Re: z/VM 5.4 and RHEL 4.6
Thanks Marcy. BTW could you just respond to this so that I know I am getting messages from the LIST? I have not seen any in awhile so I am just making sure things are ok! Thanks! Thank You, Terry Martin Lockheed Martin - Citic z/OS and z/VM Performance Tuning and Operating Systems Support Office - 443 348-2102 Cell - 443 632-4191 From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Marcy Cortes Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2010 11:32 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: z/VM 5.4 and RHEL 4.6 z/VM 5.4 is running fine for us on a bunch of z10s. We do have current maintenance on (we're rsu 1001). There is this one https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=580839 for Redhat which is z10 specific (there's a SuSE equiv too). It says 5.5 - have no idea if it affects 4.6 at all - you should ask your support provider. 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:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Martin, Terry R. (CMS/CTR) (CTR) Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2010 5:40 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: [IBMVM] z/VM 5.4 and RHEL 4.6 Hi We are converting to z/VM 5.4 on our new z10. We have one set of z/Linux guests that still run RHEL 4.6. Does anyone know of any issues running RHEL 4.6 under z/VM 5.4? Also is there anything to watch out for running either z/VM 5.4 or z/Linux RHEL 4.6 or 5.2 on a z10? I am in touch with the vendors now but I thought while I was waiting for a response I would ask here. Thanks in advance as always!! Thank You, Terry Martin Lockheed Martin - Citic z/OS and z/VM Performance Tuning and Operating Systems Support Office - 443 348-2102 Cell - 443 632-4191 cid:image001.jpg@01C97FB5.5EAFD6C0
Re: z/VM 5.4 and RHEL 4.6
Hi Terry, we are running Centos (free RHEL clone) 4.6 on z/VM 5.4 on a z10 since 2 years now. We don't have any problems with the linux guests on z10. At the moment i am migrating z/VM to Version 6.1 also without problems. Alexander Finanz Informatik Technologie Service Witschelstraße 81 90431 Nürnberg Tel: +49 89 94511-9244 www.f-i-ts.dehttp://www.f-i-ts.de/ From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Martin, Terry R. (CMS/CTR) (CTR) Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 2:56 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: z/VM 5.4 and RHEL 4.6 Thanks Marcy. BTW could you just respond to this so that I know I am getting messages from the LIST? I have not seen any in awhile so I am just making sure things are ok! Thanks! Thank You, Terry Martin Lockheed Martin - Citic z/OS and z/VM Performance Tuning and Operating Systems Support Office - 443 348-2102 Cell - 443 632-4191 From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Marcy Cortes Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2010 11:32 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: z/VM 5.4 and RHEL 4.6 z/VM 5.4 is running fine for us on a bunch of z10s. We do have current maintenance on (we're rsu 1001). There is this one https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=580839 for Redhat which is z10 specific (there's a SuSE equiv too). It says 5.5 - have no idea if it affects 4.6 at all - you should ask your support provider. 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:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Martin, Terry R. (CMS/CTR) (CTR) Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2010 5:40 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: [IBMVM] z/VM 5.4 and RHEL 4.6 Hi We are converting to z/VM 5.4 on our new z10. We have one set of z/Linux guests that still run RHEL 4.6. Does anyone know of any issues running RHEL 4.6 under z/VM 5.4? Also is there anything to watch out for running either z/VM 5.4 or z/Linux RHEL 4.6 or 5.2 on a z10? I am in touch with the vendors now but I thought while I was waiting for a response I would ask here. Thanks in advance as always!! Thank You, Terry Martin Lockheed Martin - Citic z/OS and z/VM Performance Tuning and Operating Systems Support Office - 443 348-2102 Cell - 443 632-4191 [cid:image002.jpg@01CAF2DC.21743030]
Re: z/VM 5.4 and RHEL 4.6
The VM list has been relatively quiet the past couple of days. Lloyd From: Martin, Terry R. (CMS/CTR) (CTR) terry.mar...@cms.hhs.gov To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Sent: Mon, May 17, 2010 8:56:21 AM Subject: Re: z/VM 5.4 and RHEL 4.6 Thanks Marcy. BTW could you just respond to this so that I know I am getting messages from the LIST? I have not seen any in awhile so I am just making sure things are ok! Thanks! Thank You, Terry Martin Lockheed Martin - Citic z/OS and z/VM Performance Tuning and Operating Systems Support Office - 443 348-2102 Cell - 443 632-4191 From:The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Marcy Cortes Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2010 11:32 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: z/VM 5.4 and RHEL 4.6 z/VM 5.4 is running fine for us on a bunch of z10s. We do have current maintenance on (we're rsu 1001). There is this one https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=580839 for Redhat which is z10 specific (there's a SuSE equiv too). It says 5.5 - have no idea if it affects 4.6 at all - you should ask your support provider. 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:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Martin, Terry R. (CMS/CTR) (CTR) Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2010 5:40 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: [IBMVM] z/VM 5.4 and RHEL 4.6 Hi We are converting to z/VM 5.4 on our new z10. We have one set of z/Linux guests that still run RHEL 4.6. Does anyone know of any issues running RHEL 4.6 under z/VM 5.4? Also is there anything to watch out for running either z/VM 5.4 or z/Linux RHEL 4.6 or 5.2 on a z10? I am in touch with the vendors now but I thought while I was waiting for a response I would ask here. Thanks in advance as always!! Thank You, Terry Martin Lockheed Martin - Citic z/OS and z/VM Performance Tuning and Operating Systems Support Office - 443 348-2102 Cell - 443 632-4191
Re: z/VM 5.4 and RHEL 4.6
Thanks Lloyd! Thank You, Terry Martin Lockheed Martin - Citic z/OS and z/VM Performance Tuning and Operating Systems Support Office - 443 348-2102 Cell - 443 632-4191 From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Lloyd Fuller Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 9:02 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: z/VM 5.4 and RHEL 4.6 The VM list has been relatively quiet the past couple of days. Lloyd From: Martin, Terry R. (CMS/CTR) (CTR) terry.mar...@cms.hhs.gov To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Sent: Mon, May 17, 2010 8:56:21 AM Subject: Re: z/VM 5.4 and RHEL 4.6 Thanks Marcy. BTW could you just respond to this so that I know I am getting messages from the LIST? I have not seen any in awhile so I am just making sure things are ok! Thanks! Thank You, Terry Martin Lockheed Martin - Citic z/OS and z/VM Performance Tuning and Operating Systems Support Office - 443 348-2102 Cell - 443 632-4191 From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Marcy Cortes Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2010 11:32 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: z/VM 5.4 and RHEL 4.6 z/VM 5.4 is running fine for us on a bunch of z10s. We do have current maintenance on (we're rsu 1001). There is this one https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=580839 for Redhat which is z10 specific (there's a SuSE equiv too). It says 5.5 - have no idea if it affects 4.6 at all - you should ask your support provider. 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:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Martin, Terry R. (CMS/CTR) (CTR) Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2010 5:40 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: [IBMVM] z/VM 5.4 and RHEL 4.6 Hi We are converting to z/VM 5.4 on our new z10. We have one set of z/Linux guests that still run RHEL 4.6. Does anyone know of any issues running RHEL 4.6 under z/VM 5.4? Also is there anything to watch out for running either z/VM 5.4 or z/Linux RHEL 4.6 or 5.2 on a z10? I am in touch with the vendors now but I thought while I was waiting for a response I would ask here. Thanks in advance as always!! Thank You, Terry Martin Lockheed Martin - Citic z/OS and z/VM Performance Tuning and Operating Systems Support Office - 443 348-2102 Cell - 443 632-4191 cid:image001.jpg@01C97FB5.5EAFD6C0
Re: z/VM 5.4 and RHEL 4.6
Thanks Alexander that is just what I was interested in. BTW, Was there any issues with and the apps running on the z/Linux guests such as Oracle, DB2- Connect...? Thanks! Thank You, Terry Martin Lockheed Martin - Citic z/OS and z/VM Performance Tuning and Operating Systems Support Office - 443 348-2102 Cell - 443 632-4191 From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Riedel, Alexander Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 9:02 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: z/VM 5.4 and RHEL 4.6 Hi Terry, we are running Centos (free RHEL clone) 4.6 on z/VM 5.4 on a z10 since 2 years now. We don't have any problems with the linux guests on z10. At the moment i am migrating z/VM to Version 6.1 also without problems. Alexander Finanz Informatik Technologie Service Witschelstraße 81 90431 Nürnberg Tel: +49 89 94511-9244 www.f-i-ts.de http://www.f-i-ts.de/ From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Martin, Terry R. (CMS/CTR) (CTR) Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 2:56 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: z/VM 5.4 and RHEL 4.6 Thanks Marcy. BTW could you just respond to this so that I know I am getting messages from the LIST? I have not seen any in awhile so I am just making sure things are ok! Thanks! Thank You, Terry Martin Lockheed Martin - Citic z/OS and z/VM Performance Tuning and Operating Systems Support Office - 443 348-2102 Cell - 443 632-4191 From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Marcy Cortes Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2010 11:32 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: z/VM 5.4 and RHEL 4.6 z/VM 5.4 is running fine for us on a bunch of z10s. We do have current maintenance on (we're rsu 1001). There is this one https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=580839 for Redhat which is z10 specific (there's a SuSE equiv too). It says 5.5 - have no idea if it affects 4.6 at all - you should ask your support provider. 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:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Martin, Terry R. (CMS/CTR) (CTR) Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2010 5:40 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: [IBMVM] z/VM 5.4 and RHEL 4.6 Hi We are converting to z/VM 5.4 on our new z10. We have one set of z/Linux guests that still run RHEL 4.6. Does anyone know of any issues running RHEL 4.6 under z/VM 5.4? Also is there anything to watch out for running either z/VM 5.4 or z/Linux RHEL 4.6 or 5.2 on a z10? I am in touch with the vendors now but I thought while I was waiting for a response I would ask here. Thanks in advance as always!! Thank You, Terry Martin Lockheed Martin - Citic z/OS and z/VM Performance Tuning and Operating Systems Support Office - 443 348-2102 Cell - 443 632-4191 cid:image001.jpg@01C97FB5.5EAFD6C0
Device locks
I am getting the following - dirm for ewsauto1 get DVHXMT1191I Your GET request has been sent for processing. Ready; T=0.01/0.01 13:32:10 DVHREQ2288I Your GET request for EWSAUTO1 at * has been accepted. DVHLOC3602E Directory entry EWSAUTO1 has active device locks against it. DVHLOC3602E A USER lock can not be granted. DVHREQ2289E Your GET request for EWSAUTO1 at * has failed; with RC = DVHREQ2289E 3602. The user is logged off, any suggestions on commands to display what device is locked or how to unlock it? Eric Spencer espen...@neon.commailto:espen...@neonesoft.com
Re: Device locks
There is a DELETE LOCK command that will probably rectify the situation. But the question that bothers me is: how/why did the user lock the member? David Wakser Syntax: --DELete--LOCk--.-..--dirid-.- - | '-.-fn-.--.-ft-.-'| | '-*--' '-*--' | '-fn--ft--bfsid-' .-(--NOType-. --+---+ '-(--.-TYPe.--.---.-' |.-FIFO-. | '-)-' |-STACK--+--+-| |'-LIFO-' | |-LIFO| |-FIFO| '-NOType--' From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Eric Spencer Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 1:36 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Device locks I am getting the following - dirm for ewsauto1 get DVHXMT1191I Your GET request has been sent for processing. Ready; T=0.01/0.01 13:32:10 DVHREQ2288I Your GET request for EWSAUTO1 at * has been accepted. DVHLOC3602E Directory entry EWSAUTO1 has active device locks against it. DVHLOC3602E A USER lock can not be granted. DVHREQ2289E Your GET request for EWSAUTO1 at * has failed; with RC = DVHREQ2289E 3602. The user is logged off, any suggestions on commands to display what device is locked or how to unlock it? Eric Spencer espen...@neon.com mailto:espen...@neonesoft.com Confidentiality Note: This e-mail, including any attachment to it, may contain material that is confidential, proprietary, privileged and/or Protected Health Information, within the meaning of the regulations under the Health Insurance Portability Accountability Act as amended. If it is not clear that you are the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this transmittal in error, and any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail, including any attachment to it, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately return it to the sender and delete it from your system. Thank you.
Re: Device locks
can't you issue a DIRM unlock Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 11:09:40 -0700 From: david.wak...@infocrossing.com Subject: Re: Device locks To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU There is a DELETE LOCK command that will probably rectify the situation. But the question that bothers me is: how/why did the user lock the member? David Wakser Syntax: --DELete--LOCk--.-..--dirid-.-- | '-.-fn-.--.-ft-.-' | | '-*--' '-*--' | '-fn--ft--bfsid-' .-(--NOType-. --+---+ '-(--.-TYPe.--.---.-' |.-FIFO-. | '-)-' |-STACK--+--+-| |'-LIFO-' | |-LIFO| |-FIFO| '-NOType--' From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Eric Spencer Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 1:36 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Device locks I am getting the following - dirm for ewsauto1 get DVHXMT1191I Your GET request has been sent for processing. Ready; T=0.01/0.01 13:32:10 DVHREQ2288I Your GET request for EWSAUTO1 at * has been accepted. DVHLOC3602E Directory entry EWSAUTO1 has active device locks against it. DVHLOC3602E A USER lock can not be granted. DVHREQ2289E Your GET request for EWSAUTO1 at * has failed; with RC = DVHREQ2289E 3602. The user is logged off, any suggestions on commands to display what device is locked or how to unlock it? Eric Spencer espen...@neon.com Confidentiality Note: This e-mail, including any attachment to it, may contain material that is confidential, proprietary, privileged and/or Protected Health Information, within the meaning of the regulations under the Health Insurance Portability Accountability Act as amended. If it is not clear that you are the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this transmittal in error, and any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail, including any attachment to it, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately return it to the sender and delete it from your system. Thank you. _ Hotmail is redefining busy with tools for the New Busy. Get more from your inbox. http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_2
Re: Device locks
Sorry, I made an error - I showed you the SFS DLETE LOCK - not the DIRMAINT UNLOCK. My error. From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of clifford jackson Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 2:19 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Device locks can't you issue a DIRM unlock Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 11:09:40 -0700 From: david.wak...@infocrossing.com Subject: Re: Device locks To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU There is a DELETE LOCK command that will probably rectify the situation. But the question that bothers me is: how/why did the user lock the member? David Wakser Syntax: --DELete--LOCk--.-..--dirid-.- - | '-.-fn-.--.-ft-.-'| | '-*--' '-*--' | '-fn--ft--bfsid-' .-(--NOType-. --+---+ '-(--.-TYPe.--.---.-' |.-FIFO-. | '-)-' |-STACK--+--+-| |'-LIFO-' | |-LIFO| |-FIFO| '-NOType--' From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Eric Spencer Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 1:36 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Device locks I am getting the following - dirm for ewsauto1 get DVHXMT1191I Your GET request has been sent for processing. Ready; T=0.01/0.01 13:32:10 DVHREQ2288I Your GET request for EWSAUTO1 at * has been accepted. DVHLOC3602E Directory entry EWSAUTO1 has active device locks against it. DVHLOC3602E A USER lock can not be granted. DVHREQ2289E Your GET request for EWSAUTO1 at * has failed; with RC = DVHREQ2289E 3602. The user is logged off, any suggestions on commands to display what device is locked or how to unlock it? Eric Spencer espen...@neon.com mailto:espen...@neonesoft.com Confidentiality Note: This e-mail, including any attachment to it, may contain material that is confidential, proprietary, privileged and/or Protected Health Information, within the meaning of the regulations under the Health Insurance Portability Accountability Act as amended. If it is not clear that you are the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this transmittal in error, and any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail, including any attachment to it, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately return it to the sender and delete it from your system. Thank you. Hotmail is redefining busy with tools for the New Busy. Get more from your inbox. See how. http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL :ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_2 Confidentiality Note: This e-mail, including any attachment to it, may contain material that is confidential, proprietary, privileged and/or Protected Health Information, within the meaning of the regulations under the Health Insurance Portability Accountability Act as amended. If it is not clear that you are the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this transmittal in error, and any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail, including any attachment to it, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately return it to the sender and delete it from your system. Thank you.
Re: Device locks
I tried that first (DIRM FOR ... unlock). it doesn't appear to be that kind of lock. DVHREQ2288I Your UNLOCK request for EWSAUTO1 at * has been accepted. DVHLOC3601E Directory entry EWSAUTO1 is already unlocked. DVHREQ2289E Your UNLOCK request for EWSAUTO1 at * has failed; with RC DVHREQ2289E = 3601. Eric Spencer p:512.241.7313 | f:512.343.9538 Neon Enterprise Software LLC. From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of clifford jackson Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 1:19 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Device locks can't you issue a DIRM unlock Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 11:09:40 -0700 From: david.wak...@infocrossing.com Subject: Re: Device locks To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU There is a DELETE LOCK command that will probably rectify the situation. But the question that bothers me is: how/why did the user lock the member? David Wakser Syntax: --DELete--LOCk--.-..--dirid-.-- | '-.-fn-.--.-ft-.-'| | '-*--' '-*--' | '-fn--ft--bfsid-' .-(--NOType-. --+---+ '-(--.-TYPe.--.---.-' |.-FIFO-. | '-)-' |-STACK--+--+-| |'-LIFO-' | |-LIFO| |-FIFO| '-NOType--' From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Eric Spencer Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 1:36 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Device locks I am getting the following - dirm for ewsauto1 get DVHXMT1191I Your GET request has been sent for processing. Ready; T=0.01/0.01 13:32:10 DVHREQ2288I Your GET request for EWSAUTO1 at * has been accepted. DVHLOC3602E Directory entry EWSAUTO1 has active device locks against it. DVHLOC3602E A USER lock can not be granted. DVHREQ2289E Your GET request for EWSAUTO1 at * has failed; with RC = DVHREQ2289E 3602. The user is logged off, any suggestions on commands to display what device is locked or how to unlock it? Eric Spencer espen...@neon.commailto:espen...@neonesoft.com Confidentiality Note: This e-mail, including any attachment to it, may contain material that is confidential, proprietary, privileged and/or Protected Health Information, within the meaning of the regulations under the Health Insurance Portability Accountability Act as amended. If it is not clear that you are the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this transmittal in error, and any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail, including any attachment to it, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately return it to the sender and delete it from your system. Thank you. Hotmail is redefining busy with tools for the New Busy. Get more from your inbox. See how.http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_2
Re: Device locks
Eric, you need to find out what virtual address in the directory entry is locked and then use the DIRM FOR EWSAUTO1 UNOCK vaddr command. DJ On 05/17/2010 01:25 PM, Eric Spencer wrote: I tried that first (DIRM FOR ... unlock). it doesn't appear to be that kind of lock. DVHREQ2288I Your UNLOCK request for EWSAUTO1 at * has been accepted. DVHLOC3601E Directory entry EWSAUTO1 is already unlocked. DVHREQ2289E Your UNLOCK request for EWSAUTO1 at * has failed; with RC DVHREQ2289E = 3601. Eric Spencer p:512.241.7313 | f:512.343.9538 Neon Enterprise Software LLC. From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of clifford jackson Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 1:19 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Device locks can't you issue a DIRM unlock Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 11:09:40 -0700 From: david.wak...@infocrossing.com Subject: Re: Device locks To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU There is a DELETE LOCK command that will probably rectify the situation. But the question that bothers me is: how/why did the user lock the member? David Wakser Syntax: --DELete--LOCk--.-..--dirid-.-- | '-.-fn-.--.-ft-.-'| | '-*--' '-*--' | '-fn--ft--bfsid-' .-(--NOType-. --+---+ '-(--.-TYPe.--.---.-' |.-FIFO-. | '-)-' |-STACK--+--+-| |'-LIFO-' | |-LIFO| |-FIFO| '-NOType--' From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Eric Spencer Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 1:36 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Device locks I am getting the following - dirm for ewsauto1 get DVHXMT1191I Your GET request has been sent for processing. Ready; T=0.01/0.01 13:32:10 DVHREQ2288I Your GET request for EWSAUTO1 at * has been accepted. DVHLOC3602E Directory entry EWSAUTO1 has active device locks against it. DVHLOC3602E A USER lock can not be granted. DVHREQ2289E Your GET request for EWSAUTO1 at * has failed; with RC = DVHREQ2289E 3602. The user is logged off, any suggestions on commands to display what device is locked or how to unlock it? Eric Spencer espen...@neon.commailto:espen...@neonesoft.com Confidentiality Note: This e-mail, including any attachment to it, may contain material that is confidential, proprietary, privileged and/or Protected Health Information, within the meaning of the regulations under the Health Insurance Portability Accountability Act as amended. If it is not clear that you are the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this transmittal in error, and any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail, including any attachment to it, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately return it to the sender and delete it from your system. Thank you. Hotmail is redefining busy with tools for the New Busy. Get more from your inbox. See how.http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_2 -- Dave Jones V/Soft www.vsoft-software.com Houston, TX 281.578.7544
Re: Device locks
Dave, That was it. This machine had been running linux. I had stopped linux and logged it off. vdev - 100 (root file system) 101 (swap) 102 (/usr) 101 had a device lock on it for some reason. Thanks Eric Spencer p:512.241.7313 | f:512.343.9538 Neon Enterprise Software LLC. -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Dave Jones Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 1:53 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Device locks Eric, you need to find out what virtual address in the directory entry is locked and then use the DIRM FOR EWSAUTO1 UNOCK vaddr command. DJ On 05/17/2010 01:25 PM, Eric Spencer wrote: I tried that first (DIRM FOR ... unlock). it doesn't appear to be that kind of lock. DVHREQ2288I Your UNLOCK request for EWSAUTO1 at * has been accepted. DVHLOC3601E Directory entry EWSAUTO1 is already unlocked. DVHREQ2289E Your UNLOCK request for EWSAUTO1 at * has failed; with RC DVHREQ2289E = 3601. Eric Spencer p:512.241.7313 | f:512.343.9538 Neon Enterprise Software LLC. From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of clifford jackson Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 1:19 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Device locks can't you issue a DIRM unlock Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 11:09:40 -0700 From: david.wak...@infocrossing.com Subject: Re: Device locks To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU There is a DELETE LOCK command that will probably rectify the situation. But the question that bothers me is: how/why did the user lock the member? David Wakser Syntax: --DELete--LOCk--.-..--dirid-. -- | '-.-fn-.--.-ft-.-'| | '-*--' '-*--' | '-fn--ft--bfsid-' .-(--NOType-. --+---+--- - '-(--.-TYPe.--.---.-' |.-FIFO-. | '-)-' |-STACK--+--+-| |'-LIFO-' | |-LIFO| |-FIFO| '-NOType--' From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Eric Spencer Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 1:36 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Device locks I am getting the following - dirm for ewsauto1 get DVHXMT1191I Your GET request has been sent for processing. Ready; T=0.01/0.01 13:32:10 DVHREQ2288I Your GET request for EWSAUTO1 at * has been accepted. DVHLOC3602E Directory entry EWSAUTO1 has active device locks against it. DVHLOC3602E A USER lock can not be granted. DVHREQ2289E Your GET request for EWSAUTO1 at * has failed; with RC = DVHREQ2289E 3602. The user is logged off, any suggestions on commands to display what device is locked or how to unlock it? Eric Spencer espen...@neon.commailto:espen...@neonesoft.com Confidentiality Note: This e-mail, including any attachment to it, may contain material that is confidential, proprietary, privileged and/or Protected Health Information, within the meaning of the regulations under the Health Insurance Portability Accountability Act as amended. If it is not clear that you are the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this transmittal in error, and any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail, including any attachment to it, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately return it to the sender and delete it from your system. Thank you. Hotmail is redefining busy with tools for the New Busy. Get more from your inbox. See how.http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMT AGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_2 -- Dave Jones V/Soft www.vsoft-software.com Houston, TX 281.578.7544
Re: Device locks
There is a file on one of DIRMAINT's disks that tells what is locked. At my former customer, I wrote some REXX code to check in this file for locks that were held too long. If longer than -maybe a week- I sent an email to the person creating the lock and to the systems programmers. I can dig up that code, but the mail generation is not part of it, that was done by the code interpreting these REXX code snippets, all of this was the TSLA measure and warning system. When a logoff of the locked user helps, it means that someone used DIRMAINT to move/change/clean a minidisk of that user. DATAMOVE then wants exclusive access to the MDISK to perform its task, and until that succeeds the user and this minidisk are locked. 2010/5/17 Dave Jones d...@vsoft-software.com Eric, you need to find out what virtual address in the directory entry is locked and then use the DIRM FOR EWSAUTO1 UNOCK vaddr command. DJ On 05/17/2010 01:25 PM, Eric Spencer wrote: I tried that first (DIRM FOR ... unlock). it doesn't appear to be that kind of lock. DVHREQ2288I Your UNLOCK request for EWSAUTO1 at * has been accepted. DVHLOC3601E Directory entry EWSAUTO1 is already unlocked. DVHREQ2289E Your UNLOCK request for EWSAUTO1 at * has failed; with RC DVHREQ2289E = 3601. Eric Spencer p:512.241.7313 | f:512.343.9538 Neon Enterprise Software LLC. From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of clifford jackson Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 1:19 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Device locks can't you issue a DIRM unlock Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 11:09:40 -0700 From: david.wak...@infocrossing.com Subject: Re: Device locks To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU There is a DELETE LOCK command that will probably rectify the situation. But the question that bothers me is: how/why did the user lock the member? David Wakser Syntax: --DELete--LOCk--.-..--dirid-.-- | '-.-fn-.--.-ft-.-'| | '-*--' '-*--' | '-fn--ft--bfsid-' .-(--NOType-. --+---+ '-(--.-TYPe.--.---.-' |.-FIFO-. | '-)-' |-STACK--+--+-| |'-LIFO-' | |-LIFO| |-FIFO| '-NOType--' From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Eric Spencer Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 1:36 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Device locks I am getting the following - dirm for ewsauto1 get DVHXMT1191I Your GET request has been sent for processing. Ready; T=0.01/0.01 13:32:10 DVHREQ2288I Your GET request for EWSAUTO1 at * has been accepted. DVHLOC3602E Directory entry EWSAUTO1 has active device locks against it. DVHLOC3602E A USER lock can not be granted. DVHREQ2289E Your GET request for EWSAUTO1 at * has failed; with RC = DVHREQ2289E 3602. The user is logged off, any suggestions on commands to display what device is locked or how to unlock it? Eric Spencer espen...@neon.commailto:espen...@neonesoft.com Confidentiality Note: This e-mail, including any attachment to it, may contain material that is confidential, proprietary, privileged and/or Protected Health Information, within the meaning of the regulations under the Health Insurance Portability Accountability Act as amended. If it is not clear that you are the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this transmittal in error, and any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail, including any attachment to it, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately return it to the sender and delete it from your system. Thank you. Hotmail is redefining busy with tools for the New Busy. Get more from your inbox. See how. http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_2 -- Dave Jones V/Soft www.vsoft-software.com Houston, TX 281.578.7544 -- Kris Buelens, IBM Belgium, VM customer support
Re: Device locks
That's very interestingthat the swap disk had a lock on it. The swap disk is a virtual disk in storage, right? On 05/17/2010 02:14 PM, Eric Spencer wrote: Dave, That was it. This machine had been running linux. I had stopped linux and logged it off. vdev - 100 (root file system) 101 (swap) 102 (/usr) 101 had a device lock on it for some reason. Thanks Eric Spencer p:512.241.7313 | f:512.343.9538 Neon Enterprise Software LLC. -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Dave Jones Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 1:53 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Device locks Eric, you need to find out what virtual address in the directory entry is locked and then use the DIRM FOR EWSAUTO1 UNOCKvaddr command. DJ On 05/17/2010 01:25 PM, Eric Spencer wrote: I tried that first (DIRM FOR ... unlock). it doesn't appear to be that kind of lock. DVHREQ2288I Your UNLOCK request for EWSAUTO1 at * has been accepted. DVHLOC3601E Directory entry EWSAUTO1 is already unlocked. DVHREQ2289E Your UNLOCK request for EWSAUTO1 at * has failed; with RC DVHREQ2289E = 3601. Eric Spencer p:512.241.7313 | f:512.343.9538 Neon Enterprise Software LLC. From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of clifford jackson Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 1:19 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Device locks can't you issue a DIRM unlock Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 11:09:40 -0700 From: david.wak...@infocrossing.com Subject: Re: Device locks To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU There is a DELETE LOCK command that will probably rectify the situation. But the question that bothers me is: how/why did the user lock the member? David Wakser Syntax: --DELete--LOCk--.-..--dirid-. -- | '-.-fn-.--.-ft-.-'| | '-*--' '-*--' | '-fn--ft--bfsid-' .-(--NOType-. --+---+--- - '-(--.-TYPe.--.---.-' |.-FIFO-. | '-)-' |-STACK--+--+-| |'-LIFO-' | |-LIFO| |-FIFO| '-NOType--' From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Eric Spencer Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 1:36 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Device locks I am getting the following - dirm for ewsauto1 get DVHXMT1191I Your GET request has been sent for processing. Ready; T=0.01/0.01 13:32:10 DVHREQ2288I Your GET request for EWSAUTO1 at * has been accepted. DVHLOC3602E Directory entry EWSAUTO1 has active device locks against it. DVHLOC3602E A USER lock can not be granted. DVHREQ2289E Your GET request for EWSAUTO1 at * has failed; with RC = DVHREQ2289E 3602. The user is logged off, any suggestions on commands to display what device is locked or how to unlock it? Eric Spencer espen...@neon.commailto:espen...@neonesoft.com Confidentiality Note: This e-mail, including any attachment to it, may contain material that is confidential, proprietary, privileged and/or Protected Health Information, within the meaning of the regulations under the Health Insurance Portability Accountability Act as amended. If it is not clear that you are the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this transmittal in error, and any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail, including any attachment to it, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately return it to the sender and delete it from your system. Thank you. Hotmail is redefining busy with tools for the New Busy. Get more from your inbox. See how.http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMT AGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_2 -- Dave Jones V/Soft www.vsoft-software.com Houston, TX 281.578.7544 -- Dave Jones V/Soft www.vsoft-software.com Houston, TX 281.578.7544
z/vm 4.4 and vse 2.3.1 running in a z10 BC
Hello We have a chance to migrate our hardware from MP3000 H50 running vse/esa 2.3.1 under z/vm 4.4.0 to a new z10 BC machine. Since we have a lot of CA tools, under z/vm and vse, we need to replace machine as soon as possible and after migrate systems to z/vm 5.4 (z/vm 6.0??) and z/vse 4.2, but, this will demand a greater effort. My questions is simple, can I just shutdown systems, (vm and vse) replace H50 by z10 BC and up systems again? Of course, I will ask to CA a new LMP Key for new serial of BC machine. Will z/vm 4.4 and vse 2.3.1 runs error free (as today under H50) on z10 BC? Thanks a lot for comments Carlos Bodra
Re: Device locks
Don't forget - a directory defined V-disk is shareable. Regards, Richard Schuh -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Dave Jones Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 1:55 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Device locks That's very interestingthat the swap disk had a lock on it. The swap disk is a virtual disk in storage, right? On 05/17/2010 02:14 PM, Eric Spencer wrote: Dave, That was it. This machine had been running linux. I had stopped linux and logged it off. vdev - 100 (root file system) 101 (swap) 102 (/usr) 101 had a device lock on it for some reason. Thanks Eric Spencer p:512.241.7313 | f:512.343.9538 Neon Enterprise Software LLC. -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Dave Jones Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 1:53 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Device locks Eric, you need to find out what virtual address in the directory entry is locked and then use the DIRM FOR EWSAUTO1 UNOCKvaddr command. DJ On 05/17/2010 01:25 PM, Eric Spencer wrote: I tried that first (DIRM FOR ... unlock). it doesn't appear to be that kind of lock. DVHREQ2288I Your UNLOCK request for EWSAUTO1 at * has been accepted. DVHLOC3601E Directory entry EWSAUTO1 is already unlocked. DVHREQ2289E Your UNLOCK request for EWSAUTO1 at * has failed; with RC DVHREQ2289E = 3601. Eric Spencer p:512.241.7313 | f:512.343.9538 Neon Enterprise Software LLC. From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of clifford jackson Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 1:19 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Device locks can't you issue a DIRM unlock Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 11:09:40 -0700 From: david.wak...@infocrossing.com Subject: Re: Device locks To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU There is a DELETE LOCK command that will probably rectify the situation. But the question that bothers me is: how/why did the user lock the member? David Wakser Syntax: --DELete--LOCk--.-..--dirid-.- --- -- | '-.-fn-.--.-ft-.-'| | '-*--' '-*--' | '-fn--ft--bfsid-' .-(--NOType-. --+---+ --+---+--- - '-(--.-TYPe.--.---.-' |.-FIFO-. | '-)-' |-STACK--+--+-| |'-LIFO-' | |-LIFO| |-FIFO| '-NOType--' From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Eric Spencer Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 1:36 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Device locks I am getting the following - dirm for ewsauto1 get DVHXMT1191I Your GET request has been sent for processing. Ready; T=0.01/0.01 13:32:10 DVHREQ2288I Your GET request for EWSAUTO1 at * has been accepted. DVHLOC3602E Directory entry EWSAUTO1 has active device locks against it. DVHLOC3602E A USER lock can not be granted. DVHREQ2289E Your GET request for EWSAUTO1 at * has failed; with RC = DVHREQ2289E 3602. The user is logged off, any suggestions on commands to display what device is locked or how to unlock it? Eric Spencer espen...@neon.commailto:espen...@neonesoft.com Confidentiality Note: This e-mail, including any attachment to it, may contain material that is confidential, proprietary, privileged and/or Protected Health Information, within the meaning of the regulations under the Health Insurance Portability Accountability Act as amended. If it is not clear that you are the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this transmittal in error, and any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail, including any attachment to it, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately return it to the sender and delete it from your system. Thank you. Hotmail is redefining busy with tools for the New Busy. Get more from your inbox. See how.http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T: WLMT AGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_2 -- Dave Jones V/Soft www.vsoft-software.com Houston, TX 281.578.7544 -- Dave Jones V/Soft www.vsoft-software.com Houston, TX 281.578.7544
RXSOCKET
Is the 5000 socket limit for a user of RXSOCKET architectural or arbitrary? If arbitrary, will it be am major effort to increase it to something in the 12-16K range? And is increasing it something that the customer can do or is it a trade secret? Regards, Richard Schuh
Re: RXSOCKET
You have a rexx based system that exceeds 5000 concurrent sockets? I would not have expected such an animal to run with any efficiency. Tony Thigpen -Original Message - From: Schuh, Richard Sent: 05/17/2010 05:59 PM Is the 5000 socket limit for a user of RXSOCKET architectural or arbitrary? If arbitrary, will it be am major effort to increase it to something in the 12-16K range? And is increasing it something that the customer can do or is it a trade secret? Regards, Richard Schuh
Re: z/vm 4.4 and vse 2.3.1 running in a z10 BC
Carlos, IBM's documentation says you need at least z/VM 5.2 to run on a Z10. On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 3:02 PM, Carlos Bodra cbo...@terra.com.br wrote: Hello We have a chance to migrate our hardware from MP3000 H50 running vse/esa 2.3.1 under z/vm 4.4.0 to a new z10 BC machine. Since we have a lot of CA tools, under z/vm and vse, we need to replace machine as soon as possible and after migrate systems to z/vm 5.4 (z/vm 6.0??) and z/vse 4.2, but, this will demand a greater effort. My questions is simple, can I just shutdown systems, (vm and vse) replace H50 by z10 BC and up systems again? Of course, I will ask to CA a new LMP Key for new serial of BC machine. Will z/vm 4.4 and vse 2.3.1 runs error free (as today under H50) on z10 BC? Thanks a lot for comments Carlos Bodra
Re: z/vm 4.4 and vse 2.3.1 running in a z10 BC
I can't say anything about VSE, but z/VM 4.4 is not a supported release of VM on the z10 series. On 05/17/2010 04:02 PM, Carlos Bodra wrote: Hello We have a chance to migrate our hardware from MP3000 H50 running vse/esa 2.3.1 under z/vm 4.4.0 to a new z10 BC machine. Since we have a lot of CA tools, under z/vm and vse, we need to replace machine as soon as possible and after migrate systems to z/vm 5.4 (z/vm 6.0??) and z/vse 4.2, but, this will demand a greater effort. My questions is simple, can I just shutdown systems, (vm and vse) replace H50 by z10 BC and up systems again? Of course, I will ask to CA a new LMP Key for new serial of BC machine. Will z/vm 4.4 and vse 2.3.1 runs error free (as today under H50) on z10 BC? Thanks a lot for comments Carlos Bodra -- Dave Jones V/Soft www.vsoft-software.com Houston, TX 281.578.7544
Re: RXSOCKET
I don't remember saying anything about efficiency. Regards, Richard Schuh -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Tony Thigpen Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 3:05 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: RXSOCKET You have a rexx based system that exceeds 5000 concurrent sockets? I would not have expected such an animal to run with any efficiency. Tony Thigpen -Original Message - From: Schuh, Richard Sent: 05/17/2010 05:59 PM Is the 5000 socket limit for a user of RXSOCKET architectural or arbitrary? If arbitrary, will it be am major effort to increase it to something in the 12-16K range? And is increasing it something that the customer can do or is it a trade secret? Regards, Richard Schuh
VSWITCH Question
We're updating some OSA micro code and I'm trying to determine the most effective way to take the VSWITCH connected to a production OSA offline so the code can update properly. I know that the OSA device has to be vary'd offline, as does the path and CHPID. Is there a way to tell a VSWITCH to shutdown without destroying it? This particular VSWITCH doesn't have a second fail-over address. If I detach the device from the VSWITCH controller, vary the device, path and CHPID offline, will this suffice? Thanks in advance, Dave Keeton
Re: VSWITCH Question
Will work, but would be nicer to it if you did a set vswitch disconnect first. You will lose all connectivity with no backup, but you know that ;) 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 Dave Keeton Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 3:54 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: [IBMVM] VSWITCH Question We're updating some OSA micro code and I'm trying to determine the most effective way to take the VSWITCH connected to a production OSA offline so the code can update properly. I know that the OSA device has to be vary'd offline, as does the path and CHPID. Is there a way to tell a VSWITCH to shutdown without destroying it? This particular VSWITCH doesn't have a second fail-over address. If I detach the device from the VSWITCH controller, vary the device, path and CHPID offline, will this suffice? Thanks in advance, Dave Keeton
Batch job takes too long in OS/390 Guest under z/VM v6.1
We migrate three OS/390 system from 2064-2C1 running on native LPAR mode to 2098-T01 running under z/VM like the below. HW: z10 BC- 2098 T01 (GCP 1 EA) OS: z/VM V6.1 Guest OS: Four OS/390 v2.10 (SE02, SE05, SE06, CF) running under z/VM 1) Between three OS/390 guests share many DASD which are defined by full-pack minidisk in CP directory. 2) three OS/390 guests share the DASD using GRS. MIM is used before migration 3) three OS/390 guests are coupled by Sysplex(VCFLINK under z/VM) thru CF guest 4) Sysplex(XCF) is used for only GRS and Tape sharing. MIA is used before migration 5) GRS was not used befor migration * Problem Symptom = During night time, batch job workload on SE02 was taking too long and SE02 Guest system has high CPU usage(Specially Supervisor CPU% is high around 32% and Emulated CPU% is 35%) and I/O wait(12%) by performance toolkit. = By monitoring in OS/390(SE02), CPU Usage of MASTER, GRS, CATALOG task is high. therefore batch job is hard to get CPU resource. = CF Guest user has only 1% of CPU utilization. = batch job use DASD and Tape devices. could it be caused by VM side or OS/390? What do we need to check more to find what is root cause and to fix this problem?
Re: Batch job takes too long in OS/390 Guest under z/VM v6.1
What changes were made to your memory config? xstor, cstor, mdc size ? Any changes to the I/O configuration? 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:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of TaeMin Baek Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 3:22 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: [IBMVM] Batch job takes too long in OS/390 Guest under z/VM v6.1 We migrate three OS/390 system from 2064-2C1 running on native LPAR mode to 2098-T01 running under z/VM like the below. HW: z10 BC- 2098 T01 (GCP 1 EA) OS: z/VM V6.1 Guest OS: Four OS/390 v2.10 (SE02, SE05, SE06, CF) running under z/VM 1) Between three OS/390 guests share many DASD which are defined by full-pack minidisk in CP directory. 2) three OS/390 guests share the DASD using GRS. MIM is used before migration 3) three OS/390 guests are coupled by Sysplex(VCFLINK under z/VM) thru CF guest 4) Sysplex(XCF) is used for only GRS and Tape sharing. MIA is used before migration 5) GRS was not used befor migration * Problem Symptom = During night time, batch job workload on SE02 was taking too long and SE02 Guest system has high CPU usage(Specially Supervisor CPU% is high around 32% and Emulated CPU% is 35%) and I/O wait(12%) by performance toolkit. = By monitoring in OS/390(SE02), CPU Usage of MASTER, GRS, CATALOG task is high. therefore batch job is hard to get CPU resource. = CF Guest user has only 1% of CPU utilization. = batch job use DASD and Tape devices. could it be caused by VM side or OS/390? What do we need to check more to find what is root cause and to fix this problem?
Re: VSWITCH Question
Thank you, Marcy! I appreciate the quick response. Regards, Dave On Mon, 2010-05-17 at 18:32 -0500, Marcy Cortes wrote: Will work, but would be nicer to it if you did a set vswitch disconnect first. You will lose all connectivity with no backup, but you know that ;) 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 Dave Keeton Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 3:54 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: [IBMVM] VSWITCH Question We're updating some OSA micro code and I'm trying to determine the most effective way to take the VSWITCH connected to a production OSA offline so the code can update properly. I know that the OSA device has to be vary'd offline, as does the path and CHPID. Is there a way to tell a VSWITCH to shutdown without destroying it? This particular VSWITCH doesn't have a second fail-over address. If I detach the device from the VSWITCH controller, vary the device, path and CHPID offline, will this suffice? Thanks in advance, Dave Keeton
Re: RXSOCKET
Actually, I am surprised that it does not choke completely. :-) Tony Thigpen -Original Message - From: Schuh, Richard Sent: 05/17/2010 06:35 PM I don't remember saying anything about efficiency. Regards, Richard Schuh -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Tony Thigpen Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 3:05 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: RXSOCKET You have a rexx based system that exceeds 5000 concurrent sockets? I would not have expected such an animal to run with any efficiency. Tony Thigpen -Original Message - From: Schuh, Richard Sent: 05/17/2010 05:59 PM Is the 5000 socket limit for a user of RXSOCKET architectural or arbitrary? If arbitrary, will it be am major effort to increase it to something in the 12-16K range? And is increasing it something that the customer can do or is it a trade secret? Regards, Richard Schuh
Re: Batch job takes too long in OS/390 Guest under z/VM v6.1
The change is that we add xstor 1GB and the others are same. we reduced the number of ESCON Channel from 16 to 8 and now channel busy is around 50%~70%. We are sharing DASD among 5 OS/390 Virtual Machines by Using Virtual Reserve/Release(MWV Option for MDISK) with SET SHARED ON option in SYSTEM CONFIG. I read 'CP pllaning and admin guide and it says like the below. *When to Use Concurrent Virtual and Real Reserve/Release In general, you should use concurrent virtual and real reserve/release when you need to share DASD among many virtual machines and other systems. Do not use this method when you need to share DASD only among virtual machines, because the CP overhead is much greater than if you use virtual reserve/release. If I changed the option to 'SET SHARED OFF', can it reduce CP overhead between VM Guest OS? and is it safe to change this option by SET command while system is running? Regards Tae Min Baek Mmaa Bldg, 467-12 Dogok-Dong Advisory IT Architect Seoul, 135700 z/Linux Team Korea IBM Sales Distribution, STG Sales Phone: +822-3781-8224 Mobile: +82-010-4995-8224 e-mail: tmb...@kr.ibm.com From: Marcy Cortes marcy.d.cor...@wellsfargo.com To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Date: 2010-05-18 오전 09:13 Subject:Re: Batch job takes too long in OS/390 Guest under z/VM v6.1 Sent by:The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU What changes were made to your memory config? xstor, cstor, mdc size ? Any changes to the I/O configuration? 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:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of TaeMin Baek Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 3:22 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: [IBMVM] Batch job takes too long in OS/390 Guest under z/VM v6.1 We migrate three OS/390 system from 2064-2C1 running on native LPAR mode to 2098-T01 running under z/VM like the below. HW: z10 BC- 2098 T01 (GCP 1 EA) OS: z/VM V6.1 Guest OS: Four OS/390 v2.10 (SE02, SE05, SE06, CF) running under z/VM 1) Between three OS/390 guests share many DASD which are defined by full-pack minidisk in CP directory. 2) three OS/390 guests share the DASD using GRS. MIM is used before migration 3) three OS/390 guests are coupled by Sysplex(VCFLINK under z/VM) thru CF guest 4) Sysplex(XCF) is used for only GRS and Tape sharing. MIA is used before migration 5) GRS was not used befor migration * Problem Symptom = During night time, batch job workload on SE02 was taking too long and SE02 Guest system has high CPU usage(Specially Supervisor CPU% is high around 32% and Emulated CPU% is 35%) and I/O wait(12%) by performance toolkit. = By monitoring in OS/390(SE02), CPU Usage of MASTER, GRS, CATALOG task is high. therefore batch job is hard to get CPU resource. = CF Guest user has only 1% of CPU utilization. = batch job use DASD and Tape devices. could it be caused by VM side or OS/390? What do we need to check more to find what is root cause and to fix this problem? image/gif
