Re: Shared File System Interface
³Twitchy² - is a squirrel and best friend of Wolf W. Wolf in Hoodwinked. ³twitchy² as used below makes me, well Twitchy. Could you elaborate on why use of SFS via NFS ³Sort of makes the z guys twitchy² --. .- .-. -.-- Gary Dennis Mantissa Corporation On 5/1/09 7:39 AM, Dean, David (I/S) david_d...@bcbst.com wrote: Yep. Then you can Samba out the NFS to window's boxes and have a really nice file server. Sort of makes the z guys twitchy though. David Dean Information Systems *bcbstauthorized* -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Alan Altmark Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 1:15 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Shared File System Interface On Wednesday, 04/29/2009 at 01:06 EDT, Dave Jones d...@vsoft-software.com wrote: Nope, afraid notbut it would be way cool if Linux, as a guest of z/VM, could read/write SFS directories and files. It can. It just needs to use NFS to do it. Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott - Please see the following link for the BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee E-mail disclaimer: http://www.bcbst.com/email_disclaimer.shtm
Re: Shared File System Interface
On May 1, 2009, at 8:01 AM, Gary M. Dennis wrote: Could you elaborate on why use of SFS via NFS “Sort of makes the z guys twitchy” I'm not the original poster who made that comment, but I understand it. Taking a perfectly nice file system and remapping it twice (to NFS, and then through Samba to CIFS or whatever it is) seems like two attempts to pound a round peg into a square hole when a more elegant solution might have been possible. Even if the remapping tools are well designed and well maintained, it's still two cases of reducing things to lowest common denominators and trying to infer equivalencies based on those lowest common denominators instead of getting a pure look at what's there. We're used to elegant solutions. We're used to clean looks at our APIs and preserving the distinctive characteristics of what we work with. Taking an elegant file system and stuffing it through two file systems, both of which have their detractors, reminds us of how sausage and laws are made. Says me, anyway. I'm barely a z guy anymore, but that's my take on it. Nick
Re: Shared File System Interface
Layers upon layers. Or ... airport hubs and multi-hop flights. You need to go from Nashville to Brimingham, but you're flying Delta. Well, Delta's hub is in Atlanta, so your trip will have a layover there. Might as well drive! Maybe you got a new office. You're spartan enough, so you can haul your stuff within the same building. Oh ... but there's a contract with some facility manglement firm, so you have to pay $300 for them to do it ... just because. And you have to wait. In this case, NFS brings more overhead. LOTS more. (Disclosure: I use NFS ... A LOT ... but I also know there are times one should not use it.) Using NFS to give Linux access to SFS files is ... like that Atlanta layover. Overhead makes z people ... well, twichy. (Some z people and other systems programmers actually shudder at wasteful overhead, though I that the concept is of no concern to ... er, uh ... Agile programmers.) (Ooohhh... I may have hit a nerve with that jab.) -- R; On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 9:01 AM, Gary M. Dennis gary.den...@mantissa.com wrote: “Twitchy” - is a squirrel and best friend of Wolf W. Wolf in Hoodwinked. “twitchy” as used below makes me, well Twitchy. Could you elaborate on why use of SFS via NFS “Sort of makes the z guys twitchy” --. .- .-. -.-- Gary Dennis Mantissa Corporation On 5/1/09 7:39 AM, Dean, David (I/S) david_d...@bcbst.com wrote: Yep. Then you can Samba out the NFS to window's boxes and have a really nice file server. Sort of makes the z guys twitchy though. David Dean Information Systems *bcbstauthorized* -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Alan Altmark Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 1:15 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Shared File System Interface On Wednesday, 04/29/2009 at 01:06 EDT, Dave Jones d...@vsoft-software.com wrote: Nope, afraid notbut it would be way cool if Linux, as a guest of z/VM, could read/write SFS directories and files. It can. It just needs to use NFS to do it. Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott - Please see the following link for the BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee E-mail disclaimer: http://www.bcbst.com/email_disclaimer.shtm
z890 power: 3 phase vs 1 phase?
We're looking at power options for a z890 in a backup datacenter. The Installation and Planning manual says that the z890 can run off either single phase or three phase power. The site cost for a three phase suppl y is more than the cost for a single phase supply. I understand what singl e and three phase power are (thanks Google), I just don't understand, and havn't been able to find, what the trade-offs/compromises are other than the cost. This leaves me unable to evaluate the cost benefit of 3 phase vs 1 phase, and hence make a recommendation. Any help would be appreciated. Reference to source material would be great. Brian Nielsen
Re: z890 power: 3 phase vs 1 phase?
On: Fri, May 01, 2009 at 10:41:52AM -0500,Brian Nielsen Wrote: } We're looking at power options for a z890 in a backup datacenter. The } Installation and Planning manual says that the z890 can run off either } single phase or three phase power. The site cost for a three phase supply } is more than the cost for a single phase supply. I understand what single } and three phase power are (thanks Google), I just don't understand, and } havn't been able to find, what the trade-offs/compromises are other than } the cost. This leaves me unable to evaluate the cost benefit of 3 phase } vs 1 phase, and hence make a recommendation. Any help would be } appreciated. Reference to source material would be great. Check the power needed in Kilowatts for 3ph vs 1ph. And check with the power company if a 3ph kwh (killowatt hour) costs the same or more or less than a 1ph kwh. -- Rich Greenberg N Ft Myers, FL, USA richgr atsign panix.com + 1 239 543 1353 Eastern time. N6LRT I speak for myself my dogs only.VM'er since CP-67 Canines:Val, Red, Shasta Casey (RIP), Red Zero, Siberians Owner:Chinook-L Retired at the beach Asst Owner:Sibernet-L
Re: How can I make my TCPIP run?
It is running Now! I spent two weeks troubleshooting. :) I think IPWZARD help me create those TCPIP stack lines? Before system.dtcparms is |...+1+2+3+4+5+6+7... .** .* SYSTEM DTCPARMS created by DTCIPWIZ EXEC on 28 Apr 2009 .* Configuration program run by MAINT at 09:44:03 .** :nick.TCPIP:type.server :class.stack :attach.0600 AS 0001,0601 AS 0002,0602 AS 0003 :NICK.DTCVSW1 :TYPE.SERVER :CLASS.STACK :NICK.DTCVSW2 :TYPE.SERVER :CLASS.STACK * * * End of File * * * Now I delete nick TCPIP .** .* SYSTEM DTCPARMS created by DTCIPWIZ EXEC on 28 Apr 2009 .* Configuration program run by MAINT at 09:44:03 .** :NICK.DTCVSW1 :TYPE.SERVER :CLASS.STACK :NICK.DTCVSW2 :TYPE.SERVER :CLASS.STACK * * * End of File * * * Now TCPIP runs. Could you tell me what is the best place to put VSWITCH Grant command? Some document said is system config ? TCPIP configuration file? Which one is the better and simple way if lots of Linux guests run on it? Thanks! Sunny Hu I. M. Technical Services W.C.B. Alberta (780) 498-4739 sunny...@wcb.ab.ca Mike Walter mike.wal...@hewitt.com Sent by: The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU 04/30/2009 08:30 PM Please respond to The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU To IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU cc Subject Re: How can I make my TCPIP run? Sunny, The following message indicates that you are using virtual devices for your NIC (typical, and correct): 15:50:20 NIC 0600 is created; devices 0600-0602 defined: They are probably in the CP directory entry for TCPIP. The following messages indicate that you are trying to deal with real device addresses for the NIC, too. That's not recommended in z/VM: HCPCPS040E Device 0600 does not exist DTCRUN1001E CP VARY ON 0600 failed with return code 40 That's the reason the previous post mentioned your DTCPARMS file. Remove the NIC 600-602 statements for that, unless that's your OSA address. If you are using 600-602 for OSA and NIC, just change references for the virtual NIC addresses in the CP directory for TCPIP, and the files on TCPMAINT 198. Mike Walter Hewitt Associates (Sent from the wee keyboard on a Blackberry.) From: sunny.hu Sent: 04/30/2009 04:01 PM CST To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: How can I make my TCPIP run? I plan to setup VSWITCH on z/VM 5.4 But I couldn't make my TCPIP running. Please give me some advice. Message from TCPMAINT DTCRUN1022I Console log will be sent to default owner ID: TCPMAINT HCPCPS040E Device 0600 does not exist DTCRUN1001E CP VARY ON 0600 failed with return code 40 DTCRUN1099E Server not started - correct problem and retry DTCRUN1019I Server will not be logged off because you are connected LOGON TCPIP 15:50:20 NIC 0600 is created; devices 0600-0602 defined 15:50:20 z/VM Version 5 Release 4.0, Service Level 0901 (64-bit), 15:50:20 built on IBM Virtualization Technology 15:50:20 There is no logmsg data 15:50:20 FILES: 0002 RDR, 0004 PRT, NO PUN 15:50:20 LOGON AT 15:50:20 MDT THURSDAY 04/30/09 15:50:20 GRAF 1193 LOGON AS TCPIPUSERS = 10 z/VM V5.4.02009-04-14 15:45 DMSACP723I D (198) R/O DMSACP723I E (591) R/O DMSACP723I F (592) R/O Ready; T=0.01/0.01 15:50:43 15:50:43 PRT FILE 0023 SENT FROM TCPIPCON WAS 0023 RECS 0012 CPY 001 T NOHO LD NOKEEP DTCRUN1022I Console log will be sent to default owner ID: TCPMAINT HCPCPS040E Device 0600 does not exist DTCRUN1001E CP VARY ON 0600 failed with return code 40 DTCRUN1099E Server not started - correct problem and retry DTCRUN1019I Server will not be logged off because you are connected 15:50:43 CON FILE 0024 SENT TO TCPMAINT RDR AS 0085 RECS 0005 CPY 001 T NOHO LD NOKEEP Ready; T=0.01/0.01 15:50:43 Q v 15:52:38 OSA 0600 ON NIC 0600 UNIT 000 SUBCHANNEL = 15:52:38 0600 DEVTYPE OSA CHPID 02 OSD 15:52:38 0600 MAC 02-00-05-00-00-02 CURRENT 15:52:38 0600 QDIO-ELIGIBLE QIOASSIST-ELIGIBLE 15:52:38 OSA 0601 ON NIC 0600 UNIT 001 SUBCHANNEL = 0001 15:52:38 0601 DEVTYPE OSA CHPID 02 OSD 15:52:38 0601 QDIO-ELIGIBLE QIOASSIST-ELIGIBLE 15:52:38 OSA 0602 ON NIC 0600 UNIT 002 SUBCHANNEL = 0002 15:52:38 0602 DEVTYPE OSA CHPID 02 OSD 15:52:38 0602 QDIO-ELIGIBLE QIOASSIST-ELIGIBLE Here is my settings System config
Re: How can I make my TCPIP run?
The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU wrote on 05/01/2009 09:13:17 AM: It is running Now! I spent two weeks troubleshooting. :) I think IPWZARD help me create those TCPIP stack lines? Ah...IPWIZARD is meant to be used only with real network devices, not virtual NICs. I just looked through the Guide for Automated Installation and Service and that fact doesn't seem to be made clear at all. We'll need to get that taken care of. Could you tell me what is the best place to put VSWITCH Grant command? Some document said is system config ? TCPIP configuration file? Which one is the better and simple way if lots of Linux guests run on it? The GRANT command needs to go in SYSTEM CONFIG. Regards, Miguel Delapaz z/VM Development
Re: How can I make my TCPIP run?
All our Linux servers have entries in a LINUX NAMES file. AUTOLOG2 runs an exec that pulls the info and issues the GRANTS at IPL time. Easier to keep up with for me. Bob Bates Enterprise Hosting Services w. (469)892-6660 c. (214) 907-5071 This message may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the addressee or authorized to receive this for the addressee, you must not use, copy, disclose, or take any action based on this message or any information herein. If you have received this message in error, please advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete this message. Thank you for your cooperation. From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of sunny...@wcb.ab.ca Sent: Friday, May 01, 2009 11:13 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: How can I make my TCPIP run? It is running Now! I spent two weeks troubleshooting. :) I think IPWZARD help me create those TCPIP stack lines? Before system.dtcparms is |...+1+2+3+4+5+6+7... .** .* SYSTEM DTCPARMS created by DTCIPWIZ EXEC on 28 Apr 2009 .* Configuration program run by MAINT at 09:44:03 .** :nick.TCPIP:type.server :class.stack :attach.0600 AS 0001,0601 AS 0002,0602 AS 0003 :NICK.DTCVSW1 :TYPE.SERVER :CLASS.STACK :NICK.DTCVSW2 :TYPE.SERVER :CLASS.STACK * * * End of File * * * Now I delete nick TCPIP .** .* SYSTEM DTCPARMS created by DTCIPWIZ EXEC on 28 Apr 2009 .* Configuration program run by MAINT at 09:44:03 .** :NICK.DTCVSW1 :TYPE.SERVER :CLASS.STACK :NICK.DTCVSW2 :TYPE.SERVER :CLASS.STACK * * * End of File * * * Now TCPIP runs. Could you tell me what is the best place to put VSWITCH Grant command? Some document said is system config ? TCPIP configuration file? Which one is the better and simple way if lots of Linux guests run on it? Thanks! Sunny Hu I. M. Technical Services W.C.B. Alberta (780) 498-4739 sunny...@wcb.ab.ca Mike Walter mike.wal...@hewitt.com Sent by: The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU 04/30/2009 08:30 PM Please respond to The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU To IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU cc Subject Re: How can I make my TCPIP run? Sunny, The following message indicates that you are using virtual devices for your NIC (typical, and correct): 15:50:20 NIC 0600 is created; devices 0600-0602 defined: They are probably in the CP directory entry for TCPIP. The following messages indicate that you are trying to deal with real device addresses for the NIC, too. That's not recommended in z/VM: HCPCPS040E Device 0600 does not exist DTCRUN1001E CP VARY ON 0600 failed with return code 40 That's the reason the previous post mentioned your DTCPARMS file. Remove the NIC 600-602 statements for that, unless that's your OSA address. If you are using 600-602 for OSA and NIC, just change references for the virtual NIC addresses in the CP directory for TCPIP, and the files on TCPMAINT 198. Mike Walter Hewitt Associates (Sent from the wee keyboard on a Blackberry.) From: sunny.hu Sent: 04/30/2009 04:01 PM CST To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: How can I make my TCPIP run? I plan to setup VSWITCH on z/VM 5.4 But I couldn't make my TCPIP running. Please give me some advice. Message from TCPMAINT DTCRUN1022I Console log will be sent to default owner ID: TCPMAINT HCPCPS040E Device 0600 does not exist DTCRUN1001E CP VARY ON 0600 failed with return code 40 DTCRUN1099E Server not started - correct problem and retry DTCRUN1019I Server will not be logged off because you are connected LOGON TCPIP 15:50:20 NIC 0600 is created; devices 0600-0602 defined 15:50:20 z/VM Version 5 Release 4.0, Service Level 0901 (64-bit), 15:50:20 built on IBM Virtualization Technology 15:50:20 There is no logmsg data 15:50:20 FILES: 0002 RDR, 0004 PRT, NO PUN 15:50:20 LOGON AT 15:50:20 MDT THURSDAY 04/30/09 15:50:20 GRAF 1193 LOGON AS TCPIPUSERS = 10 z/VM V5.4.02009-04-14 15:45 DMSACP723I D (198) R/O DMSACP723I E (591) R/O DMSACP723I F (592) R/O Ready; T=0.01/0.01 15:50:43 15:50:43 PRT FILE 0023 SENT FROM TCPIPCON WAS 0023 RECS 0012 CPY 001 T NOHO LD NOKEEP DTCRUN1022I Console log will be sent to default owner ID: TCPMAINT HCPCPS040E Device 0600 does not exist DTCRUN1001E CP VARY ON 0600 failed with return code 40 DTCRUN1099E Server not started - correct problem and retry DTCRUN1019I Server will not be logged off because you are connected 15:50:43 CON FILE 0024 SENT TO TCPMAINT RDR AS 0085 RECS
Re: z890 power: 3 phase vs 1 phase?
Three phase is more efficient than single phase. You may save on electric bills but I am not sure. Also, I think if you take a short power hit on a single phase unit (without battery backup), you have a higher chance of the box going down than if you were to take a hit on a 3 phase powered unit. Here is a link that talks about efficiency http://www.windstuffnow.com/main/3_phase_basics.htm -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Brian Nielsen Sent: Friday, May 01, 2009 11:42 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: z890 power: 3 phase vs 1 phase? We're looking at power options for a z890 in a backup datacenter. The Installation and Planning manual says that the z890 can run off either single phase or three phase power. The site cost for a three phase supply is more than the cost for a single phase supply. I understand what single and three phase power are (thanks Google), I just don't understand, and havn't been able to find, what the trade-offs/compromises are other than the cost. This leaves me unable to evaluate the cost benefit of 3 phase vs 1 phase, and hence make a recommendation. Any help would be appreciated. Reference to source material would be great. Brian Nielsen
Re: z890 power: 3 phase vs 1 phase?
On Fri, 1 May 2009 12:11:40 -0400, Rich Greenberg ric...@panix.com wrot e: Check the power needed in Kilowatts for 3ph vs 1ph. And check with the power company if a 3ph kwh (killowatt hour) costs the same or more or less than a 1ph kwh. The Installation and Planning manual lists maximum system power consumption as 4.2kW without regard to whether it is 1 phase or 3 phase. In any case, cost per kwh is not relevant since the site is charging a flat fee for the installed circuit, not for the amount of power drawn through the circuit. There are 2 references I've found in the Installation and Planning manual that 3 phase uses only 2 of the phases and the 3rd phase provides redundancy against a fault in one of the other 2 phases. Three phase seems to be an extra layer of redundancy on top of the dual power feed redundancy. Is there anything more to it than that? Brian Nielsen
Re: z890 power: 3 phase vs 1 phase?
On Fri, 1 May 2009 12:01:28 -0400, Aria Bamdad a...@bsc.gwu.edu wrote: Three phase is more efficient than single phase. You may save on electr ic bills but I am not sure. Also, I think if you take a short power hit on a single phase unit (without battery backup), you have a higher chance of the box going down than if you were to take a hit on a 3 phase powered unit. Here is a link that talks about efficiency http://www.windstuffnow.com/main/3_phase_basics.htm Already been to that link, and not sure how it applies to the z890 from a RAS perspective. The site has UPS and backup generators and the z890 has dual power feeds (but no internal battery feature), so I'm still not sure the level of benefit, if any, 3 phase gives us over 1 phase other than an extra layer of redundancy as mentioned in my other post. Brian Nielsen
Re: z890 power: 3 phase vs 1 phase?
On: Fri, May 01, 2009 at 11:53:04AM -0500,Brian Nielsen Wrote: } In any case, cost per kwh is not relevant since the site is charging a } flat fee for the installed circuit, not for the amount of power drawn } through the circuit. In that case I would suggest 3ph for the redundancy and better effeciency unless the added cost is high enough that management types are agast at it. Its higher because 3ph needs (depending on how its done) one or two more conductors (lengths of wire) than 1ph. The additional conductor(s) may require a larger conduit to contain them. -- Rich Greenberg N Ft Myers, FL, USA richgr atsign panix.com + 1 239 543 1353 Eastern time. N6LRT I speak for myself my dogs only.VM'er since CP-67 Canines:Val, Red, Shasta Casey (RIP), Red Zero, Siberians Owner:Chinook-L Retired at the beach Asst Owner:Sibernet-L
Re: Packing Methods
The reason to turn off 3590E hardware compression, is if you having problems feeding the beast. You get faster backups if you can keep the drive going. An IBM 3590E writes to tape at 14 MBs. If hardware compression is turned on and you are getting 3:1 compression, then you have to feed the controller at 3*14 or 42 MBs. If you can, you have the best of both worlds, speed and amount of data on a single tape. If you can't then you need to choose speed vs high data storage. Doing software compression, only makes sense to me if you are going over slow (escon) channels. Given all that In DR tests, less tapes seems to be a good thing. The DR site has better, faster, hardware then most of our shops. (everything is ficon) You may buy less MIPS but you can't buy less I/O thruput. It takes more CPU to compress data then it takes to expand the data. i.e. worry about your own MIPS. In general, I don't see the benefit in software compression, when hardware compression is available. But if you tested the difference in your site, and you have come to a software compression conclusion, more power to you. Each site has a different set of concerns. Tom Duerbusch THD Consulting Alain Benveniste a.benveni...@free.fr 4/30/2009 6:25 AM Richard, You have the same questions I had when I started to put in place our DR solution. We also have 3590E drives and I never tried to remove the hard drive default compaction. I don¹t see a reason for that. Now choosing software compaction is a must if you have enough cpu to do the work for backup and ALSO for restore. For us we can spend more time to use software compaction because we know that we have enough cpu to do the work at restore time offsite. The gain at restore justifies to take more time at backup processing. It¹s true too that software compaction takes less tapes than with no compaction. If you have many dasds to backup and a time constraint to restore i would suggest you to both use hard and software compactions. Our idea is to say that when we restore in a DR test the cpu is used ONLY for restore. Why not fully using it ! Regards Alain Benveniste Le 29/04/09 20:46, « Schuh, Richard » rsc...@visa.com a écrit : We are working on a DR process. I notice that the defaults for a Hidro backup include the PACK option which tells Hidro to pack, or condense in some fashion, its output. The output is being written to 3590E drives. It appears that there are three choices we can make for condensing the data: software only, hardware only, or a combination of the two (uncompacted was purposely omitted from the list). Which is likely to give the best results? Does software compaction produce consistently lower output volumes than letting the drive do it? Is there anything to be gained by using both h/w and s/w? Obviously, software compaction costs in terms of cpu time. The question is, is it worth the time spent? Regards, Richard Schuh
Re: Third level VSE
Thanks for the update. I can continue thinking about my own z/VM 5.2 to z/VM 5.4 upgrade plans. There are a lot of considerations. Near 24X7 shop or more near 9X5 (impacting test time). System programmer experience, not only in general, but in that particular shop. It is very easy to move a VSE image from 3rd level to second level. Any qualified VM systems programmer can do that in under an hour. And then you test and see if you find things that you didn't know about G. But I would spend time trying to get a 3rd level VSE to perform good. Spend the time in moving it to second level. BTW, if, on your first level VM system, IND doesn't show near 100%, then you don't have a CPU problem. You have CPU available for making up the lost of the assists, there is something else keeping you from using the rest of the CPU. I seem to recall that you said that you now have multiple processors. Is that true and did the old box have the same number of processors? Sometimes people compare total MIPs to total MIPs and are in for a shock when you can't use all the processors. VSE/ESA 2.3 doesn't have Turbo Dispatcher turned on as the default. Hence it will can only use 1 processor. Turning on TD costs you an additional 5% overhead (per the VSE release performance papers). But then you can use multiple processors, if you gave multiple processors to your second level VM system. It would be nice to have test time to test things and back out if necessary. But not all shops believe in test time and test systems the same way. Tom Duerbusch THD Consulting Berry van Sleeuwen berry.vansleeu...@xs4all.nl 4/29/2009 6:48 PM Ed (and Tom), Well, to be honest, about a year ago I already suggested to try to migrate into an zVM 5.x. And just before we moved the VM 2.2 I did repeat that suggestion. But according to some it would be too much of a risk. I guess it's a political risk, not a technical risk. And besides that, we were given too little time to plan a test on zVM before the move. But that's just my opinion. If it was up to me we would be on 5.4 next week. Anyway, as far as I can see it (I don have access to the detailed internals of the VM system) the only two risks would be ACF2 and VTUBES. And there is some external package I can't determine what risk it would have on zVM 5.4, I don't know if it is just CMS or that it does have some interaction that would require some VM/ESA level instead of zVM. ACF2 would require a new release and I don't know for sure what it would mean for VM 5.4 and VSE 2.3, if anything. But in all cases, we could just move the USER DIRECT into our host zVM 5.4 and try it. Perhaps we will try this in the next month but then we do need approval of those who are responsible for the service. Bottom line, the move of the system supposed to be as-is to minimize risks. For several reasons we now do not meet the requirements of the customer. Some were more or less expected but some realy do not meet our and their expectations. Regards, Berry. Edward M Martin schreef: Hello Barry, I have been watching this thread. I agree with Tom. Why not have VSE 2.3 run under z/VM 5.4 and have VM/ESA 2.2 run under z/VM 5.4 if need be? Ed Martin Aultman Health Foundation 330-363-5050 ext 35050 -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Tom Duerbusch Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 11:42 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Third level VSE And what are the inhibitors that prevent you from running VSE 2.3 directly under z/VM 5.4? I have VSE 2.3.2 running on z/VM 5.2 on a z/890. I've been toying with the idea of upgrading VM this summer. Are there other products that are running under VM/ESA 2.2 that need to be on the same VM system as the VSE system? Tom Duerbusch THD Consulting
Re: Shared File System Interface
Two excellent explanations by Mr. Troth and Mr. Laflamme, they are right on. Thank you. The sad part is we set this scenario up to overcome POLITICAL boundaries between I/S fiefdoms and showcase the technologies. We do not do this in production. Some of the guys still tics. David Dean Information Systems *bcbstauthorized* -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Richard Troth Sent: Friday, May 01, 2009 10:29 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Shared File System Interface Layers upon layers. Or ... airport hubs and multi-hop flights. You need to go from Nashville to Brimingham, but you're flying Delta. Well, Delta's hub is in Atlanta, so your trip will have a layover there. Might as well drive! Maybe you got a new office. You're spartan enough, so you can haul your stuff within the same building. Oh ... but there's a contract with some facility manglement firm, so you have to pay $300 for them to do it ... just because. And you have to wait. In this case, NFS brings more overhead. LOTS more. (Disclosure: I use NFS ... A LOT ... but I also know there are times one should not use it.) Using NFS to give Linux access to SFS files is ... like that Atlanta layover. Overhead makes z people ... well, twichy. (Some z people and other systems programmers actually shudder at wasteful overhead, though I that the concept is of no concern to ... er, uh ... Agile programmers.) (Ooohhh... I may have hit a nerve with that jab.) -- R; On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 9:01 AM, Gary M. Dennis gary.den...@mantissa.com wrote: Twitchy - is a squirrel and best friend of Wolf W. Wolf in Hoodwinked. twitchy as used below makes me, well Twitchy. Could you elaborate on why use of SFS via NFS Sort of makes the z guys twitchy --. .- .-. -.-- Gary Dennis Mantissa Corporation On 5/1/09 7:39 AM, Dean, David (I/S) david_d...@bcbst.com wrote: Yep. Then you can Samba out the NFS to window's boxes and have a really nice file server. Sort of makes the z guys twitchy though. David Dean Information Systems *bcbstauthorized* -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Alan Altmark Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 1:15 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Shared File System Interface On Wednesday, 04/29/2009 at 01:06 EDT, Dave Jones d...@vsoft-software.com wrote: Nope, afraid notbut it would be way cool if Linux, as a guest of z/VM, could read/write SFS directories and files. It can. It just needs to use NFS to do it. Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott - Please see the following link for the BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee E-mail disclaimer: http://www.bcbst.com/email_disclaimer.shtm - Please see the following link for the BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee E-mail disclaimer: http://www.bcbst.com/email_disclaimer.shtm
Re: SWAPGEN
Yep, rule of thumb as well as 98% of the time, vdisk for swap is the way to go. But there still is use for swap on real disk. One is to throttle the image, the other is to keep the max resident size down sufficiently enough to keep from impacting production systems by overloading the paging system. A lot can be done with the paging system, especially if you have the money. But for those of us that occasionally hit a paging cliff It would be better if there was a command to limit the amount of resident memory a guest could have. Something like your resident memory plus dataspace resident memory couldn't exceed 512 MB. When I think about what it would take to modify the paging subsystem, to prefer some users memory for pageouts, my brain starts hurting. Until then, swap on real disk can help reduce the problem. I got a request in from a Network guy that wants a Linux image to play around with. Initially some sort of network performance monitor. I won't have time to sit with him to keep the normal, I got a box that I'm the only user on, and it doesn't matter what I do mentality, so I do need to keep his resident size down. So, a couple vdisk swap disks, and a full 3390-3 real swap disk. If things go well, and his application is ready for prime time with his memory requirement really known, then swap disks will be redefined, without the real disk. There are always exceptions to the rule. But then, if I had the funds for a real performance monitor, I might be able to see a different solution. Right now, my alerts come in the form of the phone ringing. Of course, if I had more funds to buy more memory, I could create another LPAR and have these weird images in their own Linux farm. But that would then require me to dedicate real resources to a set of images that, on any given day, may never be used. Dedicate real memory vs dedicate real dasd. I have more dasd, for now. Tom Duerbusch THD Consulting Doug Shupe dsh...@bellsouth.net 4/29/2009 8:58 PM Scott you hit this one on the head! Penguins multiply rapidly, real memory tends to stay constant ($$$). Sure VM is Great at paging but, like you say, impacting all the Penguins? YMMV. Alerts are a must either way. When memory is at a premium, one v-disk and the rest real disk is the way to go. DASD is not 'that' slow anymore. Doug - Original Message - From: Scott Rohling To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 18:13 Subject: Re: SWAPGEN Maybe -- but having a real disk (and setting an alert for that) helps isolate the issue to a single guest rather than affecting critical shared resources (in this case memory/paging) when a guest starts swapping more than normal or than it 'should'. I like the idea of having a 'failover' swap area on real disk -- whether you have a single VDISK or 2 prioritized ahead of it. I guess whether it's waste of resource depends on your POV.. But your point is taken.. Scott On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 4:42 PM, Barton Robinson bar...@vm1.velocity-software.com wrote: giving real disks to swap is a real waste of resource. It is much better to take the extra disk resource that you allocate but never want to use, and assign it to z/VM paging to enhance your paging subsystem. Then define two vdisks for swap, prioritize them, and set an alert when the 2nd disk is being used. Martin, Terry R. (LOCKHEED MARTIN Performance Engineering/CTR) (CTR) wrote: Hi I am using SWAPGEN to define by z/Linux VDISKS I also want to define a real disk for swap. My question is can I use SWAPGEN to define a swap on real DASD? If you have an example of the control card syntax to accomplish this that would be great? //Thank You,// //Terry Martin// //Lockheed Martin - Information Technology// //z/OS z/VM Systems - Performance and Tuning// //Cell - 443 632-4191// //Work - 410 786-0386// //terry.ma...@cms.hhs.gov mailto:terry.ma...@cms.hhs.gov//
Re: Third level VSE
Gentlemen, Our experience is from VSE/ESA 2.3 + VM/ESA 3.1 to z/VM 5.2 and then to 5 .3. We run in a 9672, z890 and now in a z9. It is easy to upgrade VM releases, but we spent three years migrating fro m ACF/2 to Top Secret as directed ( forced ) by CA. This was the real probl em but I discarded the idea to work in a second level VM the third level VSE . At the same time we migrated from ACF/2 to Top Secret in the VSE/ESA and were ready to go for z/VSE. We have half of the VSE´s in z/VSE 3.1 and stopped because the CPU incr ease from VSE 2.3 to zVSE 3.1 was between 15 and 20 percent. And no CICS was migrated to Transaction Server. The issue is that VSE/ESA, VM/ESA and ACF/2 have no support but there are some costs to pay, working and CPU overhead. Regards. Marcelo.
Re: Third level VSE
Take a look at Overhead Deltas for VSE Releases which is page 5 of the following PDF: ftp://ftp.software.ibm.com/eserver/zseries/zos/vse/pdf3/techconf2007/sanantonio/E54_zVSE_Performance_Update.pdf Does your situation nearly match those numbers? Or are they quite a bit more? If quite a bit more, then I wonder what is causing it. If they nearly match, then you need some planning in order to do the proper migration. As the foil says, there is more overhead as you migrate to newer releases and functions. Apples to apples, it's just more overhead. But it enables you to start using new functions and facilities. That can lessen some of the overhead and/or provide better service to your users. Tom Duerbusch THD Consulting =?iso-8859-1?Q?Marcelo_Fazzito?= mfazz...@bancocredicoop.coop 5/1/2009 1:26 PM Gentlemen, Our experience is from VSE/ESA 2.3 + VM/ESA 3.1 to z/VM 5.2 and then to 5.3. We run in a 9672, z890 and now in a z9. It is easy to upgrade VM releases, but we spent three years migrating from ACF/2 to Top Secret as directed ( forced ) by CA. This was the real problem but I discarded the idea to work in a second level VM the third level VSE. At the same time we migrated from ACF/2 to Top Secret in the VSE/ESA and were ready to go for z/VSE. We have half of the VSÉs in z/VSE 3.1 and stopped because the CPU increase from VSE 2.3 to zVSE 3.1 was between 15 and 20 percent. And no CICS was migrated to Transaction Server. The issue is that VSE/ESA, VM/ESA and ACF/2 have no support but there are some costs to pay, working and CPU overhead. Regards. Marcelo.
Re: Shared File System Interface
On Friday, 05/01/2009 at 01:36 EDT, Dean, David (I/S) david_d...@bcbst.com wrote: Two excellent explanations by Mr. Troth and Mr. Laflamme, they are right on. Thank you. The sad part is we set this scenario up to overcome POLITICAL boundaries between I/S fiefdoms and showcase the technologies. We do not do this in production. Some of the guys still tics. In the interest of full disclosure, folks have tried for years to get us to open up the low-level API into SFS. The trouble is that it is extremely complex and was never *designed* to be public. It was *designed* to be used by the CMS filesystem. Hence, there is no nice SFS API Reference and User Guide laying around and no test cases to drive it sans CMS filesystem. In other words, bringing the SFS low-level API into the light would cost a lot of money with no measurable return on that investment. Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott
Re: Shared File System Interface
Maybe some of us should reverse-engineer it. Surely it can't be as bad as NTF... er, uh, ... a certain other filesystem which has required reverse engineering to get it into Linux land. -- R; On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 3:46 PM, Alan Altmark alan_altm...@us.ibm.com wrote: On Friday, 05/01/2009 at 01:36 EDT, Dean, David (I/S) david_d...@bcbst.com wrote: Two excellent explanations by Mr. Troth and Mr. Laflamme, they are right on. Thank you. The sad part is we set this scenario up to overcome POLITICAL boundaries between I/S fiefdoms and showcase the technologies. We do not do this in production. Some of the guys still tics. In the interest of full disclosure, folks have tried for years to get us to open up the low-level API into SFS. The trouble is that it is extremely complex and was never *designed* to be public. It was *designed* to be used by the CMS filesystem. Hence, there is no nice SFS API Reference and User Guide laying around and no test cases to drive it sans CMS filesystem. In other words, bringing the SFS low-level API into the light would cost a lot of money with no measurable return on that investment. Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott
Re: Shared File System Interface
On Friday, 05/01/2009 at 04:06 EDT, Richard Troth vmcow...@gmail.com wrote: Maybe some of us should reverse-engineer it. Surely it can't be as bad as NTF... er, uh, ... a certain other filesystem which has required reverse engineering to get it into Linux land. Morituri te Salutant! :-) Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott
Re: Shared File System Interface
Is that supposed to be a warning that you will fight them to the death? :-) Will it just be you and Chuckie, or will you have help? Regards, Richard Schuh -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Alan Altmark Sent: Friday, May 01, 2009 1:21 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Shared File System Interface On Friday, 05/01/2009 at 04:06 EDT, Richard Troth vmcow...@gmail.com wrote: Maybe some of us should reverse-engineer it. Surely it can't be as bad as NTF... er, uh, ... a certain other filesystem which has required reverse engineering to get it into Linux land. Morituri te Salutant! :-) Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott
Re: Shutdown REIPL
Nope, it was me doing the shutdown reipl and no ucb on it. Could a duplicate volume message cause it? (not cpowned). 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:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of James Stracka (DHL US) Sent: Friday, May 01, 2009 2:43 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: [IBMVM] Shutdown REIPL Having done lots of SHUTDOWN REIPL with a new CPLOAD MODULE, I highly doubt that is the cause. Are you sure they are not doing: SHUTDOWN RIPL ucb I have seen this on some CNR tests because you are IPLing using a different volume where the checkpoint area is on a different area of the volume. -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Marcy Cortes Sent: Friday, May 01, 2009 2:37 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Shutdown REIPL Operations made me curious today. The said sometimes when we do our SHUTDOWN REIPL thing on the disaster test systems, they have to enter FORCE. Auto_Warm_IPL is on. Does it do that because of a new CPLOAD module? This is the only relevant message: 12:12:10 HCPWRM904E System recovery failure; incorrect warm start data. 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.
Shutdown REIPL
Operations made me curious today. The said sometimes when we do our SHUTDOWN REIPL thing on the disaster test systems, they have to enter FORCE. Auto_Warm_IPL is on. Does it do that because of a new CPLOAD module? This is the only relevant message: 12:12:10 HCPWRM904E System recovery failure; incorrect warm start data. 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.
Re: Shutdown REIPL
Having done lots of SHUTDOWN REIPL with a new CPLOAD MODULE, I highly doubt that is the cause. Are you sure they are not doing: SHUTDOWN RIPL ucb I have seen this on some CNR tests because you are IPLing using a different volume where the checkpoint area is on a different area of the volume. -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Marcy Cortes Sent: Friday, May 01, 2009 2:37 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Shutdown REIPL Operations made me curious today. The said sometimes when we do our SHUTDOWN REIPL thing on the disaster test systems, they have to enter FORCE. Auto_Warm_IPL is on. Does it do that because of a new CPLOAD module? This is the only relevant message: 12:12:10 HCPWRM904E System recovery failure; incorrect warm start data. 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.
Re: Shutdown REIPL
The only two times that I remember a SHUTDOWN REIPL failing are when changing IPL volumes or someone deactivated the LPAR before the SHUTDOWN completed with the WARM START DATA saved message. I know, Why would someone deactivate an LPAR if they issued a SHUTDOWN REIPL? I dunno but it has happened. Yes, a duplicate volume could if it is the same volume as in the System Configuration file for System Residence. -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Marcy Cortes Sent: Friday, May 01, 2009 2:47 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Shutdown REIPL Nope, it was me doing the shutdown reipl and no ucb on it. Could a duplicate volume message cause it? (not cpowned). 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:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of James Stracka (DHL US) Sent: Friday, May 01, 2009 2:43 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: [IBMVM] Shutdown REIPL Having done lots of SHUTDOWN REIPL with a new CPLOAD MODULE, I highly doubt that is the cause. Are you sure they are not doing: SHUTDOWN RIPL ucb I have seen this on some CNR tests because you are IPLing using a different volume where the checkpoint area is on a different area of the volume. -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Marcy Cortes Sent: Friday, May 01, 2009 2:37 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Shutdown REIPL Operations made me curious today. The said sometimes when we do our SHUTDOWN REIPL thing on the disaster test systems, they have to enter FORCE. Auto_Warm_IPL is on. Does it do that because of a new CPLOAD module? This is the only relevant message: 12:12:10 HCPWRM904E System recovery failure; incorrect warm start data. 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.
Re: Shutdown REIPL
Nope, no deactivates unless GDPS was misbehaving :) ... Ops who know what they are doing (and I was on the phone with them)... Duplicate volume was a user included volume, not a cpowned one... Not that big of a deal but I was surprised to hear the operator comment that he has to issue it often. There's 6 systems and he couldn't narrow it down to which ones or if it changes. I did try that particular system again and one other and of course it worked just fine. 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:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of James Stracka (DHL US) Sent: Friday, May 01, 2009 3:33 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: [IBMVM] Shutdown REIPL The only two times that I remember a SHUTDOWN REIPL failing are when changing IPL volumes or someone deactivated the LPAR before the SHUTDOWN completed with the WARM START DATA saved message. I know, Why would someone deactivate an LPAR if they issued a SHUTDOWN REIPL? I dunno but it has happened. Yes, a duplicate volume could if it is the same volume as in the System Configuration file for System Residence. -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Marcy Cortes Sent: Friday, May 01, 2009 2:47 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Shutdown REIPL Nope, it was me doing the shutdown reipl and no ucb on it. Could a duplicate volume message cause it? (not cpowned). 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:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of James Stracka (DHL US) Sent: Friday, May 01, 2009 2:43 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: [IBMVM] Shutdown REIPL Having done lots of SHUTDOWN REIPL with a new CPLOAD MODULE, I highly doubt that is the cause. Are you sure they are not doing: SHUTDOWN RIPL ucb I have seen this on some CNR tests because you are IPLing using a different volume where the checkpoint area is on a different area of the volume. -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Marcy Cortes Sent: Friday, May 01, 2009 2:37 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Shutdown REIPL Operations made me curious today. The said sometimes when we do our SHUTDOWN REIPL thing on the disaster test systems, they have to enter FORCE. Auto_Warm_IPL is on. Does it do that because of a new CPLOAD module? This is the only relevant message: 12:12:10 HCPWRM904E System recovery failure; incorrect warm start data. 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.
Re: Shared File System Interface
I think it's more along the lines of being used ironically and dramatically when beginning a risky activity of uncertain outcome. Schuh, Richard wrote: Is that supposed to be a warning that you will fight them to the death? :-) Will it just be you and Chuckie, or will you have help? Regards, Richard Schuh -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Alan Altmark Sent: Friday, May 01, 2009 1:21 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Shared File System Interface On Friday, 05/01/2009 at 04:06 EDT, Richard Troth vmcow...@gmail.com wrote: Maybe some of us should reverse-engineer it. Surely it can't be as bad as NTF... er, uh, ... a certain other filesystem which has required reverse engineering to get it into Linux land. Morituri te Salutant! :-) Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott -- Dave Jones V/Soft www.vsoft-software.com Houston, TX 281.578.7544
Re: Shutdown REIPL
Nope, it was me doing the shutdown reipl and no ucb on it. Could a duplicate volume message cause it? (not cpowned). 12:12:10 HCPWRM904E System recovery failure; incorrect warm start data. This means that some of the system information that is saved in the checkpoint (most likely) and/or warm start areas during shutdown was not saved correctly and therefore cannot be restored, so the WARM start cannot complete. FORCE will cause the system to restore whatever it can out of what was saved in these areas. For instance, if the error was in the checkpoint area (possibly overflowed), then the spool file information will still be restored from the warm start area. If the duplicate volume has the same volser as the volume that contains the checkpoint and warmstart areas that were used at shutdown, you could get this message. In this case, none of the checkpoint and warm start data would be restored if you continue with a FORCE start. John Franciscovich z/VM Development
Re: Shutdown REIPL
On: Fri, May 01, 2009 at 04:36:47PM -0500,Marcy Cortes Wrote: } Operations made me curious today. } The said sometimes when we do our SHUTDOWN REIPL thing on the disaster test systems, they have to enter FORCE. } Auto_Warm_IPL is on. } Does it do that because of a new CPLOAD module? } This is the only relevant message: } 12:12:10 HCPWRM904E System recovery failure; incorrect warm start data. I think John has the answer. How big are your checkpoint and warm start areas? -- Rich Greenberg N Ft Myers, FL, USA richgr atsign panix.com + 1 239 543 1353 Eastern time. N6LRT I speak for myself my dogs only.VM'er since CP-67 Canines:Val, Red, Shasta Casey (RIP), Red Zero, Siberians Owner:Chinook-L Retired at the beach Asst Owner:Sibernet-L
Re: z/VM V5R4.0 dISABLED WAIT PSW 9051
Is the doc in LookAt Messages (http://www-1.ibm.com/servers/eserver/zseries/zos/bkserv/lookat/ ) Regards, Richard Schuh -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Rob van der Heij Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2009 5:35 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: z/VM V5R4.0 dISABLED WAIT PSW 9051 On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 2:20 PM, Alan Altmark alan_altm...@us.ibm.com wrote: Maybe your 5.4 HELP isn't in production or something? Duh! It did not complete IPL... he prolly did not have another 5.4 handy to check. Rob
Re: Shutdown REIPL
I think John has the answer. How big are your checkpoint and warm start areas? 9 cyl. As big as it gets. 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.
Re: Shutdown REIPL
After a brief discussion of the previous smaller sizes during a SHARE Linux and VM Technical Steering Committee meeting a few years ago, IBM changed the distributed z/VM checkpoint and warmstart sizes to the max 9 cyls each. Mike Walter Hewitt Associates (Sent from the wee keyboard on a Blackberry.) - Original Message - From: Marcy Cortes [marcy.d.cor...@wellsfargo.com] Sent: 05/01/2009 09:02 PM EST To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Shutdown REIPL I think John has the answer. How big are your checkpoint and warm start areas? 9 cyl. As big as it gets. 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. 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.
