, is there a
circumvention? Can multiple OSA adapters be associated with a single VLAN?

I'm trying to figure out if this or some other software/hardware constraint
is a limiting factor for the number of virtual machines which can share a
network on or through System z.

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

Gary Dennis
Mantissa Corporation

Re: SSL connection problem after IPL

[Tim Joyce]

Hey Alan,

I used OBEYFILE to change port  to:

PORT
   TCP SSLSERV   ; SSL SERVER - ADMINISTRATION  
;   

Here is the 'netstat conn (select vtubessl' results:

VM TCP/IP Netstat Level 520

 

Active IPv4 Transmission Blocks:

 

User Id  ConnLocal SocketForeign Socket  State

 --  - ----- --  -

VTUBESSL 1201*..8823 *..*Listen

VTUBESSL 127110.1.4.60..8823 10.4.2.193..1302
Established  
VTUBESSL 109010.1.4.60..8823 10.2.5.17..1735
Established  
VTUBESSL 107310.1.4.60..8823 10.2.4.44..1132
Established  
VTUBESSL 128910.1.4.60..8823 10.2.4.67..4782
Established  
VTUBESSL 105810.1.4.60..8823 10.2.4.56..1508
Established  
VTUBESSL 110110.1.4.60..8823 10.2.4.101..1129
Established  
VTUBESSL 116510.1.4.60..8823 10.2.4.86..2168
Established  
VTUBESSL 108010.1.4.60..8823 10.2.5.17..2897
Established  
VTUBESSL 101010.1.4.60..8823 10.4.2.93..1839
Established  
VTUBESSL 120610.1.4.60..8823 10.2.5.82..4135
Established  
 

Keep in mind, to get our SSL users using port 8823 in to VTUBESSL, we
had them specify "SECURITY NONE" on there client, so they are not coming
in secure until we get this resolved. 

Also, When I issue a SSLADMIN TRACE NORMAL ALL  or  SSLADMIN TRACE CONN
ALL and then try to SECURE TELNET (waiting for SSL handshake error) then
SSLADMIN LOG to check the log, I get nothing :

00470 DTCSSL003I  SSLADMIN received: TRACECONNECTIONS NODATA ALL 
00471 DTCSSL047I  Trace established  
00472 DTCSSL003I  SSLADMIN received: LOG 

Would this not indicate that the handshake request is not getting to the
SSLSERV?

Tim


-Original Message-
From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Alan Altmark
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 1:34 PM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: SSL connection problem after IPL

On Wednesday, 08/06/2008 at 11:25 EDT, Tim Joyce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Yep,  running z/VM 5.2. Here is my secure telnet PORT  statement:
>  
> 8823 TCP VTUBESSL SECURE ALCERT ; SECURE TELNET TO  VTUBESSL

(And please remove the SECURE statement from port .  It doesn't go
there.)

 
> User Id  ConnLocal  SocketForeign  Socket  
State
>  --  -  -----  --  
-
> SSLSERV  1226 *..1025  *..*
Listen   
> SSLSERV  1046 127.0.0.0..  *..*
Listen   
> 
 

> Active IPv6 Transmission Blocks: 
None 
>  
> Should I not have a port  8823 socket, or would it only show for an
active 
> session? What is the 1025  for?

You need to look at the socket connections for VTUBESSL, not SSLSERV.
Port
1025 is the SSL server listening for new SSL connections from the stack.

(We probably shouldn't display that.)

Alan Altmark
z/VM Development
IBM Endicott

Re: SSL connection problem after IPL

[Alan Altmark]

On Wednesday, 08/06/2008 at 11:25 EDT, Tim Joyce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
> Yep,  running z/VM 5.2. Here is my secure telnet PORT  statement:
>  
> 8823 TCP VTUBESSL SECURE ALCERT ; SECURE TELNET TO  VTUBESSL  

(And please remove the SECURE statement from port .  It doesn't go 
there.)

 
> User Id  ConnLocal  SocketForeign  Socket  
State
>  --  -  -----  --  
-
> SSLSERV  1226 *..1025  *..*
Listen   
> SSLSERV  1046 127.0.0.0..  *..*
Listen   
> 
  
> Active IPv6 Transmission Blocks: 
None 
>  
> Should I not have a port  8823 socket, or would it only show for an 
active 
> session? What is the 1025  for?

You need to look at the socket connections for VTUBESSL, not SSLSERV. Port 
1025 is the SSL server listening for new SSL connections from the stack. 
(We probably shouldn't display that.)

Alan Altmark
z/VM Development
IBM Endicott

Re: ADD VIRTUAL MEMORY DYNAMICALLY

[James Vincent]

Yes you are indeed correct.  It made sense to ME when I wrote it!   So,
"Lucky to get PLANNED outages once a quarter" is what it should say.

z/VM and the hardware have been darn near rock solid.  We have had a bump or
two in the road, but they have long been solved.  From a virtualization and
"massive" Linux on z environment capability/stability perspective, I give it
three thumbs up.  (One real, two virtual...)

Jim Vincent

On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 11:40 AM, Schuh, Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>  That could be taken two ways. You are lucky if you allowed outages that
> frequently or you are lucky if you get outages no more frequently than that
> :-) Which is it?
>
>
> Regards,
> Richard Schuh
>

Re: ADD VIRTUAL MEMORY DYNAMICALLY

[Schuh, Richard]

I would think that 24 X 7 X 52 would be more accurate - 24 hours/day X 7
days/week X 52 weeks/year. It yields a result in hours/year. The other
yields (HOURS * DAYS**2) / (WEEKS * YEARS). Alternatively, 24 hours/day
X 365 days/year gives a result in hours/year. Neither accounts for the
fact that a year is slightly longer than either 365 days or 52 weeks.

Just because it is widely used doesn't make it correct or accurate.

Regards, 
Richard Schuh 

 

> -Original Message-
> From: The IBM z/VM Operating System 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael Coffin
> Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 9:18 AM
> To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
> Subject: Re: ADD VIRTUAL MEMORY DYNAMICALLY
> 
> Gee, I don't know when the expression first started being 
> used, but I know I've been using it for at least two decades.  :)
> 
> 24 HOURS x 7 DAYS/WEEK x 365 DAYS/YEAR
> 
> -MC
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: The IBM z/VM Operating System 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Schuh, Richard
> Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 11:51 AM
> To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
> Subject: Re: ADD VIRTUAL MEMORY DYNAMICALLY
> 
> 
> How long of a period is 24 X 7 X 365? Perhaps 365 weeks? 7 
> years? 365 weeks? There is redundancy in the expression. I 
> would almost be willing to bet that nobody responding in the 
> affirmative to the question has had a Linux system up on 
> their zSeries for either 7 years or 365 weeks :-) 
> 
> Regards,
> Richard Schuh 
> 
>  
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: The IBM z/VM Operating System
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael Coffin
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 5:18 AM
> > To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
> > Subject: Re: ADD VIRTUAL MEMORY DYNAMICALLY
> > 
> > Yes, definitely.  24 x 7 x 365
> > 
> > -Mike
> > 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: The IBM z/VM Operating System
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Alan Ackerman
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 2:06 AM
> > To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
> > Subject: Re: ADD VIRTUAL MEMORY DYNAMICALLY
> > 
> > Do people really have Linux systems that run 7 x 24?
> > 
> > Alan Ackerman
> > Alan (dot) Ackerman (at) Bank of America (dot) com
> > 
> 

Re: ADD VIRTUAL MEMORY DYNAMICALLY

[Michael Coffin]

Gee, I don't know when the expression first started being used, but I
know I've been using it for at least two decades.  :)

24 HOURS x 7 DAYS/WEEK x 365 DAYS/YEAR

-MC

-Original Message-
From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Schuh, Richard
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 11:51 AM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: ADD VIRTUAL MEMORY DYNAMICALLY


How long of a period is 24 X 7 X 365? Perhaps 365 weeks? 7 years? 365
weeks? There is redundancy in the expression. I would almost be willing
to bet that nobody responding in the affirmative to the question has had
a Linux system up on their zSeries for either 7 years or 365 weeks :-) 

Regards, 
Richard Schuh 

 

> -Original Message-
> From: The IBM z/VM Operating System
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael Coffin
> Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 5:18 AM
> To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
> Subject: Re: ADD VIRTUAL MEMORY DYNAMICALLY
> 
> Yes, definitely.  24 x 7 x 365
> 
> -Mike
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: The IBM z/VM Operating System
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Alan Ackerman
> Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 2:06 AM
> To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
> Subject: Re: ADD VIRTUAL MEMORY DYNAMICALLY
> 
> Do people really have Linux systems that run 7 x 24?
> 
> Alan Ackerman
> Alan (dot) Ackerman (at) Bank of America (dot) com
> 

Re: Portable z/VM help?

[David Boyes]

> But, searching a PDF for a keyword is far less good than the search
> method in bookmanager read, both in performance and in the
> presentation of the search result.  (Even though FoxitReader searches
> faster than Acrobat reader, both need to scan the whole PDF file what
> takes time).

Only if the PDF is not indexed. If you use the full Acrobat package to
generate the PDFs, there is a pdfindex tool that can be used to generate
a index of a collection of PDFs. If you use that regularly, the search
performance is comparable between the two. 

Re: SSL connection problem after IPL

[Tim Joyce]

Did it again !!!  The VM listserv is displaying my paste incorrectly.
The last 2 PORT statements are commented out.

Tim 

-Original Message-
From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Tim Joyce
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 11:45 AM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: SSL connection problem after IPL

Don't know why my Redbook PDF copy/paste did not display the  port
correctly! Here is the correct display:

 TCP SSLSERV SECURE EHCERT ; SSL SERVER - ADMINISTRATION ;  TCP
SSLSERV ; SSL SERVER - ADMINISTRATION ; 520 UDP MPROUTE NOAUTOLOG ;
Multiple Protocol Routing Server

Tim

 

-Original Message-
From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Tim Joyce
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 11:37 AM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: SSL connection problem after IPL

Hey Alan,

Please keep in mind, I am a LINUX newbie. This SSL server is my first
and only Linux implementation.

I got the PORT  setup from the IBM Redbook - SSL Server
Implementation for z/VM 5.2 . 

Copied from PDF Redbook :

Example 4-1 PROFILE TCPIP example
; --
; Reserve ports for specific server machines. Port values used are ;
those defined in RFC 1060, "Assigned Numbers"
; --
; Note that the MPROUTE and RouteD servers cannot be concurrently used ;
with the same TCP/IP stack server.
; --
PORT
20 TCP FTPSERVE NOAUTOLOG ; FTP Server
21 TCP FTPSERVE ; FTP Server
23 TCP INTCLIEN SECURE EHCERT ; TELNET Server ; 23 TCP INTCLIEN ; TELNET
Server
25 TCP SMTP ; SMTP Server
53 TCP NAMESRV ; Domain Name Server
53 UDP NAMESRV ; Domain Name Server
; 67 UDP BOOTPD ; BootP Server
; 67 UDP DHCPD ; DHCP Server
69 UDP TFTPD ; TFTPD (Trivial FTP) Server
81 TCP PERFSVM NOAUTOLOG ; FCON/ESA INTERNET SERVER
111 TCP PORTMAP ; Portmap Server
111 UDP PORTMAP ; Portmap Server
143 TCP IMAP ; IMAP Server
161 UDP SNMPD ; SNMP Agent
162 UDP SNMPQE ; SNMPQE Agent
512 TCP REXECD ; REXECD Server (REXEC)
514 TCP REXECD ; REXECD Server (RSH)
515 TCP LPSERVE ; LP Server
 TCP SSLSERV SECURE EHCERT ; SSL SERVER - ADMINISTRATION ;  TCP
SSLSERV ; SSL SERVER - ADMINISTRATION ; 520 UDP MPROUTE NOAUTOLOG ;
Multiple Protocol Routing Server 

Thinking PORT  may be the problem, I already tried changing PORT
 back to BASE statement with OBEYFILE, but had no luck. All my
SSLADMIN command seem to work, although a little slower response than I
remember before fateful IPL. 

As far as an emulator trace. I may need some help on how to do that.

Thanks, Tim

-Original Message-
From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Alan Altmark
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 11:18 AM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: SSL connection problem after IPL

On Wednesday, 08/06/2008 at 10:36 EDT, Tim Joyce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> As far as PROFILE TCPIP  errors, I did notice yesterday I had 
> misspelled
the 
> PORT   statement for my SSLSERV admin :
>  
>  TCP  SSLSERV SERCUR ALCERT ; SSL SERVER -  ADMINISTRATION
>  
> so I corrected with  obeyfile :
>  
>  TCP SSLSERV SECURE  ALCERT ; SSL SERVER - ADMINISTRATION
>  
> If this is the problem, I  do not understand why it would have worked
before 
> the IPL. And, if this was  the issue, shouldn't  the corrected 
> obeyfile
have 
> resolved this, or will I  need to wait until I can cycle the TCPIP 
> stack
this 
> weekend?

This is incorrect.  The SECURE option goes on the PORT entries for the
ports you want to protect.  It does not go on port  (the SSLADMIN
command connection).

You mentioned that you are getting a failure on secure telnet.

1.  Do you have the SECURE option specified for the port you are using
for secure telnet?  (Assuming an old-school secure telnet emulator.)

2.  Can you successfully issue SSLADMIN commands?

3.  Is the DTCPARMS entry for SSLSERV correct?  If you had previously
manually started the SSL server with different start-up parameters,
those are no longer in effect.

4.  Have you looked at an emulator trace to see what it's doing?

Alan Altmark
z/VM Development
IBM Endicott

Re: ADD VIRTUAL MEMORY DYNAMICALLY

[Schuh, Richard]

How long of a period is 24 X 7 X 365? Perhaps 365 weeks? 7 years? 365
weeks? There is redundancy in the expression. I would almost be willing
to bet that nobody responding in the affirmative to the question has had
a Linux system up on their zSeries for either 7 years or 365 weeks :-) 

Regards, 
Richard Schuh 

 

> -Original Message-
> From: The IBM z/VM Operating System 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael Coffin
> Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 5:18 AM
> To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
> Subject: Re: ADD VIRTUAL MEMORY DYNAMICALLY
> 
> Yes, definitely.  24 x 7 x 365
> 
> -Mike
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: The IBM z/VM Operating System 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Alan Ackerman
> Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 2:06 AM
> To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
> Subject: Re: ADD VIRTUAL MEMORY DYNAMICALLY
> 
> Do people really have Linux systems that run 7 x 24?
> 
> Alan Ackerman
> Alan (dot) Ackerman (at) Bank of America (dot) com 
> 

Re: SSL connection problem after IPL

[Tim Joyce]

Don't know why my Redbook PDF copy/paste did not display the  port
correctly! Here is the correct display:

 TCP SSLSERV SECURE EHCERT ; SSL SERVER - ADMINISTRATION
;  TCP SSLSERV ; SSL SERVER - ADMINISTRATION
; 520 UDP MPROUTE NOAUTOLOG ; Multiple Protocol Routing Server

Tim

 

-Original Message-
From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Tim Joyce
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 11:37 AM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: SSL connection problem after IPL

Hey Alan,

Please keep in mind, I am a LINUX newbie. This SSL server is my first
and only Linux implementation.

I got the PORT  setup from the IBM Redbook - SSL Server
Implementation for z/VM 5.2 . 

Copied from PDF Redbook :

Example 4-1 PROFILE TCPIP example
; --
; Reserve ports for specific server machines. Port values used are ;
those defined in RFC 1060, "Assigned Numbers"
; --
; Note that the MPROUTE and RouteD servers cannot be concurrently used ;
with the same TCP/IP stack server.
; --
PORT
20 TCP FTPSERVE NOAUTOLOG ; FTP Server
21 TCP FTPSERVE ; FTP Server
23 TCP INTCLIEN SECURE EHCERT ; TELNET Server ; 23 TCP INTCLIEN ; TELNET
Server
25 TCP SMTP ; SMTP Server
53 TCP NAMESRV ; Domain Name Server
53 UDP NAMESRV ; Domain Name Server
; 67 UDP BOOTPD ; BootP Server
; 67 UDP DHCPD ; DHCP Server
69 UDP TFTPD ; TFTPD (Trivial FTP) Server
81 TCP PERFSVM NOAUTOLOG ; FCON/ESA INTERNET SERVER
111 TCP PORTMAP ; Portmap Server
111 UDP PORTMAP ; Portmap Server
143 TCP IMAP ; IMAP Server
161 UDP SNMPD ; SNMP Agent
162 UDP SNMPQE ; SNMPQE Agent
512 TCP REXECD ; REXECD Server (REXEC)
514 TCP REXECD ; REXECD Server (RSH)
515 TCP LPSERVE ; LP Server
 TCP SSLSERV SECURE EHCERT ; SSL SERVER - ADMINISTRATION ;  TCP
SSLSERV ; SSL SERVER - ADMINISTRATION ; 520 UDP MPROUTE NOAUTOLOG ;
Multiple Protocol Routing Server 

Thinking PORT  may be the problem, I already tried changing PORT
 back to BASE statement with OBEYFILE, but had no luck. All my
SSLADMIN command seem to work, although a little slower response than I
remember before fateful IPL. 

As far as an emulator trace. I may need some help on how to do that.

Thanks, Tim

-Original Message-
From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Alan Altmark
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 11:18 AM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: SSL connection problem after IPL

On Wednesday, 08/06/2008 at 10:36 EDT, Tim Joyce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> As far as PROFILE TCPIP  errors, I did notice yesterday I had 
> misspelled
the 
> PORT   statement for my SSLSERV admin :
>  
>  TCP  SSLSERV SERCUR ALCERT ; SSL SERVER -  ADMINISTRATION
>  
> so I corrected with  obeyfile :
>  
>  TCP SSLSERV SECURE  ALCERT ; SSL SERVER - ADMINISTRATION
>  
> If this is the problem, I  do not understand why it would have worked
before 
> the IPL. And, if this was  the issue, shouldn't  the corrected 
> obeyfile
have 
> resolved this, or will I  need to wait until I can cycle the TCPIP 
> stack
this 
> weekend?

This is incorrect.  The SECURE option goes on the PORT entries for the
ports you want to protect.  It does not go on port  (the SSLADMIN
command connection).

You mentioned that you are getting a failure on secure telnet.

1.  Do you have the SECURE option specified for the port you are using
for secure telnet?  (Assuming an old-school secure telnet emulator.)

2.  Can you successfully issue SSLADMIN commands?

3.  Is the DTCPARMS entry for SSLSERV correct?  If you had previously
manually started the SSL server with different start-up parameters,
those are no longer in effect.

4.  Have you looked at an emulator trace to see what it's doing?

Alan Altmark
z/VM Development
IBM Endicott

Re: ADD VIRTUAL MEMORY DYNAMICALLY

[Schuh, Richard]

That could be taken two ways. You are lucky if you allowed outages that
frequently or you are lucky if you get outages no more frequently than
that :-) Which is it?
 

Regards, 
Richard Schuh 

 

 




From: The IBM z/VM Operating System
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of James Vincent
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 4:14 AM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: ADD VIRTUAL MEMORY DYNAMICALLY


And YES again here.  We are _lucky_ if we get an outage once a
quarter!

Jim Vincent


On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 6:11 AM, Mary Anne Matyaz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:




Do people really have Linux systems that run 7 x 24?


YES. But I get an outage once a quarter. Usually. 

Re: SSL connection problem after IPL

[Tim Joyce]

Hey Alan,

Please keep in mind, I am a LINUX newbie. This SSL server is my first
and only Linux implementation.

I got the PORT  setup from the IBM Redbook - SSL Server
Implementation for z/VM 5.2 . 

Copied from PDF Redbook :

Example 4-1 PROFILE TCPIP example
; --
; Reserve ports for specific server machines. Port values used are
; those defined in RFC 1060, "Assigned Numbers"
; --
; Note that the MPROUTE and RouteD servers cannot be concurrently used
; with the same TCP/IP stack server.
; --
PORT
20 TCP FTPSERVE NOAUTOLOG ; FTP Server
21 TCP FTPSERVE ; FTP Server
23 TCP INTCLIEN SECURE EHCERT ; TELNET Server
; 23 TCP INTCLIEN ; TELNET Server
25 TCP SMTP ; SMTP Server
53 TCP NAMESRV ; Domain Name Server
53 UDP NAMESRV ; Domain Name Server
; 67 UDP BOOTPD ; BootP Server
; 67 UDP DHCPD ; DHCP Server
69 UDP TFTPD ; TFTPD (Trivial FTP) Server
81 TCP PERFSVM NOAUTOLOG ; FCON/ESA INTERNET SERVER
111 TCP PORTMAP ; Portmap Server
111 UDP PORTMAP ; Portmap Server
143 TCP IMAP ; IMAP Server
161 UDP SNMPD ; SNMP Agent
162 UDP SNMPQE ; SNMPQE Agent
512 TCP REXECD ; REXECD Server (REXEC)
514 TCP REXECD ; REXECD Server (RSH)
515 TCP LPSERVE ; LP Server
 TCP SSLSERV SECURE EHCERT ; SSL SERVER - ADMINISTRATION
;  TCP SSLSERV ; SSL SERVER - ADMINISTRATION
; 520 UDP MPROUTE NOAUTOLOG ; Multiple Protocol Routing Server 

Thinking PORT  may be the problem, I already tried changing PORT
 back to BASE statement with OBEYFILE, but had no luck. All my
SSLADMIN command seem to work, although a little slower response than I
remember before fateful IPL. 

As far as an emulator trace. I may need some help on how to do that.

Thanks, Tim

-Original Message-
From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Alan Altmark
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 11:18 AM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: SSL connection problem after IPL

On Wednesday, 08/06/2008 at 10:36 EDT, Tim Joyce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> As far as PROFILE TCPIP  errors, I did notice yesterday I had 
> misspelled
the 
> PORT   statement for my SSLSERV admin :
>  
>  TCP  SSLSERV SERCUR ALCERT ; SSL SERVER -  ADMINISTRATION
>  
> so I corrected with  obeyfile :
>  
>  TCP SSLSERV SECURE  ALCERT ; SSL SERVER - ADMINISTRATION
>  
> If this is the problem, I  do not understand why it would have worked
before 
> the IPL. And, if this was  the issue, shouldn't  the corrected 
> obeyfile
have 
> resolved this, or will I  need to wait until I can cycle the TCPIP 
> stack
this 
> weekend?

This is incorrect.  The SECURE option goes on the PORT entries for the
ports you want to protect.  It does not go on port  (the SSLADMIN
command connection).

You mentioned that you are getting a failure on secure telnet.

1.  Do you have the SECURE option specified for the port you are using
for secure telnet?  (Assuming an old-school secure telnet emulator.)

2.  Can you successfully issue SSLADMIN commands?

3.  Is the DTCPARMS entry for SSLSERV correct?  If you had previously
manually started the SSL server with different start-up parameters,
those are no longer in effect.

4.  Have you looked at an emulator trace to see what it's doing?

Alan Altmark
z/VM Development
IBM Endicott

Re: SSL connection problem after IPL

[Tim Joyce]

Yep, running z/VM 5.2. Here is my secure telnet PORT statement:
 
8823 TCP VTUBESSL SECURE ALCERT ; SECURE TELNET TO VTUBESSL  
 
Here is my SSLADMIN QUERY STATUS :
 
ssladmin query status

Maximum number of sessions: 100

Number of active sessions: 0

Administration port: 

Cipher_suites included :   RC4_128_SHA  RC4_128_MD5  TRIPLE_DES_SHA
RC4_US  RC2_US  DES_1024_SHA  RC4_56_SHA  DES_40_SHA  RC4_40_MD5
RC2_40_MD5  DES_56_SHA  NULL_SHA  NULL_MD5  NULL 
Cipher_suites exempted :
Trace Settings:  
  Normal: OFF 
  Connections: OFF   
  Flow: OFF

  Address: 255.255.255.255:0

  Connection: 0

 
My SSLADMIN QUERY CERT ALCERT:
 
ssladmin query cert ALCERT  
Certificate information:

Label:ALCERT
  Version:3 
Serial number:482c91bf  
Issued by:  
  MAINFRAME.ALEXLEE.COM 
  ALEXLEE INC.  
  HICKORY, NC   
  USA   
   Belongs to:  
  MAINFRAME.ALEXLEE.COM 
  ALEXLEE INC.  
  HICKORY, NC   
  USA   
  Effective dates:May 14 2008 to May 16 2011
 Type:Server
 Key Size:1024  
 
I do notice my NETSTAT CONN (SELECT SSLSERV shows :
 
netstat conn (select sslserv

VM TCP/IP Netstat Level 520

 

Active IPv4 Transmission Blocks:

 

User Id  ConnLocal SocketForeign Socket  State

 --  - ----- --  -

SSLSERV  1226*..1025 *..*Listen

SSLSERV  1046127.0.0.0.. *..*Listen

 

Active IPv6 Transmission Blocks: None

 
Should I not have a port 8823 socket, or would it only show for an
active session? What is the 1025 for?
 
Tim



From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Adam Thornton
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 10:44 AM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: SSL connection problem after IPL



On Aug 6, 2008, at 9:35 AM, Tim Joyce wrote:


Hey Adam,
 
Thanks for the reply. Here is my DF command:
 
df

Filesystem   1K-blocks  Used Available Use% Mounted
on  
/dev/dasda1 139368127316 12052  92% /

tmpfs63040 0 63040   0% /dev/shm

/dev/dasdb165632   592   6%
/opt/vmssl/parms
 
Is 92 % ok? How should I clean up the log files?



92% is fine.  Judging from the partition size, you're running z/VM 5.2
or earlier, right?



 As far as PROFILE TCPIP errors, I did notice yesterday I had
misspelled the PORT  statement for my SSLSERV admin :
 
 TCP SSLSERV SERCUR ALCERT ; SSL SERVER - ADMINISTRATION
 
so I corrected with obeyfile :
 
 TCP SSLSERV SECURE ALCERT ; SSL SERVER - ADMINISTRATION 
 
If this is the problem, I do not understand why it would have
worked before the IPL. And, if this was the issue, shouldn't  the
corrected obeyfile have resolved this, or will I need to wait until I
can cycle the TCPIP stack this weekend?


If it worked before IPL it was probably that someone had done an
OBEYFILE last time, but I would think an OBEYFILE would have worked this
time.

How about the ports that you're actually using to connect SSL services
on?  What do those look like?  Do they have the right certificate names?

Adam

Re: SSL connection problem after IPL

[Alan Altmark]

On Wednesday, 08/06/2008 at 10:36 EDT, Tim Joyce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
> As far as PROFILE TCPIP  errors, I did notice yesterday I had misspelled 
the 
> PORT   statement for my SSLSERV admin :
>  
>  TCP  SSLSERV SERCUR ALCERT ; SSL SERVER -  ADMINISTRATION
>  
> so I corrected with  obeyfile :
>  
>  TCP SSLSERV SECURE  ALCERT ; SSL SERVER - ADMINISTRATION 
>  
> If this is the problem, I  do not understand why it would have worked 
before 
> the IPL. And, if this was  the issue, shouldn't  the corrected obeyfile 
have 
> resolved this, or will I  need to wait until I can cycle the TCPIP stack 
this 
> weekend?

This is incorrect.  The SECURE option goes on the PORT entries for the 
ports you want to protect.  It does not go on port  (the SSLADMIN 
command connection).

You mentioned that you are getting a failure on secure telnet.

1.  Do you have the SECURE option specified for the port you are using for 
secure telnet?  (Assuming an old-school secure telnet emulator.)

2.  Can you successfully issue SSLADMIN commands?

3.  Is the DTCPARMS entry for SSLSERV correct?  If you had previously 
manually started the SSL server with different start-up parameters, those 
are no longer in effect.

4.  Have you looked at an emulator trace to see what it's doing?

Alan Altmark
z/VM Development
IBM Endicott

Re: SSL connection problem after IPL

[Adam Thornton]

On Aug 6, 2008, at 9:35 AM, Tim Joyce wrote:


Hey Adam,

Thanks for the reply. Here is my DF command:

df
Filesystem   1K-blocks  Used Available Use% Mounted on
/dev/dasda1 139368127316 12052  92% /
tmpfs63040 0 63040   0% /dev/shm
/dev/dasdb165632   592   6% /opt/vmssl/ 
parms


Is 92 % ok? How should I clean up the log files?



92% is fine.  Judging from the partition size, you're running z/VM 5.2  
or earlier, right?


 As far as PROFILE TCPIP errors, I did notice yesterday I had  
misspelled the PORT  statement for my SSLSERV admin :


 TCP SSLSERV SERCUR ALCERT ; SSL SERVER - ADMINISTRATION

so I corrected with obeyfile :

 TCP SSLSERV SECURE ALCERT ; SSL SERVER - ADMINISTRATION

If this is the problem, I do not understand why it would have worked  
before the IPL. And, if this was the issue, shouldn't  the corrected  
obeyfile have resolved this, or will I need to wait until I can  
cycle the TCPIP stack this weekend?


If it worked before IPL it was probably that someone had done an  
OBEYFILE last time, but I would think an OBEYFILE would have worked  
this time.


How about the ports that you're actually using to connect SSL services  
on?  What do those look like?  Do they have the right certificate names?


Adam

Re: SSL connection problem after IPL

[Tim Joyce]

Hey Adam,
 
Thanks for the reply. Here is my DF command:
 
df

Filesystem   1K-blocks  Used Available Use% Mounted on

/dev/dasda1 139368127316 12052  92% /

tmpfs63040 0 63040   0% /dev/shm

/dev/dasdb165632   592   6% /opt/vmssl/parms

 
Is 92 % ok? How should I clean up the log files? 
 
As far as PROFILE TCPIP errors, I did notice yesterday I had misspelled
the PORT  statement for my SSLSERV admin :
 
 TCP SSLSERV SERCUR ALCERT ; SSL SERVER - ADMINISTRATION
 
so I corrected with obeyfile :
 
 TCP SSLSERV SECURE ALCERT ; SSL SERVER - ADMINISTRATION 
 
If this is the problem, I do not understand why it would have worked
before the IPL. And, if this was the issue, shouldn't  the corrected
obeyfile have resolved this, or will I need to wait until I can cycle
the TCPIP stack this weekend?
 
Thanks, Tim



From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Adam Thornton
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 9:55 AM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: SSL connection problem after IPL



On Aug 6, 2008, at 7:37 AM, Tim Joyce wrote:


Hey guys,
 
I've been using secure telnet through a SSLSERV for many months
now. After we IPLed over the weekend, it stopped working. The SSLSERV
machine is up a communicating with SSLADMIN commands. The certificate
looks correct. NETSTAT CO shows the SSLSERV in a listen status. But, if
I try to start up a secure telnet session, I get :
 
SSLv2  handshake failure: Socket error 1: SSL_ERROR_SSL.
 
Can anyone point me in the right direction?


Log into the console of the SSLSERV machine.  Run "df" and see if maybe
your log files have filled up the whole disk.  Also check your PROFILE
TCPIP and make sure that you really are wrapping the ports you think
you're wrapping.

Adam

Re: ADD VIRTUAL MEMORY DYNAMICALLY

[Bob Levad (641-585-6770)]

I just retired a Marist installation had been running for just short of 8
years through 3 mainframes.  It was a secondary DNS server, so it definitely
ran 7x24x365.

  _  

From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Mark Pace
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 8:12 AM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: ADD VIRTUAL MEMORY DYNAMICALLY





Do people really have Linux systems that run 7 x 24?



I have 5 currently that are 7 x 24.  About to add a couple more.


-- 
Mark Pace
Mainline Information Systems
1700 Summit Lake Drive
Tallahassee, FL. 32317


This electronic transmission and any documents accompanying this electronic 
transmission contain confidential information belonging to the sender.  This 
information may be legally privileged.  The information is intended only for 
the use of the individual or entity named above.  If you are not the intended 
recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, 
or the taking of any action in reliance on or regarding the contents of this 
electronically transmitted information is strictly prohibited.

Re: SSL connection problem after IPL

[Adam Thornton]

On Aug 6, 2008, at 7:37 AM, Tim Joyce wrote:


Hey guys,

I've been using secure telnet through a SSLSERV for many months now.  
After we IPLed over the weekend, it stopped working. The SSLSERV  
machine is up a communicating with SSLADMIN commands. The  
certificate looks correct. NETSTAT CO shows the SSLSERV in a listen  
status. But, if I try to start up a secure telnet session, I get :


SSLv2  handshake failure: Socket error 1: SSL_ERROR_SSL.

Can anyone point me in the right direction?

Log into the console of the SSLSERV machine.  Run "df" and see if  
maybe your log files have filled up the whole disk.  Also check your  
PROFILE TCPIP and make sure that you really are wrapping the ports you  
think you're wrapping.


Adam

Re: z/VM 5.4 Workloads

[Rob van der Heij]

On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 6:51 PM, Lionel B. Dyck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Moving selected Linux, Windows(R), and UNIX(R) workloads to a single System z

Those words... :-)   Just like in IBM the "preferred" in "preferred
e-address" does not have anything to do with what you prefer, the
"selected" is not what *you* select but what IBM selects to run.
If I were IBM, I would select the workload of an idle server, for
starters...  ;-)

Rob

Re: ADD VIRTUAL MEMORY DYNAMICALLY

[Mark Pace]

>
>
>
> Do people really have Linux systems that run 7 x 24?
>

I have 5 currently that are 7 x 24.  About to add a couple more.


-- 
Mark Pace
Mainline Information Systems
1700 Summit Lake Drive
Tallahassee, FL. 32317

Re: ADD VIRTUAL MEMORY DYNAMICALLY

[Bill Munson]

Do people really have Linux systems that run 7 x 24?

Alan Ackerman
Alan (dot) Ackerman (at) Bank of America (dot) com 

Alan,

You bet we do - more than one in fact 

Bill Munson
Brown Brothers Harriman
z/VM System Programmer
201-418-7588

President MVMUA
http://www2.marist.edu/~mvmua/





Alan Ackerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
Sent by: The IBM z/VM Operating System 
08/06/2008 02:06 AM
Please respond to
The IBM z/VM Operating System 


To
IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
cc

Subject
Re: ADD VIRTUAL MEMORY DYNAMICALLY






On Tue, 5 Aug 2008 09:58:58 -0700, 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 

Deleting memory is a lot harder. 

What if there are control blocks in there? You could use handles (pointer
s to pointers) but that is a 
complete rewrite. If a control block can move, you cannot trust a registe
r to continue to point to 
it. I think this would require a new instruction set to do the pointer to
 pointer resolution directly.

Or you can fence off areas and say "no control blocks allowed in here". T
hat would increase the 
complexity of operating systems, though. Such storage could only be used 
to back up guest or 
pageable operating system pages. 

If you wanted to remove a block of memory, you would have to initiate a m
ass page-out to clear 
the area. I'd rather not have to resolve the performance issues that migh
t occur.

Does z/OS do this?

I don't think the ability to remove memory is something I want IBM to spe
nd scarce z/VM 
development dollars on.

Another thought:

The need to add memory may be an emergency situation. The need to remove 
it again is not an 
emergency and can be planned. How important avoiding an IML may be depend
s on whether you 
really want to achieve 7 x 24 operation. 7 x 24 operation is going to cos
t you something -- 
including adequate capacity and memory. 

There are other ways to achieve 7 x 24 operation. We don't run any system
s with true 7 x 24 
requirements. We may run pairs of systems, or sysplexes of systems, but n
ot single systems.

Do people really have Linux systems that run 7 x 24?

Alan Ackerman
Alan (dot) Ackerman (at) Bank of America (dot) com 



*** IMPORTANT
NOTE* The opinions expressed in this
message and/or any attachments are those of the author and not
necessarily those of Brown Brothers Harriman & Co., its
subsidiaries and affiliates ("BBH"). There is no guarantee that
this message is either private or confidential, and it may have
been altered by unauthorized sources without your or our knowledge.
Nothing in the message is capable or intended to create any legally
binding obligations on either party and it is not intended to
provide legal advice. BBH accepts no responsibility for loss or
damage from its use, including damage from virus.

SSL connection problem after IPL

[Tim Joyce]

Hey guys,
 
I've been using secure telnet through a SSLSERV for many months now.
After we IPLed over the weekend, it stopped working. The SSLSERV machine
is up a communicating with SSLADMIN commands. The certificate looks
correct. NETSTAT CO shows the SSLSERV in a listen status. But, if I try
to start up a secure telnet session, I get :
 
SSLv2  handshake failure: Socket error 1: SSL_ERROR_SSL.
 
Can anyone point me in the right direction?
 
Thanks, Tim



Tim Joyce
Sr. Systems Programmer / Project Leader 
Alex Lee, Inc. 
Email : [EMAIL PROTECTED]   
Phone: (828) 725-4448  
Fax: (828) 725-4800

 

Re: ADD VIRTUAL MEMORY DYNAMICALLY

[Rob van der Heij]

On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 2:17 PM, Michael Coffin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Yes, definitely.  24 x 7 x 365

That's from the IBM marketing material, IIRC :-)  (unless you meant to
retire after 7 years)

Re: PigIron design comments - visit forum

[Mark Pace]

Permission Denied Access to this page is restricted (either to project
members or to project administrators) and you do not meet the requirements
to access this page. Please contact the administrator of this project for
further assistance.

On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 1:57 AM, Jack Woehr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> If anybody is interested in PigIron design, the discussion is here:
> http://sourceforge.net/forum/forum.php?thread_id=2154830&forum_id=852410
>
> I should have some working code checked in later this week or Monday or
> Tuesday at the latest.
>
> --
> Jack J. Woehr# "Self-delusion is
> http://www.well.com/~jax  #  half the battle!"
> http://www.softwoehr.com #  - Zippy the Pinhead
>



-- 
Mark Pace
Mainline Information Systems
1700 Summit Lake Drive
Tallahassee, FL. 32317

Re: ADD VIRTUAL MEMORY DYNAMICALLY

[Michael Coffin]

Yes, definitely.  24 x 7 x 365

-Mike

-Original Message-
From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Alan Ackerman
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 2:06 AM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: ADD VIRTUAL MEMORY DYNAMICALLY

Do people really have Linux systems that run 7 x 24?

Alan Ackerman
Alan (dot) Ackerman (at) Bank of America (dot) com 

Re: ADD VIRTUAL MEMORY DYNAMICALLY

[James Vincent]

And YES again here.  We are _lucky_ if we get an outage once a quarter!

Jim Vincent

On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 6:11 AM, Mary Anne Matyaz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:

>
>
> Do people really have Linux systems that run 7 x 24?
>
> YES. But I get an outage once a quarter. Usually.
>

Re: ADD VIRTUAL MEMORY DYNAMICALLY

[Mary Anne Matyaz]

Do people really have Linux systems that run 7 x 24?

YES. But I get an outage once a quarter. Usually.

Re: Portable z/VM help?

[Ivica Brodaric]

>
> And I did get used to the improved layout of the PDF books.
> -Rob
>

I use PDF format for longer reading, BookManager format for quick search. If
you download whole bookshelves, they come with bookshelf indexes which let
you search even multiple bookshelves pretty quickly.

Mind you, I just went to open a PDF file from within Softcopy Reader and it
resorts to command window both on Win XP and Vista. Obviously, something is
broken there (it used to work, scout's honor!). Maybe no support for Acrobat
9?

Ivica

Re: ADD VIRTUAL MEMORY DYNAMICALLY

[Rob van der Heij]

On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 8:06 AM, Alan Ackerman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Deleting memory is a lot harder.

Many delicate CP areas now also are in virtual memory as a result of
the 2G relief, even though not all may be paged.
It depends a lot on the granularity of the next level of mapping. When
90% of your in-use pages is virtual machine pages, you can probably
find 16 MB worth of individual pages to give up. But evacuating pages
at random in the hope to free an entire 16MB chunk is less attractive
(I think some time ago pages under the bar would be freed like that).

> Do people really have Linux systems that run 7 x 24?

There are a lot of installations expecting their Linux guests on z/VM
to be "always there" and the applications have been spoiled by
hardware that was "almost always there" and tend to take that as their
SLA, avoiding the need for redundancy and fail-over on the application
level.

You're very right that traditional installations approach this from
another direction, understanding that (planned) outages for each
component add up (multiply). They have applications designed to move
and shift to achieve a higher availability than a single operating
system. For example running the back-end with DB/2 on z/OS and the
front-end with Linux on z/VM (where the front-end does not hold
application data and is volatile).
Once your applications can do that, the investment to transform a
single system from "almost 7x24" to "full 7x24" is not justified
anymore.

Rob