Re: HUR
Dennis, I do not know about timestamps but all our Production dasd z/OS - z/VM - and LINUX is mirrored to an undisclosed location using HUR. munson Marcy Cortes marcy.d.cor...@wellsfargo.com Sent by: The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU 11/19/2009 07:12 PM Please respond to The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU To IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU cc Subject Re: HUR I guess HDS would be the only ones that could tell you if they support Linux timestamps or not. Technically, I'm pretty sure a Linux timestamp looks just like a z/OS timestamp.Mabye they mean they don't support it because they haven't tested it. We run GDPS/XRC which relies on the timestamps. A separate z/os data mover for VM is required with the mixing of the stamped and non-stamped at the moment. If you need timestamped VM I/O, best to call IBM and ask. 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 O'Brien, Dennis L Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 3:40 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: [IBMVM] HUR Is anyone successfully mirroring DASD using Hitachi Universal Replicator (HUR) for a z/VM environment with Linux guests? I know that there are challenges because z/VM doesn't timestamp its I/O but Linux does. I'm being told that HUR doesn't support Linux timestamps. Is that true? Allegedly, this lack of support means that a z/VM replication environment would need to be separate from our z/OS replication environment, including a separate z/OS LPAR to control the replication. Dennis I always remind people from outside our state that there's plenty of room for all Alaska's animals -- right next to the mashed potatoes. -- Sarah Palin *** 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.
Re: RXDISP
Thanks everyone, I'll give CUA2001 a shot.
Z/VM 5.4 and VM:Secure running a CLOSED security system
We are moving towards running VM:Secure with RULES enabled as a CLOSED security system. Our testing isn't going as well as we hoped. We have had RULES enabled for many years with NORULE ACCEPT in effect. We changed to NURULE REJECT and some funny things are happening. Anyone can issue any CP command with success. For instance, if I am on a general class G user without the OPTION LNKNOPASS directory statement, I can issue LINK MAINT 123 1 RR with success. MAINT's 123 disk does not have ALL as the password. In fact, it doesn't have any passwords at all. From the same user, if I use VMSECURE QRULES JHUG LINK MAINT 123, VM:Secure tells me the LINK would be rejected via NORULE DEFAULT. Would someone help us figure out what we've missed?? Thanks in advance. Here are the lines from the console. link maint 123 1 rr DASD 0001 LINKED R/O; R/W BY VMSECURE; R/O BY 4 USERS Ready; T=0.01/0.01 11:24:15 vmsecure qrules jhug link maint 123 VMXACQ0223I Rejected via NORULE default Jim Hughes 603-271-5586 It is fun to do the impossible.
Re: Z/VM 5.4 and VM:Secure running a CLOSED security system
In my version of the VM:Secure Reference, only GROUP, LOGON BY, VM:Tape and VM:Schedule actions are documented as being rejected if NORULE REJECT is in effect. LINK is not mentioned. It looks like CLOSED isn't so closed, after all. Of course, all bets are off if you really did change to NURULE REJECT :-) Regards, Richard Schuh From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Hughes, Jim Sent: Friday, November 20, 2009 8:29 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Z/VM 5.4 and VM:Secure running a CLOSED security system We are moving towards running VM:Secure with RULES enabled as a CLOSED security system. Our testing isn't going as well as we hoped. We have had RULES enabled for many years with NORULE ACCEPT in effect. We changed to NURULE REJECT and some funny things are happening. Anyone can issue any CP command with success. For instance, if I am on a general class G user without the OPTION LNKNOPASS directory statement, I can issue LINK MAINT 123 1 RR with success. MAINT's 123 disk does not have ALL as the password. In fact, it doesn't have any passwords at all. From the same user, if I use VMSECURE QRULES JHUG LINK MAINT 123, VM:Secure tells me the LINK would be rejected via NORULE DEFAULT. Would someone help us figure out what we've missed?? Thanks in advance. Here are the lines from the console. link maint 123 1 rr DASD 0001 LINKED R/O; R/W BY VMSECURE; R/O BY 4 USERS Ready; T=0.01/0.01 11:24:15 vmsecure qrules jhug link maint 123 VMXACQ0223I Rejected via NORULE default Jim Hughes 603-271-5586 It is fun to do the impossible.
Re: Z/VM 5.4 and VM:Secure running a CLOSED security system
We really did change to NORULE REJECT and ipled the test system. NORULE REJECT should reject the command unless a RULE exists to grant access to the resource. The LINK statements in the DIRECTORY were denied because no rule existed to allow the LINK to take place. So a change of behavior is taking place. I don't like the idea of the LINK command working at the CP level even though VM:Secure tells me it would be rejected. We will keep looking and experimenting. Jim Hughes 603-271-5586 It is fun to do the impossible. From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Schuh, Richard Sent: Friday, November 20, 2009 11:48 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Z/VM 5.4 and VM:Secure running a CLOSED security system In my version of the VM:Secure Reference, only GROUP, LOGON BY, VM:Tape and VM:Schedule actions are documented as being rejected if NORULE REJECT is in effect. LINK is not mentioned. It looks like CLOSED isn't so closed, after all. Of course, all bets are off if you really did change to NURULE REJECT :-) Regards, Richard Schuh From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Hughes, Jim Sent: Friday, November 20, 2009 8:29 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Z/VM 5.4 and VM:Secure running a CLOSED security system We are moving towards running VM:Secure with RULES enabled as a CLOSED security system. Our testing isn't going as well as we hoped. We have had RULES enabled for many years with NORULE ACCEPT in effect. We changed to NURULE REJECT and some funny things are happening. Anyone can issue any CP command with success. For instance, if I am on a general class G user without the OPTION LNKNOPASS directory statement, I can issue LINK MAINT 123 1 RR with success. MAINT's 123 disk does not have ALL as the password. In fact, it doesn't have any passwords at all. From the same user, if I use VMSECURE QRULES JHUG LINK MAINT 123, VM:Secure tells me the LINK would be rejected via NORULE DEFAULT. Would someone help us figure out what we've missed?? Thanks in advance. Here are the lines from the console. link maint 123 1 rr DASD 0001 LINKED R/O; R/W BY VMSECURE; R/O BY 4 USERS Ready; T=0.01/0.01 11:24:15 vmsecure qrules jhug link maint 123 VMXACQ0223I Rejected via NORULE default Jim Hughes 603-271-5586 It is fun to do the impossible.
Re: Z/VM 5.4 and VM:Secure running a CLOSED security system
Is the READ password ALL for MAINT 123? JR (Steven) Imler CA Senior Sustaining Engineer Tel: +1-703-708-3479 steven.im...@ca.com From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Hughes, Jim Sent: Friday, November 20, 2009 11:29 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Z/VM 5.4 and VM:Secure running a CLOSED security system We are moving towards running VM:Secure with RULES enabled as a CLOSED security system. Our testing isn't going as well as we hoped. We have had RULES enabled for many years with NORULE ACCEPT in effect. We changed to NURULE REJECT and some funny things are happening. Anyone can issue any CP command with success. For instance, if I am on a general class G user without the OPTION LNKNOPASS directory statement, I can issue LINK MAINT 123 1 RR with success. MAINT's 123 disk does not have ALL as the password. In fact, it doesn't have any passwords at all. From the same user, if I use VMSECURE QRULES JHUG LINK MAINT 123, VM:Secure tells me the LINK would be rejected via NORULE DEFAULT. Would someone help us figure out what we've missed?? Thanks in advance. Here are the lines from the console. link maint 123 1 rr DASD 0001 LINKED R/O; R/W BY VMSECURE; R/O BY 4 USERS Ready; T=0.01/0.01 11:24:15 vmsecure qrules jhug link maint 123 VMXACQ0223I Rejected via NORULE default Jim Hughes 603-271-5586 It is fun to do the impossible.
Re: Z/VM 5.4 and VM:Secure running a CLOSED security system
No. There are no passwords for the MAINT 123 minidisk. MDISK 123 3390 000 END 540RES MR Jim Hughes 603-271-5586 It is fun to do the impossible. From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Imler, Steven J Sent: Friday, November 20, 2009 1:05 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Z/VM 5.4 and VM:Secure running a CLOSED security system Is the READ password ALL for MAINT 123? JR (Steven) Imler CA Senior Sustaining Engineer Tel: +1-703-708-3479 steven.im...@ca.com From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Hughes, Jim Sent: Friday, November 20, 2009 11:29 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Z/VM 5.4 and VM:Secure running a CLOSED security system We are moving towards running VM:Secure with RULES enabled as a CLOSED security system. Our testing isn't going as well as we hoped. We have had RULES enabled for many years with NORULE ACCEPT in effect. We changed to NURULE REJECT and some funny things are happening. Anyone can issue any CP command with success. For instance, if I am on a general class G user without the OPTION LNKNOPASS directory statement, I can issue LINK MAINT 123 1 RR with success. MAINT's 123 disk does not have ALL as the password. In fact, it doesn't have any passwords at all. From the same user, if I use VMSECURE QRULES JHUG LINK MAINT 123, VM:Secure tells me the LINK would be rejected via NORULE DEFAULT. Would someone help us figure out what we've missed?? Thanks in advance. Here are the lines from the console. link maint 123 1 rr DASD 0001 LINKED R/O; R/W BY VMSECURE; R/O BY 4 USERS Ready; T=0.01/0.01 11:24:15 vmsecure qrules jhug link maint 123 VMXACQ0223I Rejected via NORULE default Jim Hughes 603-271-5586 It is fun to do the impossible.
Re: Z/VM 5.4 and VM:Secure running a CLOSED security system
I agree that it is intuitive that NORULE REJECT would reject non-directory LINK commands to disks that have no passwords. A blanket ACCEPT does not seem at all right. What happens if you link to a disk that has passwords? Regards, Richard Schuh From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Hughes, Jim Sent: Friday, November 20, 2009 9:25 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Z/VM 5.4 and VM:Secure running a CLOSED security system We really did change to NORULE REJECT and ipled the test system. NORULE REJECT should reject the command unless a RULE exists to grant access to the resource. The LINK statements in the DIRECTORY were denied because no rule existed to allow the LINK to take place. So a change of behavior is taking place. I don't like the idea of the LINK command working at the CP level even though VM:Secure tells me it would be rejected. We will keep looking and experimenting. Jim Hughes 603-271-5586 It is fun to do the impossible. From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Schuh, Richard Sent: Friday, November 20, 2009 11:48 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Z/VM 5.4 and VM:Secure running a CLOSED security system In my version of the VM:Secure Reference, only GROUP, LOGON BY, VM:Tape and VM:Schedule actions are documented as being rejected if NORULE REJECT is in effect. LINK is not mentioned. It looks like CLOSED isn't so closed, after all. Of course, all bets are off if you really did change to NURULE REJECT :-) Regards, Richard Schuh From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Hughes, Jim Sent: Friday, November 20, 2009 8:29 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Z/VM 5.4 and VM:Secure running a CLOSED security system We are moving towards running VM:Secure with RULES enabled as a CLOSED security system. Our testing isn't going as well as we hoped. We have had RULES enabled for many years with NORULE ACCEPT in effect. We changed to NURULE REJECT and some funny things are happening. Anyone can issue any CP command with success. For instance, if I am on a general class G user without the OPTION LNKNOPASS directory statement, I can issue LINK MAINT 123 1 RR with success. MAINT's 123 disk does not have ALL as the password. In fact, it doesn't have any passwords at all. From the same user, if I use VMSECURE QRULES JHUG LINK MAINT 123, VM:Secure tells me the LINK would be rejected via NORULE DEFAULT. Would someone help us figure out what we've missed?? Thanks in advance. Here are the lines from the console. link maint 123 1 rr DASD 0001 LINKED R/O; R/W BY VMSECURE; R/O BY 4 USERS Ready; T=0.01/0.01 11:24:15 vmsecure qrules jhug link maint 123 VMXACQ0223I Rejected via NORULE default Jim Hughes 603-271-5586 It is fun to do the impossible.
Re: Z/VM 5.4 and VM:Secure running a CLOSED security system
On Friday, 11/20/2009 at 11:29 EST, Hughes, Jim jim.hug...@doit.nh.gov wrote: We are moving towards running VM:Secure with RULES enabled as a CLOSED security system. Our testing isn?t going as well as we hoped. We have had RULES enabled for many years with NORULE ACCEPT in effect. We changed to NURULE REJECT and some funny things are happening. Anyone can issue any CP command with success. For instance, if I am on a general class G user without the OPTION LNKNOPASS directory statement, I can issue LINK MAINT 123 1 RR with success. MAINT?s 123 disk does not have ALL as the password. In fact, it doesn?t have any passwords at all. From the same user, if I use VMSECURE QRULES JHUG LINK MAINT 123, VM:Secure tells me the LINK would be rejected via NORULE DEFAULT. Would someone help us figure out what we?ve missed?? ... link maint 123 1 rr DASD 0001 LINKED R/O; R/W BY VMSECURE; R/O BY 4 USERS Ready; T=0.01/0.01 11:24:15 vmsecure qrules jhug link maint 123 VMXACQ0223I Rejected via NORULE default IF the mdisk pw is not ALL and the ESM is protecting the LINK command and the issuing user does not have OPTION LNKNOPAS THEN the only way for the user to get a link is for the ESM to explicitly grant access. or the disk to have been previously linked. Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott
Re: Z/VM 5.4 and VM:Secure running a CLOSED security system
The absence or presence of passwords on the MDISK does not change the behavior. I may have discovered something regarding a GROUP rule. More in a little bit. Jim Hughes 603-271-5586 It is fun to do the impossible. From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Schuh, Richard Sent: Friday, November 20, 2009 1:22 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Z/VM 5.4 and VM:Secure running a CLOSED security system I agree that it is intuitive that NORULE REJECT would reject non-directory LINK commands to disks that have no passwords. A blanket ACCEPT does not seem at all right. What happens if you link to a disk that has passwords? Regards, Richard Schuh From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Hughes, Jim Sent: Friday, November 20, 2009 9:25 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Z/VM 5.4 and VM:Secure running a CLOSED security system We really did change to NORULE REJECT and ipled the test system. NORULE REJECT should reject the command unless a RULE exists to grant access to the resource. The LINK statements in the DIRECTORY were denied because no rule existed to allow the LINK to take place. So a change of behavior is taking place. I don't like the idea of the LINK command working at the CP level even though VM:Secure tells me it would be rejected. We will keep looking and experimenting. Jim Hughes 603-271-5586 It is fun to do the impossible. From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Schuh, Richard Sent: Friday, November 20, 2009 11:48 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Z/VM 5.4 and VM:Secure running a CLOSED security system In my version of the VM:Secure Reference, only GROUP, LOGON BY, VM:Tape and VM:Schedule actions are documented as being rejected if NORULE REJECT is in effect. LINK is not mentioned. It looks like CLOSED isn't so closed, after all. Of course, all bets are off if you really did change to NURULE REJECT :-) Regards, Richard Schuh From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Hughes, Jim Sent: Friday, November 20, 2009 8:29 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Z/VM 5.4 and VM:Secure running a CLOSED security system We are moving towards running VM:Secure with RULES enabled as a CLOSED security system. Our testing isn't going as well as we hoped. We have had RULES enabled for many years with NORULE ACCEPT in effect. We changed to NURULE REJECT and some funny things are happening. Anyone can issue any CP command with success. For instance, if I am on a general class G user without the OPTION LNKNOPASS directory statement, I can issue LINK MAINT 123 1 RR with success. MAINT's 123 disk does not have ALL as the password. In fact, it doesn't have any passwords at all. From the same user, if I use VMSECURE QRULES JHUG LINK MAINT 123, VM:Secure tells me the LINK would be rejected via NORULE DEFAULT. Would someone help us figure out what we've missed?? Thanks in advance. Here are the lines from the console. link maint 123 1 rr DASD 0001 LINKED R/O; R/W BY VMSECURE; R/O BY 4 USERS Ready; T=0.01/0.01 11:24:15 vmsecure qrules jhug link maint 123 VMXACQ0223I Rejected via NORULE default Jim Hughes 603-271-5586 It is fun to do the impossible.
Re: Hercules 'HMC DVD-RAM support'
I tried this, IPL now has a disabled wait. Any ideas how to proceed from here: HHCCP048I 0181:CCW=0321 =000C 80039030 06000200 6200 .. HHCCP075I 0181:Stat=0200 Count=0001 HHCCP076I 0181:Sense=40420043 0020 HHCCP077I 0181:Sense=INTREQ ITF WRI HHCCP048I 0181:CCW=D436 =000C 80039030 06000200 6200 .. HHCCP075I 0181:Stat=0E00 Count=0006 =000C 80039030 06000200 6200 .. HHCCP076I 0181:Sense=C0420027 0020 HHCCP077I 0181:Sense=CMDREJ INTREQ ITF WRI HHCCP011I CPU: Disabled wait state PSW=0002 0961 I have a SYSG console on a 3270 device at , does it need some kind of interrupt? TIA... On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 9:12 PM, Matthew Donald matthew.b.don...@gmail.com wrote: The Hercules-390 mailing list on Yahoo has a discussion. Copy the zVM DVD image to a directory, then IPL with IPL /path/to/install/image/ZVM.ins. Note that you boot the *.ins file rather than a device address. Make sure that you have sufficient storage defined (zVM 5.3 requires at least 3GB), a SYG console defined at (place SYSG in hercules.cnf) and have a 3270 emulator connected to the console port. On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 9:38 AM, Scott Rohling scott.rohl...@gmail.com wrote: Has anyone tried the new HMC DVD-RAM support supposedly available in Hercules 3.06? There's no info at all on how to implement it After getting a zVM ramdisk loaded and logged into MAINT -- INSTDVD fails as it doesnt seem to find the CKDx files it's looking for which are on the DVD. I googled this to death and find a couple people complaining of the same thing, but no answers.. Since the release notes for 3.06 clearly indicate HMC DVD-RAM support -- I'm just curious if anyone has actually tried it -- I would expect a hercules.cnf option of some kind pointing to the dvd or mounted filesystem, but none is documented. Frustrating! It's there but no one seems to know how to make it work ;-) Scott p.s. Was going to post this on Hercules mailing list - but it requires a Yahoo id (no thanks). Thought this would be the next best place... -- Wayne V. Bickerdike
Re: Hercules 'HMC DVD-RAM support'
What sort of IPL did you request? HELP HCP961W (to see the Wait State 961 help) returns: ---snip--- (c) Copyright IBM Corporation 1990, 2008 HCP961W SYSTEM SHUTDOWN COMPLETE Explanation: The system has been brought to a successful orderly shutdown. System Action: The system enters a wait state (wait state code = 961). The system enters a wait state with a wait state code of 0FFF if a shut down was initiated by one of the following: o the issued SHUTDOWN command specified the WITHIN or BY option o the default shutdown timeout value defined by the SET SIGNAL SHUTDOWNTIME command or configuration statement was not zero and a SHUTDOWN command was issued without the IMMEDIATE option o a shut down signal was received from the hardware. Operator Response: No explicit action is necessary. You may now or at a later time reload for reinitialization of the CP system. You should normally specify a warm start; however, if errors are encountered in the warm start procedure, a cold start or a force start must be issued. ---snip--- Mike Walter Hewitt Associates The opinions expressed herein are mine alone, not my employer's. Wayne Bickerdike wayn...@gmail.com Sent by: The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU 11/20/2009 12:46 PM Please respond to The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU To IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU cc Subject Re: Hercules 'HMC DVD-RAM support' I tried this, IPL now has a disabled wait. Any ideas how to proceed from here: HHCCP048I 0181:CCW=0321 =000C 80039030 06000200 6200 .. HHCCP075I 0181:Stat=0200 Count=0001 HHCCP076I 0181:Sense=40420043 0020 HHCCP077I 0181:Sense=INTREQ ITF WRI HHCCP048I 0181:CCW=D436 =000C 80039030 06000200 6200 .. HHCCP075I 0181:Stat=0E00 Count=0006 =000C 80039030 06000200 6200 .. HHCCP076I 0181:Sense=C0420027 0020 HHCCP077I 0181:Sense=CMDREJ INTREQ ITF WRI HHCCP011I CPU: Disabled wait state PSW=0002 0961 I have a SYSG console on a 3270 device at , does it need some kind of interrupt? TIA... On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 9:12 PM, Matthew Donald matthew.b.don...@gmail.com wrote: The Hercules-390 mailing list on Yahoo has a discussion. Copy the zVM DVD image to a directory, then IPL with IPL /path/to/install/image/ZVM.ins. Note that you boot the *.ins file rather than a device address. Make sure that you have sufficient storage defined (zVM 5.3 requires at least 3GB), a SYG console defined at (place SYSG in hercules.cnf) and have a 3270 emulator connected to the console port. On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 9:38 AM, Scott Rohling scott.rohl...@gmail.com wrote: Has anyone tried the new HMC DVD-RAM support supposedly available in Hercules 3.06? There's no info at all on how to implement it After getting a zVM ramdisk loaded and logged into MAINT -- INSTDVD fails as it doesnt seem to find the CKDx files it's looking for which are on the DVD. I googled this to death and find a couple people complaining of the same thing, but no answers.. Since the release notes for 3.06 clearly indicate HMC DVD-RAM support -- I'm just curious if anyone has actually tried it -- I would expect a hercules.cnf option of some kind pointing to the dvd or mounted filesystem, but none is documented.Frustrating! It's there but no one seems to know how to make it work ;-) Scott p.s. Was going to post this on Hercules mailing list - but it requires a Yahoo id (no thanks). Thought this would be the next best place... -- Wayne V. Bickerdike The information contained in this e-mail and any accompanying documents may contain information that is confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply e-mail and then delete this message, including any attachments. Any dissemination, distribution or other use of the contents of this message by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. All messages sent to and from this e-mail address may be monitored as permitted by applicable law and regulations to ensure compliance with our internal policies and to protect our business. E-mails are not secure and cannot be guaranteed to be error free as they can be intercepted, amended, lost or destroyed, or contain viruses. You are deemed to have accepted these risks if you communicate with us by e-mail.
Re: Hercules 'HMC DVD-RAM support'
On Friday, 11/20/2009 at 01:47 EST, Wayne Bickerdike wayn...@gmail.com wrote: I have a SYSG console on a 3270 device at , does it need some kind of interrupt? The integrated 3270 console (SYSG, in z/VM parlance) isn't a device, doesn't have a device address, and therefore doesn't generate I/O interrupts. Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott
www.vm.ibm.com outage
www.vm.ibm.com will be out of service for preventive maintenance, startin g Saturday 2009-11-21 1000 UTC, for about 12 hours.
Re: Z/VM 5.4 and VM:Secure running a CLOSED security system
I may have discovered something regarding a GROUP rule. There are also explicit and default rules for system and groups. Check them all. The rules hierarchy is: 1. Systems rules 2. Group rules 3. User rules 4. Group default rules 5. System default rules 6. NORULE ACCEPT | REJECT in SECURITY CONFIG file NORULE record is processed only if applicable rule is not found in any of the 1-5 above (in that order). Ivica
Re: Z/VM 5.4 and VM:Secure running a CLOSED security system
The rules hierarchy is: 1. Systems rules 2. Group rules 3. User rules 4. Group default rules 5. System default rules 6. NORULE ACCEPT | REJECT in SECURITY CONFIG file NORULE record is processed only if applicable rule is not found in any o f the 1-5 above (in that order). Ivica That's correct, and should be investigated, but if there are any other rules that allow this link, then VMSECURE QRULES JHUG LINK MAINT 123 should not tell you that the LINK would be rejected via NORULE DEFAULT. Alan Ackerman Alan (dot) Ackerman (at) Bank of America (dot) com
