Re: Updates to requirements WAVV201007, WAVV201012
hehehehehehehe - good performance tools take care of this problem David Boyes wrote: Forwarded without comment. User Group Number - WAVV201012 Document Status - Recognized Title - MONDCSS is too small as shipped IBM agrees with the request and a solution appears to be a desirable objective. A solution however may not presently appear feasible or implementable. No IBM commitment is made or implied as to the eventual delivery of an acceptable solution.
Re: CP unresponsive on certain guests
Nice pitch.. Scott Rohling On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 9:12 PM, Barton Robinson < bar...@vm1.velocity-software.com> wrote: > Gee Mike, you come to my class and don't learn nothen. the only thing that > storbuf does is hurt, turning it off is the only recommendation that anyone > ever gives. i look at this thread and > > So, anyone reading this, IF YOU HAVE A PERFORMANCE PROBLEM, if you send us > z/vm monitor data, we will analyze it for you FOR FREE, everybody is > guessing, and it really is a whole lot easier if you just collect a few > minutes of data and send it to us. We have this really cool tool (ztune) we > run the data through to give a full configuration check, health check, and > performance analysis. Once we have the data, it's like 2 minutes to get > this report. Can we make it any easier? > > > Mike At HammockTree wrote: > >> Yeah, that is probably where he needs to end up Dave, but I'm a little >> hesitant to recommend the 300% for Q3 without feeling more comfortable about >> his paging subsystem... Moving a couple of large guests from the E-list to >> in-Q could cause a increase in paging that he may or may not be configured >> to handle. >> >> Mike >> - Original Message - From: "Dave Jones" >> To: >> Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 11:08 AM >> Subject: Re: CP unresponsive on certain guests >> >> >> Actually, Mike, he may be better off (a bit, at least) by setting >>> STORBUFF 300 300 300. >>> >>> On 09/16/2010 09:58 AM, Mike At HammockTree wrote: >>> Since the STORBUF setting is exactly the values I suggested, I suspect you applied the SET SRM STORBUFF 300% 250% 200% prior to doing the Q SRM With the current setting for STORBUFF, are you still experiencing the problem? Also, on a related note, what does your zVM paging system look like? The output of CP Q ALLOC PAGE will provide the information Mike - Original Message - From: "Daniel Tate" >>> > To: Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 10:52 AM Subject: Re: CP unresponsive on certain guests Output of Q SRM q srm IABIAS : INTENSITY=90%; DURATION=2 LDUBUF : Q1=100% Q2=75% Q3=60% STORBUF: Q1=300% Q2=250% Q3=200% DSPBUF : Q1=32767 Q2=32767 Q3=32767 DISPATCHING MINOR TIMESLICE = 5 MS MAXWSS : LIMIT=% .. : PAGES=99 XSTORE : 0% Ready; T=0.01/0.01 09:49:05 On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 5:47 PM, Dave Jones wrote: > Hi, Daniel. > > The answer to your first question is to use the CP FORCE command (HELP > CP FORCE will tell you all about it.) The VM user id issuing the FORCE > command needs to have privilege class A as well. Usually this is done > from either MAINT or OPERATOR. > > The answer to your second question is a bit more difficult, I'm afraid. > As Marcy has already suggested, what does a Q SRM command show? My > first > guess would be that your SLES11 guest is falling into Q3 and never > given > an opportunity to run. > > To find out *why* the guest is not able to run, you need the services > of > a good z/VM performance monitor.IBM offers the Performance Monitor > (it comes bundles with z/VM, but it's an extra cost offering) and > Velocity Software (http://www.velocity-software.com/) has a very good > suite of products as well. IMHO it' practically impossible to run a > modern production grade z/VM-zLinux system without a good performance > monitor to help solve issues like the one your having now. > > On 09/15/2010 05:14 PM, Daniel Tate wrote: > >> We're starting to run apps on the servers now. From time to time a >> guest will become unresponsive - to be more precise, ,the CP will not >> respond to commands, and neither will the guest OS (SLES11). not >> even #CP LOGOFF is acknowledged. from another login, CP INDIIC LOAD >> shows no appreciable load. >> >> Two questions from this: >> >> 1) how would I force a logoff of a user from another user? Is this >> possible? >> 2) if we are not paging and the IFLs are not loaded (2-3% utilization >> as a matter of fact) what could the bottleneck be? >> >> > -- > Dave Jones > V/Soft Software > www.vsoft-software.com > Houston, TX > 281.578.7544 > > >>> -- >>> Dave Jones >>> V/Soft Software >>> www.vsoft-software.com >>> Houston, TX >>> 281.578.7544 >>> >>> >>> >> >>
Re: CP unresponsive on certain guests
Gee Mike, you come to my class and don't learn nothen. the only thing that storbuf does is hurt, turning it off is the only recommendation that anyone ever gives. i look at this thread and So, anyone reading this, IF YOU HAVE A PERFORMANCE PROBLEM, if you send us z/vm monitor data, we will analyze it for you FOR FREE, everybody is guessing, and it really is a whole lot easier if you just collect a few minutes of data and send it to us. We have this really cool tool (ztune) we run the data through to give a full configuration check, health check, and performance analysis. Once we have the data, it's like 2 minutes to get this report. Can we make it any easier? Mike At HammockTree wrote: Yeah, that is probably where he needs to end up Dave, but I'm a little hesitant to recommend the 300% for Q3 without feeling more comfortable about his paging subsystem... Moving a couple of large guests from the E-list to in-Q could cause a increase in paging that he may or may not be configured to handle. Mike - Original Message - From: "Dave Jones" To: Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 11:08 AM Subject: Re: CP unresponsive on certain guests Actually, Mike, he may be better off (a bit, at least) by setting STORBUFF 300 300 300. On 09/16/2010 09:58 AM, Mike At HammockTree wrote: Since the STORBUF setting is exactly the values I suggested, I suspect you applied the SET SRM STORBUFF 300% 250% 200% prior to doing the Q SRM With the current setting for STORBUFF, are you still experiencing the problem? Also, on a related note, what does your zVM paging system look like? The output of CP Q ALLOC PAGE will provide the information Mike - Original Message - From: "Daniel Tate" To: Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 10:52 AM Subject: Re: CP unresponsive on certain guests Output of Q SRM q srm IABIAS : INTENSITY=90%; DURATION=2 LDUBUF : Q1=100% Q2=75% Q3=60% STORBUF: Q1=300% Q2=250% Q3=200% DSPBUF : Q1=32767 Q2=32767 Q3=32767 DISPATCHING MINOR TIMESLICE = 5 MS MAXWSS : LIMIT=% .. : PAGES=99 XSTORE : 0% Ready; T=0.01/0.01 09:49:05 On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 5:47 PM, Dave Jones wrote: Hi, Daniel. The answer to your first question is to use the CP FORCE command (HELP CP FORCE will tell you all about it.) The VM user id issuing the FORCE command needs to have privilege class A as well. Usually this is done from either MAINT or OPERATOR. The answer to your second question is a bit more difficult, I'm afraid. As Marcy has already suggested, what does a Q SRM command show? My first guess would be that your SLES11 guest is falling into Q3 and never given an opportunity to run. To find out *why* the guest is not able to run, you need the services of a good z/VM performance monitor.IBM offers the Performance Monitor (it comes bundles with z/VM, but it's an extra cost offering) and Velocity Software (http://www.velocity-software.com/) has a very good suite of products as well. IMHO it' practically impossible to run a modern production grade z/VM-zLinux system without a good performance monitor to help solve issues like the one your having now. On 09/15/2010 05:14 PM, Daniel Tate wrote: We're starting to run apps on the servers now. From time to time a guest will become unresponsive - to be more precise, ,the CP will not respond to commands, and neither will the guest OS (SLES11). not even #CP LOGOFF is acknowledged. from another login, CP INDIIC LOAD shows no appreciable load. Two questions from this: 1) how would I force a logoff of a user from another user? Is this possible? 2) if we are not paging and the IFLs are not loaded (2-3% utilization as a matter of fact) what could the bottleneck be? -- Dave Jones V/Soft Software www.vsoft-software.com Houston, TX 281.578.7544 -- Dave Jones V/Soft Software www.vsoft-software.com Houston, TX 281.578.7544
Re: CP unresponsive on certain guests
I would just add that for any significant number of z/Linux guests it is imperative that you have a robust paging subsystem and enough spool space to hold CP dumps as well as other spool files. Having a well configured paging subsystem will greatly reduce the possibility of issues when your system has a high paging rate due to the over commitment of Available Real Memory versus the total memory of all users running in the LPAR combined. The higher this over commitment ratio the more paging is introduced. The good news is as long as you have a sufficient paging subsystem z/VM handles paging nicely even at relatively high rates. So over commitment of real memory in z/VM is good just keep an eye out so that the ratio stays within reason. 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 -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Daniel Tate Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 10:52 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: CP unresponsive on certain guests Output of Q SRM q srm IABIAS : INTENSITY=90%; DURATION=2 LDUBUF : Q1=100% Q2=75% Q3=60% STORBUF: Q1=300% Q2=250% Q3=200% DSPBUF : Q1=32767 Q2=32767 Q3=32767 DISPATCHING MINOR TIMESLICE = 5 MS MAXWSS : LIMIT=% .. : PAGES=99 XSTORE : 0% Ready; T=0.01/0.01 09:49:05 On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 5:47 PM, Dave Jones wrote: > Hi, Daniel. > > The answer to your first question is to use the CP FORCE command (HELP > CP FORCE will tell you all about it.) The VM user id issuing the FORCE > command needs to have privilege class A as well. Usually this is done > from either MAINT or OPERATOR. > > The answer to your second question is a bit more difficult, I'm afraid. > As Marcy has already suggested, what does a Q SRM command show? My first > guess would be that your SLES11 guest is falling into Q3 and never given > an opportunity to run. > > To find out *why* the guest is not able to run, you need the services of > a good z/VM performance monitor.IBM offers the Performance Monitor > (it comes bundles with z/VM, but it's an extra cost offering) and > Velocity Software (http://www.velocity-software.com/) has a very good > suite of products as well. IMHO it' practically impossible to run a > modern production grade z/VM-zLinux system without a good performance > monitor to help solve issues like the one your having now. > > On 09/15/2010 05:14 PM, Daniel Tate wrote: >> We're starting to run apps on the servers now. From time to time a >> guest will become unresponsive - to be more precise, ,the CP will not >> respond to commands, and neither will the guest OS (SLES11). not >> even #CP LOGOFF is acknowledged. from another login, CP INDIIC LOAD >> shows no appreciable load. >> >> Two questions from this: >> >> 1) how would I force a logoff of a user from another user? Is this possible? >> 2) if we are not paging and the IFLs are not loaded (2-3% utilization >> as a matter of fact) what could the bottleneck be? >> > > -- > Dave Jones > V/Soft Software > www.vsoft-software.com > Houston, TX > 281.578.7544 >
AUTO: Nik Johnston/UK/IBM is away from the office (returning 20/09/2010)
I am out of the office until 20/09/2010. I am currently out of the office, on vacation. If it is urgent then please contact Colm Feighoney for all ITS ITS&A / DiP matters. For matters relating to the Comag Transition Services implementation project, please contact Adam Mitchell (07785 373920) Note: This is an automated response to your message "Re: CP unresponsive on certain guests" sent on 16/9/10 17:30:35. This is the only notification you will receive while this person is away.
Re: CP unresponsive on certain guests
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 7:09 PM, Kris Buelens wrote: > You are paging on one disk only, and that disk is filled too much. > > My guess is that the one "installing" VM6PG2 as paging device forgot format > that disk. The 180 blocks suggests that he got at least the allocation wrong, using only cylinder 0 as PAGE. Maybe also forget to format, but we can't tell. Since you can't free the volume now to make CP see the rest of it once allocated, just take a new volume and format that completely, allocate 1-END as PAGE. | Rob
Re: CP unresponsive on certain guests
Oh - and make sure you FORMAT the entire volume or that it's already formatted when you do the allocation -- otherwise, you'll get paging errors and likely abend. (That would be CPFMTXA 9F88 - answer FORMAT - answer 0 END - give it label - after format - answer PAGE 1 END - followed by END for the allocation.) Scott Rohling On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 11:10 AM, Scott Rohling wrote: > It appears that you didn't allocate any cylinders VM6PG2 as page space. > Not sure how safe it is to detach that volume - or if a DRAIN will even work > .. For now - you may want to sacrifice another volume (VM6PG3) - allocate > it correctly (PAGE 1 END) -- do the DEF CPOWN SLOT x VM6PG3..Then you > can relabel things later so PG2 is being used and has page space. > > Scott Rohling > > > On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 10:58 AM, Daniel Tate wrote: > >>EXTENT EXTENT TOTAL PAGES HIGH% >> >> VOLID RDEV STARTEND PAGES IN USE PAGE USED >> >> -- -- -- -- -- -- >> >> VM6PG1 9F86 1 10016 1761K 1175K 1761K 66% >> >> VM6PG2 9F87 0 0180180180 100% >> >> -- -- >> >> SUMMARY1761K 1175K 66% >> >> USABLE 1761K 1175K 66% >> >> Ready; T=0.01/0.01 11:56:46 >> >> >> On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Mike At HammockTree >> wrote: >> > (I use MAINT too much..) >> > >> > If your SRM STORBUFF values are as you say, then STORBUFF is unlikely to >> be >> > causing the problem, although still possible. The next time the problem >> > occurs, do the >> > CP IND >> > and check for an Eligible list. If the E3 numbers are non-zero, then >> try >> > raising the STORBUFF values further, as Davd suggested (300% 300% >> 300%). >> > >> > Mike >> > - Original Message - From: "Daniel Tate" > > >> > To: >> > Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 11:42 AM >> > Subject: Re: CP unresponsive on certain guests >> > >> > >> > CP Q ALLOC PAGE gives me "invalid option - alloc". >> > >> > I didnt set the SRM variables; the consultant who initially came in to >> > set this up might have. >> > >> > >> > On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 10:29 AM, Mike At HammockTree >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> Yeah, that is probably where he needs to end up Dave, but I'm a little >> >> hesitant to recommend the 300% for Q3 without feeling more comfortable >> >> about >> >> his paging subsystem... Moving a couple of large guests from the E-list >> to >> >> in-Q could cause a increase in paging that he may or may not be >> configured >> >> to handle. >> >> >> >> Mike >> >> - Original Message - From: "Dave Jones" < >> d...@vsoft-software.com> >> >> To: >> >> Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 11:08 AM >> >> Subject: Re: CP unresponsive on certain guests >> >> >> >> >> >>> Actually, Mike, he may be better off (a bit, at least) by setting >> >>> STORBUFF 300 300 300. >> >>> >> >>> On 09/16/2010 09:58 AM, Mike At HammockTree wrote: >> >> Since the STORBUF setting is exactly the values I suggested, I >> suspect >> you applied the >> SET SRM STORBUFF 300% 250% 200% >> prior to doing the >> Q SRM >> >> With the current setting for STORBUFF, are you still experiencing the >> problem? >> >> Also, on a related note, what does your zVM paging system look like? >> The output of >> CP Q ALLOC PAGE >> will provide the information >> >> Mike >> - Original Message - From: "Daniel Tate" < >> daniel.t...@gmail.com> >> To: >> Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 10:52 AM >> Subject: Re: CP unresponsive on certain guests >> >> >> Output of Q SRM >> >> q srm >> IABIAS : INTENSITY=90%; DURATION=2 >> LDUBUF : Q1=100% Q2=75% Q3=60% >> STORBUF: Q1=300% Q2=250% Q3=200% >> DSPBUF : Q1=32767 Q2=32767 Q3=32767 >> DISPATCHING MINOR TIMESLICE = 5 MS >> MAXWSS : LIMIT=% >> .. : PAGES=99 >> XSTORE : 0% >> Ready; T=0.01/0.01 09:49:05 >> >> >> On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 5:47 PM, Dave Jones > > >> wrote: >> > >> > Hi, Daniel. >> > >> > The answer to your first question is to use the CP FORCE command >> (HELP >> > CP FORCE will tell you all about it.) The VM user id issuing the >> FORCE >> > command needs to have privilege class A as well. Usually this is >> done >> > from either MAINT or OPERATOR. >> > >> > The answer to your second question is a bit more difficult, I'm >> afraid. >> > As Marcy has already suggested, what does a Q SRM command show? My >> > first >> > guess would be that your SLES11 guest is falling into Q3 and never >> > given >> > an opportunity to run. >> > >> > To find out *why* the guest is not able to run, you need the >> services >> > of >> > a good z/VM performance m
Re: CP unresponsive on certain guests
You are paging on one disk only, and that disk is filled too much. My guess is that the one "installing" VM6PG2 as paging device forgot format that disk. Get a link to a fullpack overlaying VM6PG2 (eg DEFINE MDISK 0 END VM6PG2) Issue ICKDSF press enter twice CPVOL LIST UNIT() VERIFY(VM6PG2) 2010/9/16 Daniel Tate >EXTENT EXTENT TOTAL PAGES HIGH% > > VOLID RDEV STARTEND PAGES IN USE PAGE USED > > -- -- -- -- -- -- > > VM6PG1 9F86 1 10016 1761K 1175K 1761K 66% > > VM6PG2 9F87 0 0180180180 100% > > -- -- > > SUMMARY1761K 1175K 66% > > USABLE 1761K 1175K 66% > > Ready; T=0.01/0.01 11:56:46 > > > On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Mike At HammockTree > wrote: > > (I use MAINT too much..) > > > > If your SRM STORBUFF values are as you say, then STORBUFF is unlikely to > be > > causing the problem, although still possible. The next time the problem > > occurs, do the > > CP IND > > and check for an Eligible list. If the E3 numbers are non-zero, then try > > raising the STORBUFF values further, as Davd suggested (300% 300% 300%). > > > > Mike > > - Original Message - From: "Daniel Tate" > > To: > > Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 11:42 AM > > Subject: Re: CP unresponsive on certain guests > > > > > > CP Q ALLOC PAGE gives me "invalid option - alloc". > > > > I didnt set the SRM variables; the consultant who initially came in to > > set this up might have. > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 10:29 AM, Mike At HammockTree > > wrote: > >> > >> Yeah, that is probably where he needs to end up Dave, but I'm a little > >> hesitant to recommend the 300% for Q3 without feeling more comfortable > >> about > >> his paging subsystem... Moving a couple of large guests from the E-list > to > >> in-Q could cause a increase in paging that he may or may not be > configured > >> to handle. > >> > >> Mike > >> - Original Message - From: "Dave Jones" < > d...@vsoft-software.com> > >> To: > >> Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 11:08 AM > >> Subject: Re: CP unresponsive on certain guests > >> > >> > >>> Actually, Mike, he may be better off (a bit, at least) by setting > >>> STORBUFF 300 300 300. > >>> > >>> On 09/16/2010 09:58 AM, Mike At HammockTree wrote: > > Since the STORBUF setting is exactly the values I suggested, I suspect > you applied the > SET SRM STORBUFF 300% 250% 200% > prior to doing the > Q SRM > > With the current setting for STORBUFF, are you still experiencing the > problem? > > Also, on a related note, what does your zVM paging system look like? > The output of > CP Q ALLOC PAGE > will provide the information > > Mike > - Original Message - From: "Daniel Tate" < > daniel.t...@gmail.com> > To: > Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 10:52 AM > Subject: Re: CP unresponsive on certain guests > > > Output of Q SRM > > q srm > IABIAS : INTENSITY=90%; DURATION=2 > LDUBUF : Q1=100% Q2=75% Q3=60% > STORBUF: Q1=300% Q2=250% Q3=200% > DSPBUF : Q1=32767 Q2=32767 Q3=32767 > DISPATCHING MINOR TIMESLICE = 5 MS > MAXWSS : LIMIT=% > .. : PAGES=99 > XSTORE : 0% > Ready; T=0.01/0.01 09:49:05 > > > On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 5:47 PM, Dave Jones > wrote: > > > > Hi, Daniel. > > > > The answer to your first question is to use the CP FORCE command > (HELP > > CP FORCE will tell you all about it.) The VM user id issuing the > FORCE > > command needs to have privilege class A as well. Usually this is done > > from either MAINT or OPERATOR. > > > > The answer to your second question is a bit more difficult, I'm > afraid. > > As Marcy has already suggested, what does a Q SRM command show? My > > first > > guess would be that your SLES11 guest is falling into Q3 and never > > given > > an opportunity to run. > > > > To find out *why* the guest is not able to run, you need the services > > of > > a good z/VM performance monitor.IBM offers the Performance > Monitor > > (it comes bundles with z/VM, but it's an extra cost offering) and > > Velocity Software (http://www.velocity-software.com/) has a very > good > > suite of products as well. IMHO it' practically impossible to run a > > modern production grade z/VM-zLinux system without a good performance > > monitor to help solve issues like the one your having now. > > > > On 09/15/2010 05:14 PM, Daniel Tate wrote: > >> > >> We're starting to run apps on the servers now. From time to time a > >> guest will become unresponsive - to be more precise, ,the CP will > not > >>>
Re: CP unresponsive on certain guests
It appears that you didn't allocate any cylinders VM6PG2 as page space. Not sure how safe it is to detach that volume - or if a DRAIN will even work .. For now - you may want to sacrifice another volume (VM6PG3) - allocate it correctly (PAGE 1 END) -- do the DEF CPOWN SLOT x VM6PG3..Then you can relabel things later so PG2 is being used and has page space. Scott Rohling On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 10:58 AM, Daniel Tate wrote: >EXTENT EXTENT TOTAL PAGES HIGH% > > VOLID RDEV STARTEND PAGES IN USE PAGE USED > > -- -- -- -- -- -- > > VM6PG1 9F86 1 10016 1761K 1175K 1761K 66% > > VM6PG2 9F87 0 0180180180 100% > > -- -- > > SUMMARY1761K 1175K 66% > > USABLE 1761K 1175K 66% > > Ready; T=0.01/0.01 11:56:46 > > > On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Mike At HammockTree > wrote: > > (I use MAINT too much..) > > > > If your SRM STORBUFF values are as you say, then STORBUFF is unlikely to > be > > causing the problem, although still possible. The next time the problem > > occurs, do the > > CP IND > > and check for an Eligible list. If the E3 numbers are non-zero, then try > > raising the STORBUFF values further, as Davd suggested (300% 300% 300%). > > > > Mike > > - Original Message - From: "Daniel Tate" > > To: > > Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 11:42 AM > > Subject: Re: CP unresponsive on certain guests > > > > > > CP Q ALLOC PAGE gives me "invalid option - alloc". > > > > I didnt set the SRM variables; the consultant who initially came in to > > set this up might have. > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 10:29 AM, Mike At HammockTree > > wrote: > >> > >> Yeah, that is probably where he needs to end up Dave, but I'm a little > >> hesitant to recommend the 300% for Q3 without feeling more comfortable > >> about > >> his paging subsystem... Moving a couple of large guests from the E-list > to > >> in-Q could cause a increase in paging that he may or may not be > configured > >> to handle. > >> > >> Mike > >> - Original Message - From: "Dave Jones" < > d...@vsoft-software.com> > >> To: > >> Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 11:08 AM > >> Subject: Re: CP unresponsive on certain guests > >> > >> > >>> Actually, Mike, he may be better off (a bit, at least) by setting > >>> STORBUFF 300 300 300. > >>> > >>> On 09/16/2010 09:58 AM, Mike At HammockTree wrote: > > Since the STORBUF setting is exactly the values I suggested, I suspect > you applied the > SET SRM STORBUFF 300% 250% 200% > prior to doing the > Q SRM > > With the current setting for STORBUFF, are you still experiencing the > problem? > > Also, on a related note, what does your zVM paging system look like? > The output of > CP Q ALLOC PAGE > will provide the information > > Mike > - Original Message - From: "Daniel Tate" < > daniel.t...@gmail.com> > To: > Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 10:52 AM > Subject: Re: CP unresponsive on certain guests > > > Output of Q SRM > > q srm > IABIAS : INTENSITY=90%; DURATION=2 > LDUBUF : Q1=100% Q2=75% Q3=60% > STORBUF: Q1=300% Q2=250% Q3=200% > DSPBUF : Q1=32767 Q2=32767 Q3=32767 > DISPATCHING MINOR TIMESLICE = 5 MS > MAXWSS : LIMIT=% > .. : PAGES=99 > XSTORE : 0% > Ready; T=0.01/0.01 09:49:05 > > > On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 5:47 PM, Dave Jones > wrote: > > > > Hi, Daniel. > > > > The answer to your first question is to use the CP FORCE command > (HELP > > CP FORCE will tell you all about it.) The VM user id issuing the > FORCE > > command needs to have privilege class A as well. Usually this is done > > from either MAINT or OPERATOR. > > > > The answer to your second question is a bit more difficult, I'm > afraid. > > As Marcy has already suggested, what does a Q SRM command show? My > > first > > guess would be that your SLES11 guest is falling into Q3 and never > > given > > an opportunity to run. > > > > To find out *why* the guest is not able to run, you need the services > > of > > a good z/VM performance monitor.IBM offers the Performance > Monitor > > (it comes bundles with z/VM, but it's an extra cost offering) and > > Velocity Software (http://www.velocity-software.com/) has a very > good > > suite of products as well. IMHO it' practically impossible to run a > > modern production grade z/VM-zLinux system without a good performance > > monitor to help solve issues like the one your having now. > > > > On 09/15/2010 05:14 PM, Daniel Tate wrote: > >> > >> We're starting to run apps on the servers now. From ti
Re: CP unresponsive on certain guests
Depending on your workload, that is not very much paging space at all. Is it enough to back up all the defined virtual storage? On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 12:58 PM, Daniel Tate wrote: >EXTENT EXTENT TOTAL PAGES HIGH% > > VOLID RDEV STARTEND PAGES IN USE PAGE USED > > -- -- -- -- -- -- > > VM6PG1 9F86 1 10016 1761K 1175K 1761K 66% > > VM6PG2 9F87 0 0180180180 100% > > -- -- > > SUMMARY1761K 1175K 66% > > USABLE 1761K 1175K 66% > > Ready; T=0.01/0.01 11:56:46 > > > On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Mike At HammockTree > wrote: > > (I use MAINT too much..) > > > > If your SRM STORBUFF values are as you say, then STORBUFF is unlikely to > be > > causing the problem, although still possible. The next time the problem > > occurs, do the > > CP IND > > and check for an Eligible list. If the E3 numbers are non-zero, then try > > raising the STORBUFF values further, as Davd suggested (300% 300% 300%). > > > > Mike > > - Original Message - From: "Daniel Tate" > > To: > > Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 11:42 AM > > Subject: Re: CP unresponsive on certain guests > > > > > > CP Q ALLOC PAGE gives me "invalid option - alloc". > > > > I didnt set the SRM variables; the consultant who initially came in to > > set this up might have. > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 10:29 AM, Mike At HammockTree > > wrote: > >> > >> Yeah, that is probably where he needs to end up Dave, but I'm a little > >> hesitant to recommend the 300% for Q3 without feeling more comfortable > >> about > >> his paging subsystem... Moving a couple of large guests from the E-list > to > >> in-Q could cause a increase in paging that he may or may not be > configured > >> to handle. > >> > >> Mike > >> - Original Message - From: "Dave Jones" < > d...@vsoft-software.com> > >> To: > >> Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 11:08 AM > >> Subject: Re: CP unresponsive on certain guests > >> > >> > >>> Actually, Mike, he may be better off (a bit, at least) by setting > >>> STORBUFF 300 300 300. > >>> > >>> On 09/16/2010 09:58 AM, Mike At HammockTree wrote: > > Since the STORBUF setting is exactly the values I suggested, I suspect > you applied the > SET SRM STORBUFF 300% 250% 200% > prior to doing the > Q SRM > > With the current setting for STORBUFF, are you still experiencing the > problem? > > Also, on a related note, what does your zVM paging system look like? > The output of > CP Q ALLOC PAGE > will provide the information > > Mike > - Original Message - From: "Daniel Tate" < > daniel.t...@gmail.com> > To: > Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 10:52 AM > Subject: Re: CP unresponsive on certain guests > > > Output of Q SRM > > q srm > IABIAS : INTENSITY=90%; DURATION=2 > LDUBUF : Q1=100% Q2=75% Q3=60% > STORBUF: Q1=300% Q2=250% Q3=200% > DSPBUF : Q1=32767 Q2=32767 Q3=32767 > DISPATCHING MINOR TIMESLICE = 5 MS > MAXWSS : LIMIT=% > .. : PAGES=99 > XSTORE : 0% > Ready; T=0.01/0.01 09:49:05 > > > On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 5:47 PM, Dave Jones > wrote: > > > > Hi, Daniel. > > > > The answer to your first question is to use the CP FORCE command > (HELP > > CP FORCE will tell you all about it.) The VM user id issuing the > FORCE > > command needs to have privilege class A as well. Usually this is done > > from either MAINT or OPERATOR. > > > > The answer to your second question is a bit more difficult, I'm > afraid. > > As Marcy has already suggested, what does a Q SRM command show? My > > first > > guess would be that your SLES11 guest is falling into Q3 and never > > given > > an opportunity to run. > > > > To find out *why* the guest is not able to run, you need the services > > of > > a good z/VM performance monitor.IBM offers the Performance > Monitor > > (it comes bundles with z/VM, but it's an extra cost offering) and > > Velocity Software (http://www.velocity-software.com/) has a very > good > > suite of products as well. IMHO it' practically impossible to run a > > modern production grade z/VM-zLinux system without a good performance > > monitor to help solve issues like the one your having now. > > > > On 09/15/2010 05:14 PM, Daniel Tate wrote: > >> > >> We're starting to run apps on the servers now. From time to time a > >> guest will become unresponsive - to be more precise, ,the CP will > not > >> respond to commands, and neither will the guest OS (SLES11). not > >> even #CP LOGOFF is acknowledged. from another login, CP INDIIC LOAD > >>>
Re: CP unresponsive on certain guests
> -- -- -- -- -- -- > > VM6PG1 9F86 1 10016 1761K 1175K 1761K 66% > > VM6PG2 9F87 0 0180180180 100% Mmf. You need to update the allocation bitmap on VM6PG2 to have it use the rest of the disk (assuming it's dedicated for paging). One cylinder doesn't really help much. 8-) PERM 0 1 PAGE 1 END Before you start messing with STORBUF overcommits, make sure you have plenty of page space.
Re: VSM - TCPIP
Part of my LISTSG tool is USERLIST, displays the user of users in a FILELIST fashion http://www.vm.ibm.com/download/packages/descript.cgi?LISTSG *USERLIST * --> list everyone *USERLIST LIN** --> list users starting with "LIN" *USERLIST CP Q NSS USERS CMS|drop 2|Split* --> lists all users that use segment CMS 2010/9/16 Bruce Hayden > You should use "nfind VSM_-" to make sure you don't match a userid that > starts with VSM that happens to be logged in via a VSM machine. Remember > that pipeline "find" uses a blank to match any character, and an underscore > to match a blank. In this case, you want to make sure blanks follow "VSM". > > > On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 10:46 AM, Ethan Lanz wrote: > >> Or simply >> >> PIPE CP QUERY NAMES|NFIND VSM - |CONS >> >> feeds nicely into additional piping. >> >> > > -- > Bruce Hayden > z/VM and Linux on System z ATS > IBM, Endicott, NY > -- Kris Buelens, IBM Belgium, VM customer support
Re: CP unresponsive on certain guests
Well, that's why! You need more page space. Preferably volumes with nothing else on them. And spread it over multiple LCUs if you can. Keep it 35%. 50 max - but I prefer 35 in case you add things and aren't paying attention. marcy -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Daniel Tate Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 9:59 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: [IBMVM] CP unresponsive on certain guests EXTENT EXTENT TOTAL PAGES HIGH% VOLID RDEV STARTEND PAGES IN USE PAGE USED -- -- -- -- -- -- VM6PG1 9F86 1 10016 1761K 1175K 1761K 66% VM6PG2 9F87 0 0180180180 100% -- -- SUMMARY1761K 1175K 66% USABLE 1761K 1175K 66% Ready; T=0.01/0.01 11:56:46 On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Mike At HammockTree wrote: > (I use MAINT too much..) > > If your SRM STORBUFF values are as you say, then STORBUFF is unlikely to be > causing the problem, although still possible. The next time the problem > occurs, do the > CP IND > and check for an Eligible list. If the E3 numbers are non-zero, then try > raising the STORBUFF values further, as Davd suggested (300% 300% 300%). > > Mike > - Original Message - From: "Daniel Tate" > To: > Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 11:42 AM > Subject: Re: CP unresponsive on certain guests > > > CP Q ALLOC PAGE gives me "invalid option - alloc". > > I didnt set the SRM variables; the consultant who initially came in to > set this up might have. > > > On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 10:29 AM, Mike At HammockTree > wrote: >> >> Yeah, that is probably where he needs to end up Dave, but I'm a little >> hesitant to recommend the 300% for Q3 without feeling more comfortable >> about >> his paging subsystem... Moving a couple of large guests from the E-list to >> in-Q could cause a increase in paging that he may or may not be configured >> to handle. >> >> Mike >> - Original Message - From: "Dave Jones" >> To: >> Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 11:08 AM >> Subject: Re: CP unresponsive on certain guests >> >> >>> Actually, Mike, he may be better off (a bit, at least) by setting >>> STORBUFF 300 300 300. >>> >>> On 09/16/2010 09:58 AM, Mike At HammockTree wrote: Since the STORBUF setting is exactly the values I suggested, I suspect you applied the SET SRM STORBUFF 300% 250% 200% prior to doing the Q SRM With the current setting for STORBUFF, are you still experiencing the problem? Also, on a related note, what does your zVM paging system look like? The output of CP Q ALLOC PAGE will provide the information Mike - Original Message - From: "Daniel Tate" To: Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 10:52 AM Subject: Re: CP unresponsive on certain guests Output of Q SRM q srm IABIAS : INTENSITY=90%; DURATION=2 LDUBUF : Q1=100% Q2=75% Q3=60% STORBUF: Q1=300% Q2=250% Q3=200% DSPBUF : Q1=32767 Q2=32767 Q3=32767 DISPATCHING MINOR TIMESLICE = 5 MS MAXWSS : LIMIT=% .. : PAGES=99 XSTORE : 0% Ready; T=0.01/0.01 09:49:05 On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 5:47 PM, Dave Jones wrote: > > Hi, Daniel. > > The answer to your first question is to use the CP FORCE command (HELP > CP FORCE will tell you all about it.) The VM user id issuing the FORCE > command needs to have privilege class A as well. Usually this is done > from either MAINT or OPERATOR. > > The answer to your second question is a bit more difficult, I'm afraid. > As Marcy has already suggested, what does a Q SRM command show? My > first > guess would be that your SLES11 guest is falling into Q3 and never > given > an opportunity to run. > > To find out *why* the guest is not able to run, you need the services > of > a good z/VM performance monitor.IBM offers the Performance Monitor > (it comes bundles with z/VM, but it's an extra cost offering) and > Velocity Software (http://www.velocity-software.com/) has a very good > suite of products as well. IMHO it' practically impossible to run a > modern production grade z/VM-zLinux system without a good performance > monitor to help solve issues like the one your having now. > > On 09/15/2010 05:14 PM, Daniel Tate wrote: >> >> We're starting to run apps on the servers now. From time to time a >> guest will become unresponsive - to be more precise, ,the CP will not >> respond to commands, and neither will the guest OS (SLES11). not >> even #CP LOGOFF is acknowledged. from another login, CP INDIIC LOAD >> shows no appreciable
Re: CP unresponsive on certain guests
EXTENT EXTENT TOTAL PAGES HIGH% VOLID RDEV STARTEND PAGES IN USE PAGE USED -- -- -- -- -- -- VM6PG1 9F86 1 10016 1761K 1175K 1761K 66% VM6PG2 9F87 0 0180180180 100% -- -- SUMMARY1761K 1175K 66% USABLE 1761K 1175K 66% Ready; T=0.01/0.01 11:56:46 On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Mike At HammockTree wrote: > (I use MAINT too much..) > > If your SRM STORBUFF values are as you say, then STORBUFF is unlikely to be > causing the problem, although still possible. The next time the problem > occurs, do the > CP IND > and check for an Eligible list. If the E3 numbers are non-zero, then try > raising the STORBUFF values further, as Davd suggested (300% 300% 300%). > > Mike > - Original Message - From: "Daniel Tate" > To: > Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 11:42 AM > Subject: Re: CP unresponsive on certain guests > > > CP Q ALLOC PAGE gives me "invalid option - alloc". > > I didnt set the SRM variables; the consultant who initially came in to > set this up might have. > > > On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 10:29 AM, Mike At HammockTree > wrote: >> >> Yeah, that is probably where he needs to end up Dave, but I'm a little >> hesitant to recommend the 300% for Q3 without feeling more comfortable >> about >> his paging subsystem... Moving a couple of large guests from the E-list to >> in-Q could cause a increase in paging that he may or may not be configured >> to handle. >> >> Mike >> - Original Message - From: "Dave Jones" >> To: >> Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 11:08 AM >> Subject: Re: CP unresponsive on certain guests >> >> >>> Actually, Mike, he may be better off (a bit, at least) by setting >>> STORBUFF 300 300 300. >>> >>> On 09/16/2010 09:58 AM, Mike At HammockTree wrote: Since the STORBUF setting is exactly the values I suggested, I suspect you applied the SET SRM STORBUFF 300% 250% 200% prior to doing the Q SRM With the current setting for STORBUFF, are you still experiencing the problem? Also, on a related note, what does your zVM paging system look like? The output of CP Q ALLOC PAGE will provide the information Mike - Original Message - From: "Daniel Tate" To: Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 10:52 AM Subject: Re: CP unresponsive on certain guests Output of Q SRM q srm IABIAS : INTENSITY=90%; DURATION=2 LDUBUF : Q1=100% Q2=75% Q3=60% STORBUF: Q1=300% Q2=250% Q3=200% DSPBUF : Q1=32767 Q2=32767 Q3=32767 DISPATCHING MINOR TIMESLICE = 5 MS MAXWSS : LIMIT=% .. : PAGES=99 XSTORE : 0% Ready; T=0.01/0.01 09:49:05 On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 5:47 PM, Dave Jones wrote: > > Hi, Daniel. > > The answer to your first question is to use the CP FORCE command (HELP > CP FORCE will tell you all about it.) The VM user id issuing the FORCE > command needs to have privilege class A as well. Usually this is done > from either MAINT or OPERATOR. > > The answer to your second question is a bit more difficult, I'm afraid. > As Marcy has already suggested, what does a Q SRM command show? My > first > guess would be that your SLES11 guest is falling into Q3 and never > given > an opportunity to run. > > To find out *why* the guest is not able to run, you need the services > of > a good z/VM performance monitor.IBM offers the Performance Monitor > (it comes bundles with z/VM, but it's an extra cost offering) and > Velocity Software (http://www.velocity-software.com/) has a very good > suite of products as well. IMHO it' practically impossible to run a > modern production grade z/VM-zLinux system without a good performance > monitor to help solve issues like the one your having now. > > On 09/15/2010 05:14 PM, Daniel Tate wrote: >> >> We're starting to run apps on the servers now. From time to time a >> guest will become unresponsive - to be more precise, ,the CP will not >> respond to commands, and neither will the guest OS (SLES11). not >> even #CP LOGOFF is acknowledged. from another login, CP INDIIC LOAD >> shows no appreciable load. >> >> Two questions from this: >> >> 1) how would I force a logoff of a user from another user? Is this >> possible? >> 2) if we are not paging and the IFLs are not loaded (2-3% utilization >> as a matter of fact) what could the bottleneck be? >> > > -- > Dave Jones > V/Soft Software > www.vsoft-software.com > Houston, TX > 281.578.7544 > >>> >>> -- >>> Dave Jones >>> V/Soft Software >>> www.vsoft-software.co
Re: CP unresponsive on certain guests
(I use MAINT too much..) If your SRM STORBUFF values are as you say, then STORBUFF is unlikely to be causing the problem, although still possible. The next time the problem occurs, do the CP IND and check for an Eligible list. If the E3 numbers are non-zero, then try raising the STORBUFF values further, as Davd suggested (300% 300% 300%). Mike - Original Message - From: "Daniel Tate" To: Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 11:42 AM Subject: Re: CP unresponsive on certain guests CP Q ALLOC PAGE gives me "invalid option - alloc". I didnt set the SRM variables; the consultant who initially came in to set this up might have. On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 10:29 AM, Mike At HammockTree wrote: Yeah, that is probably where he needs to end up Dave, but I'm a little hesitant to recommend the 300% for Q3 without feeling more comfortable about his paging subsystem... Moving a couple of large guests from the E-list to in-Q could cause a increase in paging that he may or may not be configured to handle. Mike - Original Message - From: "Dave Jones" To: Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 11:08 AM Subject: Re: CP unresponsive on certain guests Actually, Mike, he may be better off (a bit, at least) by setting STORBUFF 300 300 300. On 09/16/2010 09:58 AM, Mike At HammockTree wrote: Since the STORBUF setting is exactly the values I suggested, I suspect you applied the SET SRM STORBUFF 300% 250% 200% prior to doing the Q SRM With the current setting for STORBUFF, are you still experiencing the problem? Also, on a related note, what does your zVM paging system look like? The output of CP Q ALLOC PAGE will provide the information Mike - Original Message - From: "Daniel Tate" To: Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 10:52 AM Subject: Re: CP unresponsive on certain guests Output of Q SRM q srm IABIAS : INTENSITY=90%; DURATION=2 LDUBUF : Q1=100% Q2=75% Q3=60% STORBUF: Q1=300% Q2=250% Q3=200% DSPBUF : Q1=32767 Q2=32767 Q3=32767 DISPATCHING MINOR TIMESLICE = 5 MS MAXWSS : LIMIT=% .. : PAGES=99 XSTORE : 0% Ready; T=0.01/0.01 09:49:05 On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 5:47 PM, Dave Jones wrote: Hi, Daniel. The answer to your first question is to use the CP FORCE command (HELP CP FORCE will tell you all about it.) The VM user id issuing the FORCE command needs to have privilege class A as well. Usually this is done from either MAINT or OPERATOR. The answer to your second question is a bit more difficult, I'm afraid. As Marcy has already suggested, what does a Q SRM command show? My first guess would be that your SLES11 guest is falling into Q3 and never given an opportunity to run. To find out *why* the guest is not able to run, you need the services of a good z/VM performance monitor.IBM offers the Performance Monitor (it comes bundles with z/VM, but it's an extra cost offering) and Velocity Software (http://www.velocity-software.com/) has a very good suite of products as well. IMHO it' practically impossible to run a modern production grade z/VM-zLinux system without a good performance monitor to help solve issues like the one your having now. On 09/15/2010 05:14 PM, Daniel Tate wrote: We're starting to run apps on the servers now. From time to time a guest will become unresponsive - to be more precise, ,the CP will not respond to commands, and neither will the guest OS (SLES11). not even #CP LOGOFF is acknowledged. from another login, CP INDIIC LOAD shows no appreciable load. Two questions from this: 1) how would I force a logoff of a user from another user? Is this possible? 2) if we are not paging and the IFLs are not loaded (2-3% utilization as a matter of fact) what could the bottleneck be? -- Dave Jones V/Soft Software www.vsoft-software.com Houston, TX 281.578.7544 -- Dave Jones V/Soft Software www.vsoft-software.com Houston, TX 281.578.7544
Re: CP unresponsive on certain guests
Daniel, your z/VM user id needs to have class D privileges to issue the Q ALLOC PAGE command. On 09/16/2010 10:42 AM, Daniel Tate wrote: > CP Q ALLOC PAGE gives me "invalid option - alloc". > > I didnt set the SRM variables; the consultant who initially came in to > set this up might have. > > > On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 10:29 AM, Mike At HammockTree > wrote: >> Yeah, that is probably where he needs to end up Dave, but I'm a little >> hesitant to recommend the 300% for Q3 without feeling more comfortable about >> his paging subsystem... Moving a couple of large guests from the E-list to >> in-Q could cause a increase in paging that he may or may not be configured >> to handle. >> >> Mike >> - Original Message - From: "Dave Jones" >> To: >> Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 11:08 AM >> Subject: Re: CP unresponsive on certain guests >> >> >>> Actually, Mike, he may be better off (a bit, at least) by setting >>> STORBUFF 300 300 300. >>> >>> On 09/16/2010 09:58 AM, Mike At HammockTree wrote: Since the STORBUF setting is exactly the values I suggested, I suspect you applied the SET SRM STORBUFF 300% 250% 200% prior to doing the Q SRM With the current setting for STORBUFF, are you still experiencing the problem? Also, on a related note, what does your zVM paging system look like? The output of CP Q ALLOC PAGE will provide the information Mike - Original Message - From: "Daniel Tate" To: Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 10:52 AM Subject: Re: CP unresponsive on certain guests Output of Q SRM q srm IABIAS : INTENSITY=90%; DURATION=2 LDUBUF : Q1=100% Q2=75% Q3=60% STORBUF: Q1=300% Q2=250% Q3=200% DSPBUF : Q1=32767 Q2=32767 Q3=32767 DISPATCHING MINOR TIMESLICE = 5 MS MAXWSS : LIMIT=% .. : PAGES=99 XSTORE : 0% Ready; T=0.01/0.01 09:49:05 On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 5:47 PM, Dave Jones wrote: > > Hi, Daniel. > > The answer to your first question is to use the CP FORCE command (HELP > CP FORCE will tell you all about it.) The VM user id issuing the FORCE > command needs to have privilege class A as well. Usually this is done > from either MAINT or OPERATOR. > > The answer to your second question is a bit more difficult, I'm afraid. > As Marcy has already suggested, what does a Q SRM command show? My first > guess would be that your SLES11 guest is falling into Q3 and never given > an opportunity to run. > > To find out *why* the guest is not able to run, you need the services of > a good z/VM performance monitor.IBM offers the Performance Monitor > (it comes bundles with z/VM, but it's an extra cost offering) and > Velocity Software (http://www.velocity-software.com/) has a very good > suite of products as well. IMHO it' practically impossible to run a > modern production grade z/VM-zLinux system without a good performance > monitor to help solve issues like the one your having now. > > On 09/15/2010 05:14 PM, Daniel Tate wrote: >> >> We're starting to run apps on the servers now. From time to time a >> guest will become unresponsive - to be more precise, ,the CP will not >> respond to commands, and neither will the guest OS (SLES11). not >> even #CP LOGOFF is acknowledged. from another login, CP INDIIC LOAD >> shows no appreciable load. >> >> Two questions from this: >> >> 1) how would I force a logoff of a user from another user? Is this >> possible? >> 2) if we are not paging and the IFLs are not loaded (2-3% utilization >> as a matter of fact) what could the bottleneck be? >> > > -- > Dave Jones > V/Soft Software > www.vsoft-software.com > Houston, TX > 281.578.7544 > >>> >>> -- >>> Dave Jones >>> V/Soft Software >>> www.vsoft-software.com >>> Houston, TX >>> 281.578.7544 >>> >>> >> > -- Dave Jones V/Soft Software www.vsoft-software.com Houston, TX 281.578.7544
Re: CP unresponsive on certain guests
CP Q ALLOC PAGE gives me "invalid option - alloc". I didnt set the SRM variables; the consultant who initially came in to set this up might have. On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 10:29 AM, Mike At HammockTree wrote: > Yeah, that is probably where he needs to end up Dave, but I'm a little > hesitant to recommend the 300% for Q3 without feeling more comfortable about > his paging subsystem... Moving a couple of large guests from the E-list to > in-Q could cause a increase in paging that he may or may not be configured > to handle. > > Mike > - Original Message - From: "Dave Jones" > To: > Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 11:08 AM > Subject: Re: CP unresponsive on certain guests > > >> Actually, Mike, he may be better off (a bit, at least) by setting >> STORBUFF 300 300 300. >> >> On 09/16/2010 09:58 AM, Mike At HammockTree wrote: >>> >>> Since the STORBUF setting is exactly the values I suggested, I suspect >>> you applied the >>> SET SRM STORBUFF 300% 250% 200% >>> prior to doing the >>> Q SRM >>> >>> With the current setting for STORBUFF, are you still experiencing the >>> problem? >>> >>> Also, on a related note, what does your zVM paging system look like? >>> The output of >>> CP Q ALLOC PAGE >>> will provide the information >>> >>> Mike >>> - Original Message - From: "Daniel Tate" >>> To: >>> Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 10:52 AM >>> Subject: Re: CP unresponsive on certain guests >>> >>> >>> Output of Q SRM >>> >>> q srm >>> IABIAS : INTENSITY=90%; DURATION=2 >>> LDUBUF : Q1=100% Q2=75% Q3=60% >>> STORBUF: Q1=300% Q2=250% Q3=200% >>> DSPBUF : Q1=32767 Q2=32767 Q3=32767 >>> DISPATCHING MINOR TIMESLICE = 5 MS >>> MAXWSS : LIMIT=% >>> .. : PAGES=99 >>> XSTORE : 0% >>> Ready; T=0.01/0.01 09:49:05 >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 5:47 PM, Dave Jones >>> wrote: Hi, Daniel. The answer to your first question is to use the CP FORCE command (HELP CP FORCE will tell you all about it.) The VM user id issuing the FORCE command needs to have privilege class A as well. Usually this is done from either MAINT or OPERATOR. The answer to your second question is a bit more difficult, I'm afraid. As Marcy has already suggested, what does a Q SRM command show? My first guess would be that your SLES11 guest is falling into Q3 and never given an opportunity to run. To find out *why* the guest is not able to run, you need the services of a good z/VM performance monitor.IBM offers the Performance Monitor (it comes bundles with z/VM, but it's an extra cost offering) and Velocity Software (http://www.velocity-software.com/) has a very good suite of products as well. IMHO it' practically impossible to run a modern production grade z/VM-zLinux system without a good performance monitor to help solve issues like the one your having now. On 09/15/2010 05:14 PM, Daniel Tate wrote: > > We're starting to run apps on the servers now. From time to time a > guest will become unresponsive - to be more precise, ,the CP will not > respond to commands, and neither will the guest OS (SLES11). not > even #CP LOGOFF is acknowledged. from another login, CP INDIIC LOAD > shows no appreciable load. > > Two questions from this: > > 1) how would I force a logoff of a user from another user? Is this > possible? > 2) if we are not paging and the IFLs are not loaded (2-3% utilization > as a matter of fact) what could the bottleneck be? > -- Dave Jones V/Soft Software www.vsoft-software.com Houston, TX 281.578.7544 >>> >> >> -- >> Dave Jones >> V/Soft Software >> www.vsoft-software.com >> Houston, TX >> 281.578.7544 >> >> >
Re: CP unresponsive on certain guests
Yeah, that is probably where he needs to end up Dave, but I'm a little hesitant to recommend the 300% for Q3 without feeling more comfortable about his paging subsystem... Moving a couple of large guests from the E-list to in-Q could cause a increase in paging that he may or may not be configured to handle. Mike - Original Message - From: "Dave Jones" To: Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 11:08 AM Subject: Re: CP unresponsive on certain guests Actually, Mike, he may be better off (a bit, at least) by setting STORBUFF 300 300 300. On 09/16/2010 09:58 AM, Mike At HammockTree wrote: Since the STORBUF setting is exactly the values I suggested, I suspect you applied the SET SRM STORBUFF 300% 250% 200% prior to doing the Q SRM With the current setting for STORBUFF, are you still experiencing the problem? Also, on a related note, what does your zVM paging system look like? The output of CP Q ALLOC PAGE will provide the information Mike - Original Message - From: "Daniel Tate" To: Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 10:52 AM Subject: Re: CP unresponsive on certain guests Output of Q SRM q srm IABIAS : INTENSITY=90%; DURATION=2 LDUBUF : Q1=100% Q2=75% Q3=60% STORBUF: Q1=300% Q2=250% Q3=200% DSPBUF : Q1=32767 Q2=32767 Q3=32767 DISPATCHING MINOR TIMESLICE = 5 MS MAXWSS : LIMIT=% .. : PAGES=99 XSTORE : 0% Ready; T=0.01/0.01 09:49:05 On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 5:47 PM, Dave Jones wrote: Hi, Daniel. The answer to your first question is to use the CP FORCE command (HELP CP FORCE will tell you all about it.) The VM user id issuing the FORCE command needs to have privilege class A as well. Usually this is done from either MAINT or OPERATOR. The answer to your second question is a bit more difficult, I'm afraid. As Marcy has already suggested, what does a Q SRM command show? My first guess would be that your SLES11 guest is falling into Q3 and never given an opportunity to run. To find out *why* the guest is not able to run, you need the services of a good z/VM performance monitor.IBM offers the Performance Monitor (it comes bundles with z/VM, but it's an extra cost offering) and Velocity Software (http://www.velocity-software.com/) has a very good suite of products as well. IMHO it' practically impossible to run a modern production grade z/VM-zLinux system without a good performance monitor to help solve issues like the one your having now. On 09/15/2010 05:14 PM, Daniel Tate wrote: We're starting to run apps on the servers now. From time to time a guest will become unresponsive - to be more precise, ,the CP will not respond to commands, and neither will the guest OS (SLES11). not even #CP LOGOFF is acknowledged. from another login, CP INDIIC LOAD shows no appreciable load. Two questions from this: 1) how would I force a logoff of a user from another user? Is this possible? 2) if we are not paging and the IFLs are not loaded (2-3% utilization as a matter of fact) what could the bottleneck be? -- Dave Jones V/Soft Software www.vsoft-software.com Houston, TX 281.578.7544 -- Dave Jones V/Soft Software www.vsoft-software.com Houston, TX 281.578.7544
Re: CP unresponsive on certain guests
Actually, Mike, he may be better off (a bit, at least) by setting STORBUFF 300 300 300. On 09/16/2010 09:58 AM, Mike At HammockTree wrote: > Since the STORBUF setting is exactly the values I suggested, I suspect > you applied the > SET SRM STORBUFF 300% 250% 200% > prior to doing the > Q SRM > > With the current setting for STORBUFF, are you still experiencing the > problem? > > Also, on a related note, what does your zVM paging system look like? > The output of > CP Q ALLOC PAGE > will provide the information > > Mike > - Original Message - From: "Daniel Tate" > To: > Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 10:52 AM > Subject: Re: CP unresponsive on certain guests > > > Output of Q SRM > > q srm > IABIAS : INTENSITY=90%; DURATION=2 > LDUBUF : Q1=100% Q2=75% Q3=60% > STORBUF: Q1=300% Q2=250% Q3=200% > DSPBUF : Q1=32767 Q2=32767 Q3=32767 > DISPATCHING MINOR TIMESLICE = 5 MS > MAXWSS : LIMIT=% > .. : PAGES=99 > XSTORE : 0% > Ready; T=0.01/0.01 09:49:05 > > > On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 5:47 PM, Dave Jones > wrote: >> Hi, Daniel. >> >> The answer to your first question is to use the CP FORCE command (HELP >> CP FORCE will tell you all about it.) The VM user id issuing the FORCE >> command needs to have privilege class A as well. Usually this is done >> from either MAINT or OPERATOR. >> >> The answer to your second question is a bit more difficult, I'm afraid. >> As Marcy has already suggested, what does a Q SRM command show? My first >> guess would be that your SLES11 guest is falling into Q3 and never given >> an opportunity to run. >> >> To find out *why* the guest is not able to run, you need the services of >> a good z/VM performance monitor.IBM offers the Performance Monitor >> (it comes bundles with z/VM, but it's an extra cost offering) and >> Velocity Software (http://www.velocity-software.com/) has a very good >> suite of products as well. IMHO it' practically impossible to run a >> modern production grade z/VM-zLinux system without a good performance >> monitor to help solve issues like the one your having now. >> >> On 09/15/2010 05:14 PM, Daniel Tate wrote: >>> We're starting to run apps on the servers now. From time to time a >>> guest will become unresponsive - to be more precise, ,the CP will not >>> respond to commands, and neither will the guest OS (SLES11). not >>> even #CP LOGOFF is acknowledged. from another login, CP INDIIC LOAD >>> shows no appreciable load. >>> >>> Two questions from this: >>> >>> 1) how would I force a logoff of a user from another user? Is this >>> possible? >>> 2) if we are not paging and the IFLs are not loaded (2-3% utilization >>> as a matter of fact) what could the bottleneck be? >>> >> >> -- >> Dave Jones >> V/Soft Software >> www.vsoft-software.com >> Houston, TX >> 281.578.7544 >> > -- Dave Jones V/Soft Software www.vsoft-software.com Houston, TX 281.578.7544
Re: VSM - TCPIP
You should use "nfind VSM_-" to make sure you don't match a userid that starts with VSM that happens to be logged in via a VSM machine. Remember that pipeline "find" uses a blank to match any character, and an underscore to match a blank. In this case, you want to make sure blanks follow "VSM". On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 10:46 AM, Ethan Lanz wrote: > Or simply > > PIPE CP QUERY NAMES|NFIND VSM - |CONS > > feeds nicely into additional piping. > > -- Bruce Hayden z/VM and Linux on System z ATS IBM, Endicott, NY
Re: CP unresponsive on certain guests
Since the STORBUF setting is exactly the values I suggested, I suspect you applied the SET SRM STORBUFF 300% 250% 200% prior to doing the Q SRM With the current setting for STORBUFF, are you still experiencing the problem? Also, on a related note, what does your zVM paging system look like? The output of CP Q ALLOC PAGE will provide the information Mike - Original Message - From: "Daniel Tate" To: Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 10:52 AM Subject: Re: CP unresponsive on certain guests Output of Q SRM q srm IABIAS : INTENSITY=90%; DURATION=2 LDUBUF : Q1=100% Q2=75% Q3=60% STORBUF: Q1=300% Q2=250% Q3=200% DSPBUF : Q1=32767 Q2=32767 Q3=32767 DISPATCHING MINOR TIMESLICE = 5 MS MAXWSS : LIMIT=% .. : PAGES=99 XSTORE : 0% Ready; T=0.01/0.01 09:49:05 On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 5:47 PM, Dave Jones wrote: Hi, Daniel. The answer to your first question is to use the CP FORCE command (HELP CP FORCE will tell you all about it.) The VM user id issuing the FORCE command needs to have privilege class A as well. Usually this is done from either MAINT or OPERATOR. The answer to your second question is a bit more difficult, I'm afraid. As Marcy has already suggested, what does a Q SRM command show? My first guess would be that your SLES11 guest is falling into Q3 and never given an opportunity to run. To find out *why* the guest is not able to run, you need the services of a good z/VM performance monitor.IBM offers the Performance Monitor (it comes bundles with z/VM, but it's an extra cost offering) and Velocity Software (http://www.velocity-software.com/) has a very good suite of products as well. IMHO it' practically impossible to run a modern production grade z/VM-zLinux system without a good performance monitor to help solve issues like the one your having now. On 09/15/2010 05:14 PM, Daniel Tate wrote: We're starting to run apps on the servers now. From time to time a guest will become unresponsive - to be more precise, ,the CP will not respond to commands, and neither will the guest OS (SLES11). not even #CP LOGOFF is acknowledged. from another login, CP INDIIC LOAD shows no appreciable load. Two questions from this: 1) how would I force a logoff of a user from another user? Is this possible? 2) if we are not paging and the IFLs are not loaded (2-3% utilization as a matter of fact) what could the bottleneck be? -- Dave Jones V/Soft Software www.vsoft-software.com Houston, TX 281.578.7544
Re: CP unresponsive on certain guests
Output of Q SRM q srm IABIAS : INTENSITY=90%; DURATION=2 LDUBUF : Q1=100% Q2=75% Q3=60% STORBUF: Q1=300% Q2=250% Q3=200% DSPBUF : Q1=32767 Q2=32767 Q3=32767 DISPATCHING MINOR TIMESLICE = 5 MS MAXWSS : LIMIT=% .. : PAGES=99 XSTORE : 0% Ready; T=0.01/0.01 09:49:05 On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 5:47 PM, Dave Jones wrote: > Hi, Daniel. > > The answer to your first question is to use the CP FORCE command (HELP > CP FORCE will tell you all about it.) The VM user id issuing the FORCE > command needs to have privilege class A as well. Usually this is done > from either MAINT or OPERATOR. > > The answer to your second question is a bit more difficult, I'm afraid. > As Marcy has already suggested, what does a Q SRM command show? My first > guess would be that your SLES11 guest is falling into Q3 and never given > an opportunity to run. > > To find out *why* the guest is not able to run, you need the services of > a good z/VM performance monitor.IBM offers the Performance Monitor > (it comes bundles with z/VM, but it's an extra cost offering) and > Velocity Software (http://www.velocity-software.com/) has a very good > suite of products as well. IMHO it' practically impossible to run a > modern production grade z/VM-zLinux system without a good performance > monitor to help solve issues like the one your having now. > > On 09/15/2010 05:14 PM, Daniel Tate wrote: >> We're starting to run apps on the servers now. From time to time a >> guest will become unresponsive - to be more precise, ,the CP will not >> respond to commands, and neither will the guest OS (SLES11). not >> even #CP LOGOFF is acknowledged. from another login, CP INDIIC LOAD >> shows no appreciable load. >> >> Two questions from this: >> >> 1) how would I force a logoff of a user from another user? Is this possible? >> 2) if we are not paging and the IFLs are not loaded (2-3% utilization >> as a matter of fact) what could the bottleneck be? >> > > -- > Dave Jones > V/Soft Software > www.vsoft-software.com > Houston, TX > 281.578.7544 >
Re: VSM - TCPIP
Or simply PIPE CP QUERY NAMES|NFIND VSM - |CONS feeds nicely into additional piping. On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 10:12 AM, Scott Rohling wrote: > Hi Frank -- Yes, that pipe looks like it makes good use of rules 1 and 2 > and comes up with a good list. Nicely done - thanks! > > I still don't think the VSM info should be under Q NAMES - and those sneaky > rules make me suspect it was a shoehorn :-) But it's been interesting and > now at least I have a better way than just tossing 'VSM'. > > Thanks all! > > Scott Rohling > > > On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 7:56 AM, Frank M. Ramaekers > wrote: > >> Are you looking to do something like this?QN EXEC: >> >> >> >> /* QUERY NAMES replacement */ >> >> Trace "O" >> >> Address "COMMAND" >> >> "PIPE (endchar ?)", >> >> "| CP QUERY NAMES", >> >> "| ZONE 9.1 NFIND -"||, >> >> "| SPLIT ,", >> >> "| STRIP", >> >> "| SORT", >> >> "| SPEC 1.15 1.16", >> >> "|o:FANOUT", >> >> "| SNAKE 5", >> >> "|i:FANIN", >> >> "| CONSOLE", >> >> "?o:", >> >> "| COUNT LINES", >> >> "| SPEC / Total number of users = / 1 1-* NW", >> >> "|j:FANIN", >> >> "| JOIN *", >> >> "|i:", >> >> "?o:", >> >> "| SPEC FS - F2 STRIP 1", >> >> "|p:FIND DSC"||, >> >> "| COUNT LINES", >> >> "| SPEC / disconnected = / 1 1-* NW", >> >> "| j:" >> >> Exit rc >> >> >> >> >> >> Frank M. Ramaekers Jr. >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> *From:* The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] *On >> Behalf Of *Scott Rohling >> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 15, 2010 7:30 PM >> *To:* IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU >> *Subject:* Re: VSM - TCPIP >> >> >> >> Ok - #1 helps a little (but I'm assuming a real user can end up by itself >> on a line too) - #2 a bit more (yes, sneaky) - #3 even more, but probably >> going a little far unless I'm going for 6 Sigma or something :-) >> Probably will stick with tossing VSM user cuz I'm a lazy old cuss. >> >> The good news for me is now I know why it's there and why I'm excluding it >> ... so.. thanks again... >> >> Scott Rohling >> >> On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 6:10 PM, Alan Altmark >> wrote: >> >> On Wednesday, 09/15/2010 at 07:46 EDT, Scott Rohling >> >> wrote: >> >> > Ok - so this is about linemode sessions. And yeah - I get the crickets >> - who >> > the heck uses linemode? I suppose it fits. I always have a grin on >> my face >> > when I explain virtual reader/punch/printer to non-z/VM folk. >> > >> > The consistency factor is me expecting the first word in front of the >> dash (-) >> > to be a guest name. So I still think Q VSM would be better than >> stuffing it >> > into Q NAMES where I'm looking for guest names and their status. But >> no one >> > asked me.. hmmph >> > >> > Sounds like I get my list of running guests by ignoring VSM..Keeping >> my >> > fingers crossed no one names a guest VSM until I retire :-) >> >> Perhaps it would help to know that all VSMs >> 1. Appear on a separate line of output on QUERY NAMES >> 2. Have the '-' in column 9. User IDs have it in column 10. (Sneaky, >> huh?) >> 3. Can be seen via "CP QUERY IUCV *CCS" >> >> Alan Altmark >> z/VM Development (T minus 3h 50m) >> IBM Endicott >> >> >> _ This message >> contains information which is privileged and confidential and is solely for >> the use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, be >> aware that any review, disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the >> contents of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this >> in error, please destroy it immediately and notify us at >> privacy...@ailife.com. >> > >
Updates to requirements WAVV201007, WAVV201012
Forwarded without comment. > User Group Number - WAVV201007 > Document Status - Recognized > Title - Provide DSE option on CMS TAPE > IBM agrees with the request and a solution appears to be a desirable > objective. A solution however may not presently appear feasible or > implementable. No IBM commitment is made or implied as to the eventual > delivery of an acceptable solution. > > User Group Number - WAVV201012 > Document Status - Recognized > Title - MONDCSS is too small as shipped > IBM agrees with the request and a solution appears to be a desirable > objective. A solution however may not presently appear feasible or > implementable. No IBM commitment is made or implied as to the eventual > delivery of an acceptable solution.
Re: VSM - TCPIP
Hi Frank -- Yes, that pipe looks like it makes good use of rules 1 and 2 and comes up with a good list. Nicely done - thanks! I still don't think the VSM info should be under Q NAMES - and those sneaky rules make me suspect it was a shoehorn :-) But it's been interesting and now at least I have a better way than just tossing 'VSM'. Thanks all! Scott Rohling On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 7:56 AM, Frank M. Ramaekers wrote: > Are you looking to do something like this?QN EXEC: > > > > /* QUERY NAMES replacement */ > > Trace "O" > > Address "COMMAND" > > "PIPE (endchar ?)", > > "| CP QUERY NAMES", > > "| ZONE 9.1 NFIND -"||, > > "| SPLIT ,", > > "| STRIP", > > "| SORT", > > "| SPEC 1.15 1.16", > > "|o:FANOUT", > > "| SNAKE 5", > > "|i:FANIN", > > "| CONSOLE", > > "?o:", > > "| COUNT LINES", > > "| SPEC / Total number of users = / 1 1-* NW", > > "|j:FANIN", > > "| JOIN *", > > "|i:", > > "?o:", > > "| SPEC FS - F2 STRIP 1", > > "|p:FIND DSC"||, > > "| COUNT LINES", > > "| SPEC / disconnected = / 1 1-* NW", > > "| j:" > > Exit rc > > > > > > Frank M. Ramaekers Jr. > > > > > -- > > *From:* The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] *On > Behalf Of *Scott Rohling > *Sent:* Wednesday, September 15, 2010 7:30 PM > *To:* IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU > *Subject:* Re: VSM - TCPIP > > > > Ok - #1 helps a little (but I'm assuming a real user can end up by itself > on a line too) - #2 a bit more (yes, sneaky) - #3 even more, but probably > going a little far unless I'm going for 6 Sigma or something :-) > Probably will stick with tossing VSM user cuz I'm a lazy old cuss. > > The good news for me is now I know why it's there and why I'm excluding it > ... so.. thanks again... > > Scott Rohling > > On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 6:10 PM, Alan Altmark > wrote: > > On Wednesday, 09/15/2010 at 07:46 EDT, Scott Rohling > > wrote: > > > Ok - so this is about linemode sessions. And yeah - I get the crickets > - who > > the heck uses linemode? I suppose it fits. I always have a grin on > my face > > when I explain virtual reader/punch/printer to non-z/VM folk. > > > > The consistency factor is me expecting the first word in front of the > dash (-) > > to be a guest name. So I still think Q VSM would be better than > stuffing it > > into Q NAMES where I'm looking for guest names and their status. But > no one > > asked me.. hmmph > > > > Sounds like I get my list of running guests by ignoring VSM..Keeping > my > > fingers crossed no one names a guest VSM until I retire :-) > > Perhaps it would help to know that all VSMs > 1. Appear on a separate line of output on QUERY NAMES > 2. Have the '-' in column 9. User IDs have it in column 10. (Sneaky, > huh?) > 3. Can be seen via "CP QUERY IUCV *CCS" > > Alan Altmark > z/VM Development (T minus 3h 50m) > IBM Endicott > > > _ This message > contains information which is privileged and confidential and is solely for > the use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, be > aware that any review, disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the > contents of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this > in error, please destroy it immediately and notify us at > privacy...@ailife.com. >
Re: Hillgang October Meeting
Hello, I am not able to attend. However, I am very much interested to learn more about zPDT. Michel Beaulieu Montreal, Canada |*| > Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 09:33:37 -0400 > From: baue...@mail.nih.gov > Subject: Re: Hillgang October Meeting > To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU > > I will be attending. > > Bobby Bauer > Center for Information Technology > National Institutes of Health > Bethesda, MD 20892-5628 > 301-594-7474 > > > > -Original Message- > From: Neale Ferguson [mailto:ne...@sinenomine.net] > Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2010 1:31 PM > To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU > Subject: Hillgang October Meeting > > The preliminary agenda for the October 13 meeting of Hillgang is available > at: http://www.vm.ibm.com/events/hill1013.pdf > > We have a lot of great content (even more than usual that is): > > - Understanding the IT Audit Process Stan King, Information Technology > Company > - z/VM Single System Image & Guest Mobility Preview John Franciscovich, > IBM > - z/VM 6.1 and Ensemble Management Richard Lewis, IBM > - Introducing the zPDT Stan King, ITC
Re: VSM - TCPIP
Are you looking to do something like this?QN EXEC: /* QUERY NAMES replacement */ Trace "O" Address "COMMAND" "PIPE (endchar ?)", "| CP QUERY NAMES", "| ZONE 9.1 NFIND -"||, "| SPLIT ,", "| STRIP", "| SORT", "| SPEC 1.15 1.16", "|o:FANOUT", "| SNAKE 5", "|i:FANIN", "| CONSOLE", "?o:", "| COUNT LINES", "| SPEC / Total number of users = / 1 1-* NW", "|j:FANIN", "| JOIN *", "|i:", "?o:", "| SPEC FS - F2 STRIP 1", "|p:FIND DSC"||, "| COUNT LINES", "| SPEC / disconnected = / 1 1-* NW", "| j:" Exit rc Frank M. Ramaekers Jr. From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Scott Rohling Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 7:30 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: VSM - TCPIP Ok - #1 helps a little (but I'm assuming a real user can end up by itself on a line too) - #2 a bit more (yes, sneaky) - #3 even more, but probably going a little far unless I'm going for 6 Sigma or something :-)Probably will stick with tossing VSM user cuz I'm a lazy old cuss. The good news for me is now I know why it's there and why I'm excluding it ... so.. thanks again... Scott Rohling On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 6:10 PM, Alan Altmark wrote: On Wednesday, 09/15/2010 at 07:46 EDT, Scott Rohling wrote: > Ok - so this is about linemode sessions. And yeah - I get the crickets - who > the heck uses linemode? I suppose it fits. I always have a grin on my face > when I explain virtual reader/punch/printer to non-z/VM folk. > > The consistency factor is me expecting the first word in front of the dash (-) > to be a guest name. So I still think Q VSM would be better than stuffing it > into Q NAMES where I'm looking for guest names and their status. But no one > asked me.. hmmph > > Sounds like I get my list of running guests by ignoring VSM.. Keeping my > fingers crossed no one names a guest VSM until I retire :-) Perhaps it would help to know that all VSMs 1. Appear on a separate line of output on QUERY NAMES 2. Have the '-' in column 9. User IDs have it in column 10. (Sneaky, huh?) 3. Can be seen via "CP QUERY IUCV *CCS" Alan Altmark z/VM Development (T minus 3h 50m) IBM Endicott _ This message contains information which is privileged and confidential and is solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any review, disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this in error, please destroy it immediately and notify us at privacy...@ailife.com.
Re: Hillgang October Meeting
I will be attending. Bobby Bauer Center for Information Technology National Institutes of Health Bethesda, MD 20892-5628 301-594-7474 -Original Message- From: Neale Ferguson [mailto:ne...@sinenomine.net] Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2010 1:31 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Hillgang October Meeting The preliminary agenda for the October 13 meeting of Hillgang is available at: http://www.vm.ibm.com/events/hill1013.pdf We have a lot of great content (even more than usual that is): - Understanding the IT Audit Process Stan King, Information Technology Company - z/VM Single System Image & Guest Mobility Preview John Franciscovich, IBM - z/VM 6.1 and Ensemble Management Richard Lewis, IBM - Introducing the zPDT Stan King, ITC
Re: VSM - TCPIP
AMEN. My father is retired IBMer and we moved a lot. My stint with IBM was to short to have been moved. On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 11:16 PM, Jim Bohnsack wrote: > IBM-I've Been Moved---even if not relocated. > > Jim > > > On 9/15/2010 9:28 PM, Chip Davis wrote: > >> And I guess Scott has the honor of the last IBMVM problem solved by >> Alan as a developer... :-/ >> >> I hope Alan enjoys the "deeper, more direct experience" he's going to >> have with us. If it weren't for all the traveling... >> >> -Chip- >> >> -- > James Bohnsack > (972) 596-6377 home/office > (972) 342-5823 cell > -- Mark D Pace Senior Systems Engineer Mainline Information Systems
