Re: REXXCPS EXEC
Isn't that called bull? Lloyd - Original Message From: Mike Hammock m...@hammocktree.us To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Sent: Fri, June 10, 2011 1:46:05 PM Subject: Re: REXXCPS EXEC Of course, pretty soon we may have to start using BIPS (Billions of .). Let's see, what word can we find that starts with B that means Meaningless? Mike Hammock -- From: Les Koehler vmr...@tampabay.rr.com Sent: Friday, June 10, 2011 12:58 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: REXXCPS EXEC That's an interesting observation, but what does it have to do with how much work a regular VM userid can get done using Rexx? That's the whole point of REXXCPS. Les Mike Hammock wrote: I have found in the past that dividing the REXX CPS number by 1800 gives an approximation(!) of the general MIPS rating. Those of you with access to various systems might want to see if this comes anywhere to close for your system. This would make the system below (2622295 CPS) about 1456 MIPS. Just remember that REXXCPS is a single thread; it can only test a single processor/core. If you have a multi-processor system you have to multiple by the number of processors and adjust for N-way interference. Mike Hammock -- From: Bruce Hayden bjhay...@gmail.com Sent: Friday, June 10, 2011 10:12 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: REXXCPS EXEC I ran it on a 2817-742 (i.e. a z196): rexxcps - REXXCPS 2.1 -- Measuring REXX clauses/second - REXX version is: REXX370 4.02 01 Dec 1998 System is: CMS Averaging: 100 measures of 100 iterations Calibration (empty DO): 0.1351 secs (average of 100) Spooling trace NOTERM Spooling now back on TERM Total (full DO): 0.03813453 secs (average of 100 measures of 100 iterations) Time for one iteration (1000 clauses) was: 0.0003813453 seconds Performance: 2622295 REXX clauses per second Ready; T=3.76/3.76 10:06:06 But - you're probably more interested in the numbers after compiling the exec. (I noticed in the table that it also has the results after the exec is compiled.) rexxcpsc - REXXCPS 2.1 -- Measuring REXX clauses/second - REXX version is: REXXC370 4.02 23 Dec 1999 System is: CMS Averaging: 100 measures of 100 iterations Calibration (empty DO): 0.0467 secs (average of 100) Spooling trace NOTERM Spooling now back on TERM Total (full DO): 0.00707880 secs (average of 100 measures of 100 iterations) Time for one iteration (1000 clauses) was: 0.70788 seconds Performance: 14126688 REXX clauses per second Ready; T=0.69/0.69 10:06:10 On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 6:18 AM, Les Koehler vmr...@tampabay.rr.com wrote: I'm curious... Has anyone with real mainframe hardware (no emulation) recently run REXXCPS that MFC wrote way back when? See: http://speleotrove.com/misc/rexxcpslist.html for his collection of data. If you've never seen REXXCPS, there's a link to it at the top of the page. Just remove the hash-bang usr/bin to run it on a VM userid. Les -- Bruce Hayden z/VM and Linux on System z ATS IBM, Endicott, NY
Re: uploading C code to VM
Tony, I have not used VM C for several years, but I think that I remember that there is a compiler option to say do the whole record and not just 1-72. Lloyd - Original Message From: Tony Thigpen t...@vse2pdf.com To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Sent: Wed, May 18, 2011 8:37:29 AM Subject: uploading C code to VM I am working on a project where I am porting some C code from linux to VM, so that I can compile it on z/VSE. As you can imagine, the 72 characters per line restriction is a problem. Has anybody else found a way to automate the conversion that they can share? As mentioned in another thread, I do have THE and REXX on my Linux which could be used. -- Tony Thigpen
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: Linux on z/VM
John McKown wrote: I don't have access to a z on which I can do this. Would it be OK to load in on Hercules/390, just for learning purposes? My group keeps pushing for zLinux, but the current Linux people (Intel) want nothing to do with it. Likely, IMO, due to their perception of lack of control over the hardware. Which would be true. I wouldn't want a Lintel person, no matter how good, to be setting up z/VM or even the VM directory. Of course, they would be root, not my group (z/OS Tech Services). And they might not want to due to other considerations, such as backups et al. John, I went through this last summer. The only z/Linux that I got to work under Hercules/390 was the Centos version. The problem was a lack of support for the newer networking stuff. Lloyd
Re: CPACF and z/VM
Do not be so sure that the crypto cards will help with CPU over CPACF. It depends upon what the vendor is doing. For SSL and communications things, the crypto cards help. For symmetric ciphering, CPACF is an order of magnitude faster. Go check the white papers at IBM for details. Remember the crypto cards are on the I/O bus and not directly part of the CPU like CPACF. So they have slightly higher overhead to get to them. In addition, IBM has never documented how to access the crypto cards directly so the only way there is through ICSF. That also slows things down. A program can access CPACF directly to do ciphering. The program does need to protect the keys itself instead of relying on the crypto cards/ICSF/trusted key workstation to protect them. Lloyd --- On Wed, 12/9/09, Gentry, Stephen stephen.gen...@lafayettelife.com wrote: From: Gentry, Stephen stephen.gen...@lafayettelife.com Subject: Re: CPACF and z/VM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Date: Wednesday, December 9, 2009, 8:40 AM Alan, thanks for the clarifications, the code and enduring my questions. With regards to the Q CRYPTO: One of the IBM manual alludes to the result not always being consistent if no crypto card is installed and CPACF is installed. (I don't remember which manual, I've looked at quite a few regarding this over the past few days). After all of this I can comfortably say that, yes, CPACF is activated. Now, it's back to the vendor to work out the run times. I also realize that a crypto card would help this job run faster. The CPACF less so. However 13 hours for a normal 30 minute job . . . Again, thanks. Steve -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Alan Altmark Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 5:06 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: CPACF and z/VM On Monday, 12/07/2009 at 02:19 EST, Gentry, Stephen stephen.gen...@lafayettelife.com wrote: Hmm, interesting comment, have I re-IPL'd. The z9 was shipped with the feature code. We've had it for quite a while and have IPL'd numerous times. This then leads me to believe that I have to do something in the LPAR definition on the HMC? I have looked at the activation profile for our LPAR and there is a CRYPTO link. Clicking on that, I see that no boxes are checked. This is where the doc get's confusing. Am I supposed to check mark some boxes if I have CPACF? The way the doc reads, leads me to think you only use these options if you have the full blown crypto card installed in the box. That being said, where can I find some doc. etc. that more or less gives a step by step walk through of what to do? Ignore what I said before. I did more research: - If the CPC Details window shows CP Assist for Crypto Functions [CPACF]: Installed then CPACF is installed. I believe POR is required if the feature is installed after delivery, so if the machine is up, the instructions are available. - If CPACF is not installed, QUERY CRYPTO will display No CAM or DAC Crypto Facilities are installed. [Don't ask.] - Any other response to QUERY CRYPTO indicates CPACF is installed. The results I get when I issue a QUERY CRYPTO command: q crypto Crypto Adjunct Processor Instructions are not installed Ready; So you have CPACF installed and this jives with the guest's report. The guest reports that CRYPTO hardware assist is available. But I don't know how/what it is checking. Is it checking for the feature? Yes, that's installed. Is it active for the LPAR? I don't know, I don't think so (depends on your reply to the LPAR question above.) So now you have to figure out why the guest is taking so long. What changed? Here is a program to tell you if CPACF is installed. Note that the instructions are part of an architectural group called Message Security Assist. CPACF is the name given to implementation, not the architecture. * a) VMFHLASM QCPACF DMSVM * b) LOAD QCPACF (RLDSAVE * c) GENMOD QCPACF CSECT USING *,R12 LR R12,R15 LR R10,R14 LHI R0,1 # dwords XC STFLEBUF,STFLEBUF STFLE STFLEBUF TM STFLEBUF+2,X'40' MSA? BZ NOMSA APPLMSG TEXT='CPACF is installed' SLR R15,R15 BR R10 NOMSA DS 0H APPLMSG TEXT='CPACF is not installed' LHI R15,1 BR R10 STFLEBUF DS D REGEQU END QCPACF Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott
Re: z/VM usability
On Mon, 7 May 2007 13:20:43 -0400, George Haddad wrote: Before I ever used VM a company where I worked had timeshare accounts at NCSS using VP/CSS. Except for the personal disk being P instead of A, it resembled CP/CMS quite a bit. I wonder if that ever got open-sourced? For that matter, are the public domain versions of VM/370 fair game for modification? Paul Raulerson wrote: Has anyone written a third party OS that can easily replace CMS? I mean, CMS, despite being tightly integrated to all things VM, is in the final analysis, just another Host OS isn't it? Surely over 40 years someone has written something that can be used to replace it, perhaps something open source? -Paul As one of the former maintainers of VP/CSS I can state no it never got open sourced. It died before open source really got started. Lloyd
Re: Historical curiousity question.
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 12:48:15 -0400, David Boyes wrote: I am not having a problem at all with how things are done. I was just curious about why the original developers made DASD management such a burden on the sysprog. Especially in the early days. But performance could very well be the reason. 1) Back then, there *wasn't* much DASD to manage. VM systems have historically been smaller and lighter, and been relatively resource-poor compared to their OS-based siblings. Consider the original purpose of VM was to be a *migration aid* from OS/360 to later releases; it wasn't intended to be a permanent thing (at least not until real customers got their hands on it) so there wouldn't have been a lot of VM disk to manage. Was it? I was taught by some of the people that worked at Lincoln Labs that VM was a CE/SE training aid. That is why it was designed to so closely emulate a 360 Mod 50. You could break things and the CE/SE would learn how to detect what was broken and how to fix it. Lloyd User of VM and its cousin VP/CSS since 1975.
Re: Multiple Guests using the Same Crypto Domain
On Thu, 1 Mar 2007 10:24:38 -0600, Don W. wrote: On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 20:06:52 -0500, Lloyd Fuller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 15:06:48 -0600, Don W. wrote: I am trying to define two z/OS guests that are using CRYPTO. The mainframe supposedly has two CRYPTO Coprocessors. The guests need to have the same DOMAIN. I thought I should be able to dedicate a CRYPTO Coprocessor to each guest and use the same domain. When I bring up the first guest, it seems to reserve both CRYPTO processors. The first guest gets msg HCPAPJ1708I No Processor is available to service virtual crypto unit (0/1). The second guest gets a msg that the DOMAIN is in use and CRYPTO is not available. Should I be able to run two guests using crypto with the same domain? To answer this we will need to know what type of processor. The different processors handle things different. In addition, if this is a z800/z900 or older, you can only bind them to CPU0 and CPU1. Lloyd = We are currently using a z900 but will soon have a z9. There are significant differences between the crypto engines on a z900 and on a z9. Some of the differences are good and some are bad. As I said, on a z900 you only have two possible crypto engines (disregarding the PCI / PCI-X cards). And they have to be tied to CPU0 and/or CPU1. The z9 has one crypto engine per CPU to be enabled. However, these are different engines and do things differently. There are several good white papers, Redbooks and Redpapers available. Search on the IBM main web site for Cryptographic and you will find lots. Also, search on exactly Cryptographic Performance and you will find a document that describes the throughput that you can expect with your crypto engine on the z9. I did not find a similar one (in detail at least) for the z900, but there are several presentations on Technotes that describe the differences in the various engines. Note that MOST of the documents that I have found have been for z/OS, and not for z/VM. I think there were one or two on z/VM and one or more on z/Linux (particularly with SSL). Lloyd
Re: Multiple Guests using the Same Crypto Domain
On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 15:06:48 -0600, Don W. wrote: I am trying to define two z/OS guests that are using CRYPTO. The mainframe supposedly has two CRYPTO Coprocessors. The guests need to have the same DOMAIN. I thought I should be able to dedicate a CRYPTO Coprocessor to each guest and use the same domain. When I bring up the first guest, it seems to reserve both CRYPTO processors. The first guest gets msg HCPAPJ1708I No Processor is available to service virtual crypto unit (0/1). The second guest gets a msg that the DOMAIN is in use and CRYPTO is not available. Should I be able to run two guests using crypto with the same domain? To answer this we will need to know what type of processor. The different processors handle things different. In addition, if this is a z800/z900 or older, you can only bind them to CPU0 and CPU1. Lloyd
Re: Problem activating FEA cards on MP3000
On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 10:54:20 -0500, Tom Duerbusch wrote: They are 10 mb cards. Make sure what ever switch you plug them into, supports such a low speed. We also had a problem with an old switch that didn't autonegotiate down to 10 mbs too well. We had to configure some ports on the switch to be only 10 mbs to solve that one. Tom Duerbusch THD Consulting We had P390s, not MP3000, but they wouldn't negotiate at all. We tried three different manufacturers' switches and ended up using an old 3COM 10MB switch just for the P390s. Lloyd
Re: More Ancient History: source for 3420 cleaning fluid?
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 13:10:56 -0500, Dave Jones wrote: The stiff cotton swabs that you use to clean the head could be replaced, I think, by some soft cotton fabric on a medical tongue depressor. If these are the ones that are five or six inches long with a swab on one end, Radio Shack used to carry them. Lloyd
Re: MDC, Storage, xstore, and cache on External dasd.
On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 10:16:09 -0400, Edward M. Martin wrote: Hello And thanks to everyone, I do appreciate everyone's input and opinions. We have the memory. 8 gig total, 5 gig defined for storage, 2 gig to xstore, and the rest used by the HMC. I do think that the problem is the MDC is only hitting 77-80% and the cpu gets driven up to 100%. It was at 92% before I do the SET MDC SYSTEM ON. I am weighting the overall results of the MDC to storage to CPU. This is a NOMAD2/ULTRAQUEST/TCPIP set of transactions. Ed, I don't know how your Nomad/Ultraquest access is being done (randomly or sequentially), and whether it is shared database or local database. However, for many Nomad applications, you get more bang for your buck by making the virtual machine larger, and setting the number of buffers higher on the database files. That way any cache is intelligent about how the data is being accessed because the database engine is doing the cacheing and knows what it is using. Lloyd Fuller
Re: Not Your Dad's Mainframe: Little Iron
On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 19:50:41 -0600, Anne Lynn Wheeler wrote: Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Well I had exposure, access, to an IBM MVT product called TESTTRAN which was sort of available on our system with assembler F and , if I remember correctly, Fortran G, both in batch and TSO. One had to compile/assemble with the TEST option, which produced and kept a variables symbol table and a statement location table. One could then set breakpoints, examine program values etc. etc. But it was very awkward to use, badly documented, and buggy. When I asked I was told that it wasn't developed because it wasn't used. Which I considered to be a very much a chicken and egg kind of argument. I had a little exposure to TEST under our CMS systems. But as we didn't really support VM/CMS too well at TUCCUNC I can't comment much except that I didn't find out much about what it was capable of. huge amount of OS/360 TESTRAN was outputing all the (12-2-9) SYM cards as part of assemble/compile ... so that you effectively could support symbolic debugging. I don't know anybody that actually used it ... I remember having a TESTRAN manual at one point and running with option to generate SYM cards (just to see what they looked like) ... but never actually using it. old post that has mention of SYM cards (as well as formats of most of the other 12-2-9 cards): I never used TESTTRAN, but the VP/CSS debugger used the SYM cards, and that debugger was used heavily until the early to mid 90s. We ported moat of it to CMS, but never did all of the work to make it run in XA virtual machines so we when started to use XA and XC virtual machines for our developing work, we had to use TRACE and PER. Lloyd Fuller
Re: OT: Cursed Scroll Lock key vs 3270 emulators
On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 15:21:17 -0400, David Boyes wrote: David Boyes Sine Nomine Associates When I get that fixed, I'm also going to find whoever decided *ix should be case-sensitive and cure him ...phsiii Just wait until you get a Plan 9 system. Case sensitive, character set sensitive, 32-bit character set (full ISO 10646 support)... -- db Or a newer Teradata database engine: it is the same way. Lloyd
