Re: How to copy a disk using a z/Linux guest
Hi Terry - As a couple other folks have mentioned, dd will work to do that, even if you dump the image out to a tape or a disk file. However, you will need to make sure that no changes are taking place on the disk you are dumping while you are dumping it, which leads back to the same issue as using DDR from z/VM, or at least almost. I keep the OS volumes separate from my data volumes for just this reason. Does this need to be a disk image or will a file by file backup suffice? If the latter, dump or tar may be good candidates. Any backup utility that can recognize and retry open files would probably provide the necessary integrity for your backups. If you really need a disk image on the other hand, a shutdown of the guest to gain exclusive access to the disk and using DDR or dd is the best bet I think. If it is a disk image of a data volume, then just umount the data volume under linux, and remount it read only. Then use dd to get your image off to wheresoever you need it to be. Umm- make sure it is mounted read/only everywhere of course. If it is cross mounted all over creation with NFS, then you might have a different issue. Don't know if it will help any, but here, I roll OS/Images out with DDR to physical 3590 tapes. Data partitions are written out to virtual tapes on the VTL via dd, and file by file backups are written out with Tivoli, again to the VTL. Our VTL automatically replicates tapes to the DR site, meaning I can test by restoring the tapes at the remote site. This works for us because we are not running on a 24X7 schedule for our operations data, though we are providing 24x7 web access and services. I would run the DDR physical tapes out to the VTL too if I could figure out how to get z/VM to talk to 'em. :) Yours, -Paul -Original Message- From: Martin, Terry R. (CMS/CTR) (CTR) [mailto:terry.mar...@cms.hhs.gov] Sent: Monday, August 16, 2010 09:32 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: How to copy a disk using a z/Linux guest Hi Further explanation. Here is my dilemma in a nut shell: I have a z/Linux volume on a guest that does not have a z/OSVTOC. We typically use DFDSS on z/OS to back the z/Linux disks up and restorethem at out DR site. Since this particular guest does not have z VTOC DFDSScannot open it. So given this we decided to use DDR for this disk but theguests have the disk allocated so we are not able to attach the disk to theuser that would be doing the DDR. So the only way I know to get this backed up is shutdown theguest and then attach the disk to the user doing the DDR. So I am assuming thatif I do this that DDR will back up everything needed on this pack to do a goodrestore at the DR site. Are assumption good here and is there other ways to do thissay without bringing the guest down? 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 peter.w...@ttc.ca Sent: Monday, August 16, 2010 9:38 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: How to copy a disk using a z/Linux guest DDR doesn’t care about VTOCs or anything. It simply copies whateveris there. A very useful trait in many cases. Peter -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] OnBehalf Of Martin, Terry R. (CMS/CTR) (CTR) Sent: August 16, 2010 09:30 To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: How to copy a disk using a z/Linux guest Hi I am trying to find out if there isa utility in z/Linux in my case RHEL 5.2 that will allow me to copy a z/Linuxformatted disk to another disk. Also do you know if DDR caresrather there is a VTOC on a volume if it is used to backup the volume without aVTOC? Thank You, Terry Martin Lockheed Martin - Citic z/OS and z/VM PerformanceTuning and Operating Systems Support Office - 443 348-2102 Cell - 443 632-4191 The information transmitted is intended only for the personor entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/orprivileged material. Any review retransmission dissemination or other use of ortaking any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entitiesother than the intended recipient or delegate is strictly prohibited. If youreceived this in error please contact the sender and delete the material fromany computer. The integrity and security of this message cannot be guaranteedon the Internet. The sender accepts no liability for the content of this e-mailor for the consequences of any actions taken on the basis of informationprovided. The recipient should check this e-mail and any attachments for thepresence of viruses. The sender accepts no liability for any damage caused byany virus transmitted by this e-mail. This disclaimer is property of the TTCand must not be altered or
What does the job market look like out there?
I've been totally buried for the past 14 months in what seemed like a never ending waterfall of projects. Only a few of them were related to z/VM and z/Linux. It seems like the machine here just runs itself, and is so stable there is little need to spend time working on it. I love managing projects, but I really love managing projects on the mainframe. :) I was thinking it might be time to take stock of what options are available in the mainframe z/VM world. Are there positions out there for folks with five or six years of z/Linux and moderate z/VM experience? Or is the market so darn tight that it would be best to not even think of making a change? I suppose I could go back to programming CICS or whatever, but I am not sure I am willing to take the pay cut that would involve. -Paul
Re: Linux on z/VM
Note that trial means trial period for support. The license is free, you can run it as long as you wish, for any purpose. Seems odd on a mainframe, but true. And I personally recommend SLES over RedHat. If nothing else, YAST makes it far easier to manage. -Paul On Feb 15, 2010, at 12:30 PM, Rich Smrcina wrote: On 02/15/2010 12:22 PM, Billy Bingham wrote: I would like to install Linux on z/VM, but I'm not sure what distribution to use. Is there a free version of SuSE or RedHat Linux that I can download to do this? Do I need to license a distribution from the vendor (SuSE or RedHat)? Thanks, Billy You can get a trial of both Novell and RedHat Linux for System z that come with install support and maintenance for a certain amount of time. I think Novell is 120 days. -- Rich Smrcina Phone: 414-491-6001 http://www.linkedin.com/in/richsmrcina Catch the WAVV! http://www.wavv.org WAVV 2010 - Apr 9-13, 2010 Covington, KY
Re: z/LInux, LVM, and minor disasters.
Good questions, if you think of any more... :) Answers below... On Oct 30, 2009, at 1:07 AM, Mike Walter wrote: The most obvious, but least likely are the simplest to detect. Sorry, I have no answers -- just diagnostic questions... 1) Is it possible that there were any minidisk definition overlaps? Nope, when I make changes to add (or remove) DASD, I always compare the diskmap reports before IPLing the instance. In fact, here is the process I use. Note that I manually maintain the USER DIRECT. Identify the DASD to use. If new, add to ALLOC. Always format the volume with CMS. If I don't, it is possible LVM will detect previous volume signatures and get stupid. :) Add the DASD to the guest, always adding it is with higher, sequential virtual device numbers. IPL the instance, activate and format the disks from Linux side. I usually use YAST to do this. mkinitrd, zipl, re-IPL. It was at this point that LVM went stupid and starting complaining that volumes could not be found. Linux, at this point, rearranged the volume assignments for some reason. Don't have a clue why. Brought down system, removed additional DASD, re-ipled. Still stupid. Rand mkinitrd, zipl, re-ipled. All was okay at this point. Tried again with just one brand new never used 3390-9 volume. Created a new LVM to add it to, added it. re-IPLed LVM went stupid again. This time I could not recover all the existing LVMs. That is proabably more detail than anyone is interested in. But to prove this out, I restored the entire image from tape, recreated all the LVMs exactly as they were, repeated the add one volume, and yep - it got stupid again. Lost a different LVM, but still. The only think I can think of is that I breached some kind of limit with the number of volumes you can attah to a single zLinux instance. Do you a directory management product to guard against that? If so, are there any trap doors left open (e.g. full extent minidisks that could have been linked R/W by another)? If not, does DISKMAP or DIRMAP report any OVERLAPs? There were no overlaps or other signals from z/VM that something was not okay. :) 2) Could an external or guest system have written to the disks (i.e another z/VM system, z/OS system etc. sharing the same set of DASD)? Nope- just one LPAR up with z/VM. No other zLinux instances sharing the disks, etc. 3) Could another user have linked to one or more of the minidisks R/W? 4) Were here any hardware log errors? I was the only z/VM interactive user. Other zLinux guests are logged in and active, but there is no overlap in DASD between the guests. And just for fun, was it ONLY LVMs that were blow away, or was it the 200 (IPL) and 201 (/usr or swap) disks, too? Yep, only the LVMs were damaged. And all of the LVMs were affected. BTW, from another listserver discussion: 'Linux' is a trademark or Linus Torvalds. It is not supposed to be prefaced or appended by anything. z/Linux, and zLinux violate the trademark. 'Linux for System z', while verbose does not. We should respect his trademark when using Linux publically.I *believe* that IBM may own the trademark for z/ anything (not 100% certain on that). I had not heard of that. I think it is a little paranoid to worry about it, but I will try to pay attention to it, since obviously it is important to some folks. Mike Walter Hewitt Associates The opinions expressed herein are mine alone, not my employer's. Paul Raulerson p...@raulersons.com Sent by: The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU 10/30/2009 12:23 AM Please respond to The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU To IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU cc Subject z/LInux, LVM, and minor disasters. I had to add some additional DASD to a Linux instance over the weekend, and for whatever reason, it turned into a disaster. Linux somehow or another decided to rearrange all the DASD and blew every single LVM I had on the machine. Just under half a terabyte of data went into some unrecoverable mode. I'm pretty careful about this, and just build ~100GB volumes using 3390-9 volumes. The mini-disk definitions are always ordered and new DASD gets higher, sequential numbering. I always start my minidisk assignments at 200, so 200 is the IPL disk, 201 is either /usr or swap, depending. 202 starts the data volumes. I wound up building a new instance, and installing a slightly updated version of Linux, then restoring all the data with Tivoli from a VTL. There was no permanent damage done, except to my ability to sleep at night. When I rebuilt the data partitions, I built them as RAID-0 partitions. (The Shark takes care of the real RAID, and I am not worried about data loss from that direction.) Has anyone else ran into this? -Paul The information contained in this e-mail and any accompanying documents may contain information that is confidential or otherwise protected
Re: z/LInux, LVM, and minor disasters.
Hi Mark - I would have agreed 100% with you up until a few days ago. I am still not sure it was LVMs fault. There were a LOT of DASD volumes attached to this instance, and I think I may have blown some limit somewhere. Part of the reason there were multiple LVMs is that I had a lot of 3390-3's around, and LVM, at least at one time, seemed to have trouble with creating volumes that were much larger than 100gigs using 3390-3s. Fell into a historical habit I suppose. It worries me enough, and the fact I can duplicate it, makes me worried enough to not want to use LVMs for a while. I was kinda hoping someone else had ran into this, but perhaps it is more likely I am just doing something wrong -Paul On Oct 30, 2009, at 1:27 AM, Mark Post wrote: On 10/30/2009 at 1:23 AM, Paul Raulerson p...@raulersons.com wrote: -snip- Has anyone else ran into this? Not without some error messages and the like to go on. LVM doesn't care about device names, or DASD address ordering, etc. All it cares about is if it can find the UUIDs it expects for all its PVs. Those are written on the disk volumes when pvcreate and vgextend is done. If it can't find all those UUIDs, then it will throw a fit. Usually that means that a PV was added to the VG, and that volume was not available at the next reboot. Most often that's the result of not re-running mkinitrd and zipl. (YaST will do that for you automatically if you use it, otherwise you have to remember to do it. Not sure if Red Hat has a similar mechanism to keep things in synch.) Mark Post
z/LInux, LVM, and minor disasters.
I had to add some additional DASD to a Linux instance over the weekend, and for whatever reason, it turned into a disaster. Linux somehow or another decided to rearrange all the DASD and blew every single LVM I had on the machine. Just under half a terabyte of data went into some unrecoverable mode. I'm pretty careful about this, and just build ~100GB volumes using 3390-9 volumes. The mini-disk definitions are always ordered and new DASD gets higher, sequential numbering. I always start my minidisk assignments at 200, so 200 is the IPL disk, 201 is either /usr or swap, depending. 202 starts the data volumes. I wound up building a new instance, and installing a slightly updated version of Linux, then restoring all the data with Tivoli from a VTL. There was no permanent damage done, except to my ability to sleep at night. When I rebuilt the data partitions, I built them as RAID-0 partitions. (The Shark takes care of the real RAID, and I am not worried about data loss from that direction.) Has anyone else ran into this? -Paul
Re: Fed-Up With IBM Support!
Heh... :) I just won't use the online tools these days, except occasionally for Shop zSeries. I just call it in, and give 'em a serial number. for the $$ we spend on maintenance, they can find an English speaking person who can assist me. -Paul -Original Message- From: Michael Coffin [mailto:michaelcof...@mccci.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 10:31 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Fed-Up With IBM Support! VENT You know what, I recall a day when IBMLINK ran on 3270 terminals and when you entered search criteria on a problem you'd ONLY get VALID responses for your OS and problem (not 3,000,000 keyword hits 99.99% of them having NOTHING to do with your OS or your problem!). I recall a day when you would call IBM Software Support at 1-800-237-5511 (burned into my memory from over 20 years of calling), immediately connect to KNOWLEDGABLE professionals who could quickly help you identify if your problem was known/existing or open a new problem report, and this was all done in clear, easily understood English! Now we have IBMLink 2000, ServiceLink, Passport/Advantage, ShopzSeries, etc. etc. etc. etc. Each of which seems to require its own userid/password combination, and none of which is simple or easy to use! I have spent the past TWO HOURS trying to open a software support ticket using IBM.com, and am now going to GIVE UP and use the phone the old fashioned way. I sign in to IBMLINK 2000 using my userid and password.I searched for any records associated with my existing problem (TCPIP abending, FWIW) - no recent hits.I tried to open a Service Request. That takes you to a screen where you have to enter your IBM ID and password, which is not your IBMLINK ID and password.I call the IBMLINK Help Desk at 1-800-543-3912 to figure out WHAT IBM ID it is asking for. They take my name and phone number and tell me someone will call you back. I guess it would be TOO efficient to let me talk to someone immediately! Someone from IBM (IBMLINK Help Desk) calls me back. We walk through the exact same process I went through above until I am asked for my IBM ID again. He looks it up and tells me what it is. I enter THAT id and password only to have the website come back and tell me I'm not authorized to do anything (even though I am the ONLY registered user on this account!). I ask him to fix the account. He tells me I need to call the Software Support Help Desk at 1-800-426-7378, options 2-2. I call the Software Support Help Desk using the options provided. We very quickly discover this is NOT the right number to call for problems with Passport/Advantage. It's the software defect support numbe (e.g. what formerly was on 800-237-5511). The IBM'er gives me that phone number.I call IBM Passport/Advantage Help Desk at 1-800-978-2246. I describe my problem to the IBMer. He tells me IBM Passport/Advantage does not provide Help over the phone and that I must go to www.ibm.com/software/support to get the problem with my Passport/Advantage account authorizations straightened out.I go to www.ibm.com/software/support - this is not a web page to request Passport/Advantage support! It's yet another search page! The only reference to Passport/Advantage on this page is under Buying and managing support, which is basically a page to convince you to buy Passport/Advantage!!!I give up! For crying out loud IBM, can't you have a SINGLE sign-on for a customer to be able to access ALL of the services/entitlements that they've paid for? Why do I need an IBMLINK id/pw, an IBM (presumably Passport/Advantage - although that's NOT what I'm prompted to enter!) id/pw, a ShopzSeries id/pw! And when all of these accounts get out of synch, how about ONE support phone number with ONE knowledgable professional who can RESOLVE the problem FULLY, instead of bouncing customers around from phone number to phone number, ultimately being directed to a web page that doesn't exist! Geez!!! Sorry folks, I just had to vent. !!! /VENT -Mike
Re: SHARE attendees - Any Update on the Live Guest Migration?
It was mentioned in a keynote - so I guess it is official now. No dates for it that I know of, except I think Jim Elliot said not this year in one of his presentations. -Paul On Mar 5, 2009, at 2:19 PM, Lionel B. Dyck wrote: Has there been any update on the status of Live Guest Migration? thx Lionel B. Dyck, Consultant/Specialist Enterprise Platform Services, Mainframe Engineering KP-IT Enterprise Engineering 925-926-5332 (8-473-5332) | E-Mail: lionel.b.d...@kp.org AIM: lbdyck | Yahoo IM: lbdyck Kaiser Service Credo: Our cause is health. Our passion is service. We’re here to make lives better.” “Never attribute to malice what can be caused by miscommunication.” NOTICE TO RECIPIENT: If you are not the intended recipient of this e- mail, you are prohibited from sharing, copying, or otherwise using or disclosing its contents. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments without reading, forwarding or saving them. Thank you.
Re: Value added by z/VM versus VMWARE
I don't think so Gary. Look at the pure cost of processing resources. A typical IFL today has what, 500 or so MIPs at a miniumum? That isn't going to emulate a typical bloated X86 system all that fast, even given the processing map within virtual machines. At least in general, it is difficult and expensive to match the pure processing power of modern x86 systems, even on modern mainframes. Also, I have doubts that z/VM would do a much better job virtualizing x86 machines than VMWare does. The x86 architechture is just - wierd. :) -Paul On Nov 4, 2008, at 11:58 AM, Gary M. Dennis wrote: If z/VM supported virtual x86 systems, that support would make the platforms extremely competitive and, potentially, cause a sea change in the source of computing resource for x86. Considering the average CPU utilization for x86 desktop systems (less than 15% by some estimates), such support could make for a good match; guest systems that do practically nothing and a virtualization system with a remarkable ability to allocate resources among a large number of guests. On 11/2/08 2:12 PM, Paul Raulerson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's what confuses me- the two platforms, mainframe and x86 are hardly competitive to each other. --. .- .-. -.-- Gary Dennis
Re: I/O Overhead - z/VM versus VMWARE
VMWare ESX imposes roughly the same overhead here as z/VM, about 3% of the processor, and of course, it allocates memory on a virtual basis. Now, the workstation versions are far more demanding, taking up to 35 or 40% of the processor; as far as I know, there is really no analogy of this in z/VM. On Nov 4, 2008, at 2:54 PM, A. Harry Williams wrote: On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 18:25:17 -0500, Alan Ackerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I got asked: “Does z/VM impose non-insignificant overhead? Is it similar to VMware= , in which virtual I/O imposes significant overhead, but most processor and = memory access runs at close to native physical speed?” I don’t know anything about VMWARE so I could not answer the question.= I know that CCW Translation in VM costs significant cycles. I think FCP disks dedicated DASD fullpack minidisks small minidisk= s. I would HOPE that the zSeries, with so much of virtualization built into= the hardware, would have lower costs than VMWARE, but I don’t really k= now. Any takers? I'm hesitant to mention this, since I would have thought it would be brou= ght up by others, but last I knew, VMWare doesn't have anywhere the performan= ce monitoring capabilities that z/VM does. It has some minor SNMP http://pubs.vmware.com/esx254/admin/wwhelp/wwhimpl/common/html/wwhelp.htm= ?context=adminfile=esx25admin_snmp.8.1.html but that appears to be the limit of its function. /ahw Are there any web sites that give performance comparisons VM versus VMWA= RE? Alan Ackerman= Alan (dot) Ackerman (at) Bank of America (dot) com = == ===
Re: Value added by z/VM versus VMWARE
I'm not even sure how they would wind up on a comparison, but roughly, if you need high I/O or transactional capabilty -- use z/VM. If you need a whale of a lot of CPU processing, use Intel. On Nov 2, 2008, at 9:34 AM, Barton Robinson wrote: Exactly, but the issue is to explain this to peter principal IT managers. Paul Raulerson wrote: I am very confused indeed by this whole conversation -VMWARE and z/ VM solve different solutions. And they are both extraordinarily good at what they do. Just at the 10,000 foot level, VMWARE is designed to virtualize PC hardware and z/VM virtualizes mainframe hardware. Dismissing this as just two different hardware platforms is rather disingenuous, though admittedly, it is a true statement. Then again, a nuclear powered aircraft carrier and diesel powered megaton oil tanker are both ships - just two different hardware platforms. They hardly operate in the same realms though. Where everything starts to get different is the underlying hardware. And at that level, it gets very VERY different indeed. In some ways, VMWARE is more like an LPAR than a VM guest instance, but that difference is driven more by the hardware capabilities than by the design. -Paul On Nov 1, 2008, at 6:34 PM, Barton Robinson wrote: One thing that really bothers me about VMWARE. When I ask about performance to the people that measure, they tell me the VMWARE contract specifically states they are not allowed to talk about it's performance. A vendor that won't let people talk about performance must be very afraid details will be made public and don't really need to invest in improving it's performance. Since we can not provide facts to confuse management, it comes down to religion or companies providing their own facts. A professor from I think Stutgaart presented last year at the GSE/ IBM meeting pretty convincingly that VMWARE was about 20 years behind z/VM in almost any fair technological aspect you wish to evaluate. And I think he was wrong - I don't see sharing of resources in VMWARE even what z/VM had 20 years ago. VMWARE is much more like LPAR, so any argument you can use for z/VM vs LPAR works as well. I believe VMWARE is great for desktops where users may want to run applications that only run on different versions of windows or Linux. Now there is a company in California that is even virtualizing the desktops, give end users a small appliance, keyboard and monitor, and the software runs on a virtualized PC, where all software runs on the central virtualized PC that then supports multiple users. They save a lot of money by only having one copy of MS Office to support multiple end users. (Does this sound like 3270 and mainframes to anyone else?) Alan Ackerman wrote: Another question from the same architecture person. What is the value add ed by z/VM over VMWARE for a Linux workload? (That's my wording, not his.) As usual, I don't know anything about what VMWARE can or cannot do. I'm s ure it can run fewer guests than VM, but not how many. VM has shared DASD and DCSSes and NSSes , but most Linux people don't see the value of those things -- disks are cheap and come wi th the PC, memory is cheap, etc. VM has automation capabilities, but Linux has those too, and IBM sells all those Tivoli products to tie them together, report performance, provide high availabil ity, etc. I think the advantage on the mainframe is economy of scale. But how do yo u measure that? At present, you can save money on software and peripherals enough to cost -justify the mainframe. Reduced people costs are hard to quantify and scare the heck o ut of the midrange folks. But I wonder how long those software prices will last? Red Hat charges $1 8,000 per IFL for 7x24 support. (I found that on a web site, and I asked our Red Hat representat ive to make sure.) I couldn't find any prices on Novel SuSEs web site. We have other software with higher prices per engine for the mainframe. He specifically mentioned the ability to pick up a Linux guest running un der VMWARE and moving it to another box running VMWARE. So far VM cannot do that. Ideas on what value z/VM adds would be appreciated! Alan Ackerman Alan (dot) Ackerman (at) Bank of America (dot) com
Re: Value added by z/VM versus VMWARE
Sure- and it does a good job doing that too. On Intel x86. That's what confuses me- the two platforms, mainframe and x86 are hardly competitive to each other. Or perhaps they are in some minds. But something sure had to go down twisted to get that kind of comparison running again. :) -Paul On Nov 2, 2008, at 9:39 AM, Nick Laflamme wrote: On Nov 1, 2008, at 9:58 PM, Paul Raulerson wrote: I am very confused indeed by this whole conversation -VMWARE and z/ VM solve different solutions. And they are both extraordinarily good at what they do. IBM is positioning z/VM as a platform for virtualization, for hosting Linux applications and for other guest OSes. Which, from what I hear, is how VMWARE is being positioned. Bring together those light applications, those occasionally used Linux daemons. This reminds me of personal computer market space twenty-five to thirty years ago: people bought Apple ][s because it had Visicalc. Then Lotus 1-2-3 sold a few IBM PCs. Applications sold hardware. Both z/VM and VMWARE are selling virtualization for Linux applications. Are shops going to invest in Z platform or in WinTel platform to support Linux application virtualization? All of us can point to things either platform doesn't support, but to some managers, the question is regrettably simple: OK, where do we put the next applications that can be virtualized?
Re: Linux command
ifconfig -a This will display all the defined network interfaces and their paramaters. -Paul -Original Message- From: Martin, Terry R. (CMS/CTR) (CTR) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2008 05:21 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Linux command Hi Can someone tell me the Linux command to display the HiperSockets interface defined to the Linux guest? I want to find the IP address that is associated with the HiperSockets CHPID and triplets. I am running REDHAT REL4.6 Thank You, Terry Martin Lockheed Martin - Information Technology z/OS z/VM Systems - Performance and Tuning Cell - 443 632-4191 Work - 410 786-0386 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Alternatives to 3490E
Hi Ed-? ?I really like the TS1120's, and your cart count would go way down. ?(The midrange carts can hold about a Terabyte, with encryption.)? ?What I am looking at right now is a VTL (EMC and IBM) that is fronts for a pair of TS1120's. ?Looks like a great fit here.? -Paul ? -Original Message- From: Edward M. Martin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 8, 2008 10:42 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Alternatives to 3490E HelloEveryone, ? Ihave been listening to the various cartridge situations.? VTAPE, D/R, andthe like. ? Weare on 3490E right now with 4 VSE/ESA, 1 zVSE, and 1 zVM systems. ? Weuse EPIC on the VSE side and manually manage the tapes on the zVM side(D/R tapeusage only). ??? On the VSE side there are the following inthe EPIC system. ? TOTAL ACTIVE TAPES??? 7001? TOTAL SCRATCHTAPES 901 TOTAL NUMBER OFTAPES7902? TOTAL NUMBER OF DATA SET ENTRIES? 1066?? ? ??? We do? some vary minor outside tapeprocessing. ? What are the tape alternatives?? Please correct me onwhat I am starting to look at. ? IBM 3590 ? costsand cartridge replacements ?(retired system?) VSSI VTAPE diskcosts and lack of easy D/R. IBM VTL system Virtualized Tapesystems EMC DISK LIBRARY ? Replacement for Carts ?D/Rquestions. ? Other possible solutions.?? ??? ?? ? Ed Martin Aultman Health Foundation 330-588-4723 ext 40441 ?
Re: Partially Successful: OpenVMS on System z
Holy (!^#) Batman!! Would you believe I have been moving some of my personal clients (not my day job :) onto OpenVMS on Itaniums because: (1) The clients are purely disgusted with the iSeries world. The thing is now named i - no series! Try to explain that to a an irritated customer! (2) The clients don't have budgets big enough to move to an zSeries solution, especially since PSI and Flex seem dead, and IBM is taking its sweet time about coming out with an affordable small system (ala MP3Ks...) (3) HP has a great developer program (4) I an put them on an Itanium, with software, for under $10K. Under $3K if they are okay with used hardware. Alphas are even less, but are *all* used hardware. Wow... Yeah, I'm interested. :) On Sep 8, 2008, at 2:19 PM, David Boyes wrote: Latest interesting step: I’ve gotten a partial boot of OpenVMS in a virtual machine on System z. Some instruction emulation still needs work (the Alpha POP is a little unclear in a few areas), but we have system services initializing and hardware detection is fully functional. *grin* Anybody interested? -- db David Boyes Sine Nomine Associates
Re: Partially Successful: OpenVMS on System z
I must admit, when I realized it was just he ES40 emulator (running under Linux?) I was a bit disappointed. I was thinking it was running as a VM guest, like Solaris. I have not been able to get that emulator to run reliably under Intel Linux. (*sigh*) On Sep 8, 2008, at 5:19 PM, dave wrote: Ditto, what Paul said.:-) I didn't know that OpenVMS could run on Intel Itaniums, but it sounds way cool. DJ What's next, Mac under z/VM? :-) - Original Message - From: Paul Raulerson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Partially Successful: OpenVMS on System z Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 17:36:51 -0500 Holy (!^#) Batman!! Would you believe I have been moving some of my personal clients (not my day job :) onto OpenVMS on Itaniums because: (1) The clients are purely disgusted with the iSeries world. The thing is now named i - no series! Try to explain that to a an irritated customer! (2) The clients don't have budgets big enough to move to an zSeries solution, especially since PSI and Flex seem dead, and IBM is taking its sweet time about coming out with an affordable small system (ala MP3Ks...) (3) HP has a great developer program (4) I an put them on an Itanium, with software, for under $10K. Under $3K if they are okay with used hardware. Alphas are even less, but are *all* used hardware. Wow... Yeah, I'm interested. :) On Sep 8, 2008, at 2:19 PM, David Boyes wrote: Latest interesting step: I’ve gotten a partial boot of OpenVMS in a virtual machine on System z. Some instruction emulation still needs work (the Alpha POP is a little unclear in a few areas), but we have system services initializing and hardware detection is fully functional. *grin* Anybody interested? -- db David Boyes Sine Nomine Associates
Re: Partially Successful: OpenVMS on System z
grin Someone please correct me and tell me that it is really running as a guest os :) :) :) On Sep 8, 2008, at 5:19 PM, dave wrote: Ditto, what Paul said.:-) I didn't know that OpenVMS could run on Intel Itaniums, but it sounds way cool. DJ What's next, Mac under z/VM? :-) - Original Message - From: Paul Raulerson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Partially Successful: OpenVMS on System z Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 17:36:51 -0500 Holy (!^#) Batman!! Would you believe I have been moving some of my personal clients (not my day job :) onto OpenVMS on Itaniums because: (1) The clients are purely disgusted with the iSeries world. The thing is now named i - no series! Try to explain that to a an irritated customer! (2) The clients don't have budgets big enough to move to an zSeries solution, especially since PSI and Flex seem dead, and IBM is taking its sweet time about coming out with an affordable small system (ala MP3Ks...) (3) HP has a great developer program (4) I an put them on an Itanium, with software, for under $10K. Under $3K if they are okay with used hardware. Alphas are even less, but are *all* used hardware. Wow... Yeah, I'm interested. :) On Sep 8, 2008, at 2:19 PM, David Boyes wrote: Latest interesting step: I’ve gotten a partial boot of OpenVMS in a virtual machine on System z. Some instruction emulation still needs work (the Alpha POP is a little unclear in a few areas), but we have system services initializing and hardware detection is fully functional. *grin* Anybody interested? -- db David Boyes Sine Nomine Associates
Re: MORE THAN HALF THE MAINFRAME MIPS IBM SELLS ARE LINUX?
On the other hand, IBM sells a load of Linux only mainframes these days, most of which come with a z/VM license. ; It is not beyond reason that half of the MIPS out there are Linux MIPS. IFL's are generally faster and cheaper too. Why would you think otherwise? -Paul On Sep 4, 2008, at 11:54 PM, Mark Post wrote: On 9/5/2008 at 12:18 AM, in message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Alan Ackerman[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Any truth to this? Someone at work forwarded it to me. The web site works. David Boyes of Sine Nomine Associates is quoted. I doubt it. As was mentioned in one of the comments, the figures most people have heard from IBM have been in the 20% range. The fact that the author claims Sine Nomine was the company responsible for porting Linux to Big Iron ten years ago doesn't inspire a lot of confidence either. (As much as I respect and admire all the people who participated in Bigfoot, it wasn't an SNA project, since SNA didn't even exist at the time.)
Re: MORE THAN HALF THE MAINFRAME MIPS IBM SELLS ARE LINUX?
(*sigh*) Good for you Mark. So how many new z/OS installs have been sold by IBM in the past four years? I know of exactly 2. How many new Linux installs? I personally know of at least 48, maybe 49. I have no idea how many z/OS only shops are now z/OS, z/VM, and Linux, but I do know of quite a few of those. I am sure willing to be enlightened though - care to share any facts? I have hated to miss the past two Shares, but golly - been working full time on - you guess it - zLinux. -Paul On Sep 6, 2008, at 10:51 AM, Mark Post wrote: On 9/6/2008 at 11:30 AM, in message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Paul Raulerson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On the other hand, IBM sells a load of Linux only mainframes these days, most of which come with a z/VM license. ; It is not beyond reason that half of the MIPS out there are Linux MIPS. IFL's are generally faster and cheaper too. Why would you think otherwise? Because of the conversations I and others have had with IBMers that would know. At SHARE and in other avenues of communication. Mark Post
Re: Where Do I Go From Here?
High school latin 3 decades agao notwithsatanding, what the heck does that mean? None of those words translate or even transliterate inside my head.? Most like a failure inside my head... :)? -Paul ? -Original Message- From: Schuh, Richard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 25, 2008 11:19 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Where Do I Go From Here? Depends on whether you are trying to be correct and not understood, or just understood, by the masses who do not speak Latin. Who among those of us who do not speak Latin would ever be able to decipher, Noli nothis permittere te terere??? ? Wasn't? Illegitimi non Carborundum originally intended to be humorous? Regards, Richard Schuh ? ? From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Edward M. Martin Sent: Monday, August 25, 2008 8:37 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Where Do I Go From Here? Should it really be Noli nothis permittere te terere ? Ed Martin Aultman Health Foundation 330-588-4723 ext 40441 From:The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Schuh, Richard Sent: Friday, August 22, 2008 2:24 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Where Do I Go From Here? ? Dave Wade said Illegitimi Non Carborundum ? After so many years of abrasion, your skin gets thinner. I do not suffer fools nearly as well as I once did. ? Regards, Richard Schuh ? ?
Re: Where Do I Go From Here?
Jovial! Lord I miss working with that, and CMS-2Q too. :) Anyways, have you looked at the used market? You can pick up a used z800 o a z890 for a sweet deal these days, often well under $100K. z/ VM is available to license for those machines at a pretty good cost, and you can always negotiate a discount. Since you don't need to run z/OS, z9's are available with a couple IFL's for the sub $500K mark, with DASD. (You definitely have to negotiate that...) Or if you can run under MVS, look at hosting it on Hercules under Intel Linux. Very cheap! -Paul On Aug 21, 2008, at 4:49 PM, Karl Severson wrote: I need some advice and hopefully someone on this list serve has already = tackled the problem I’m having. We run our IBM systems solely to suppor= t the U.S. Air Force Jovial J73 compiler and its assorted toolset. The compiler was originally written to run on MVS but it was tweaked for us t= o run on VM in 370 mode back in the mid 1980’s. Needless to say we are = running unsupported software, in our case VM/ESA 2.3 so as a result we = aren’t running any modern big IBM iron either. My organization is considering re-hosting Jovial on some sort of Windows platform but I’d = like to keep this an IBM operation if at all possible. We also heavily use Uni= x, Linux and Windows on other platforms. To offset some of the cost of a new= system (z9 at a minimum) maybe it could do double or triple duty replacin= g some of those other platforms. Of my options, which would be the most efficient? The latest zVM with a = VM/ESA guest? The latest zOS with a VM/ESA guest? Some other combination?= Or, heaven forbid, go with re-hosting to Windows? I’m not worried about= putting myself out of a job. I’ve already retired once and am just doin= g some contractor work at the place I retired from. ;-) Thanks in advance. Karl Severson IBM VM System Administrator Raytheon Company El Segundo, California
Re: Linux Commands
LOL! I didn't mean to start an editor war. In fact I keep THE editor available on all my Unix and Linux systems, most especially Linux. Editing HLASM is much nicer in THE than in vi, and the same for COBOL. But like someone else pointed out, I use vi to edit the makefiles to build both THE and Regina (Rexx). The real point is that THE, or Emacs, and similar editors hide a lot of the underlying UNIX from you. vi is far simpler, and forces you to focus on and learn a few Unix / Linux basic concepts. So in learning an editor, you get a functional introduction to Unix. I used to teach vi At GunPoint classes, 20 minutes of lecture/demo, 10 mins of questions, and 30 minutes of lab. People would come out of it with confidence that vi was not the mysterious magical thing they were afraid if, but instead was an editor they were sure they could master. Especially regular expressions; once you learn how to find and search/ replace in vi, you basically know how regex works everywhere. For example, vi find/search/replace gives you the basics of programming AWK, which is a very powerful document/text processing system. You also have the basis for understanding things like using substitution in shell scripts to, for example, create files that have the date and time embedded in their name. Lots and lots of peanuts... :) The real point is that Linux is flat out FUN for most mainframers, once they get over the initial frustration of it just being different. It is similar to z/VM in that each user has their own safe machine to operate in, and the system is pretty safe from unprivileged users. And just like VM, it is fast and inexpensive. And Unix has been around in one form or another for about 40 years, so there are a lot of people out there who can - and are willing to - help you with just about anything. Once caveat - compared to the z/VM world, there are a couple of orders of magnitude more options available with Unix/Linux. Seriously. And there are also a lot of people out there that are - eh - zealots - in regard to their favorite plug in your own name language/program/ editor/methodology/gui of the day. Mainframers generally have no trouble recognizing those people and ignoring them when appropriate. :) -Paul On Aug 15, 2008, at 9:52 AM, Adam Thornton wrote: On Aug 15, 2008, at 8:58 AM, Rich Greenberg wrote: On: Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 10:03:14PM -0500,Adam Thornton Wrote: } On Aug 14, 2008, at 9:34 PM, Paul Raulerson wrote: } } (1) Learn vi. } } Heretic. Adam may call me a heretic also but I agree with Paul. While there are many other editors available on *ix and you can easily start a holy war over which is the best, vi is the editor that you can be sure is there. Want to install EMACS (aka Eight Megs And Constantly Swapping) or THE or any others on a newly installed *ix? Use vi to tailor the makefile and config files first. Coming in as a consultant and the system doesn't have SuperEditorX which you are used to, and you don't have the time to learn SuperEditorY, it will almost certainly have vi. Rich is, I hate to say, right. Very few systems will not have vi preinstalled. Emacs is hardly ever already-just-there (yay OS X!). So you SHOULD learn enough vi to get by. Fortunately, that's pretty much: hjkl, 0 and $, escape, /, dd, x, i, a, w, q, and ! Adam
Re: Linux Commands
Second that. :) On my personal SuSE system running here, there are over 34K possible commands on the system, where a command is an executable program or script. That doesn't include the commands available inside programs like shells. As IBMers, we all love our manuals, and don't want to live without the comfortable little beasties. However, Linux, as with all UNIX flavors, isn't really as complex as it seems. Here's my general recommendation to folks just encountering it: (1) Learn vi. Sounds awful to new folks, and always results in a enormous amount of griping. But once you know vi, you have the power to make an awful lot of things happen- because Linux/Unix is literally riddled with configuration files - text files that is. You *have* to be able to edit them with absolutely no effort at all. vi is a far more powerful editor than you might imagine by the way, especially in the vim incarnation that is the modern standard. It is arguably the equal of ISPF, XEdit, TPU, or others. (2) Learn about the filesystems, especially in terms of mounts and mount points and filesystem types. A NFS filesystem is pretty much going to look just like a local file system, but there are differences, besides figuring out what exactly an NFS filesystem is, I mean. The concept of volumes exists in Linux/Unix, but *not at the user level*. Only at the admin level. That takes a little getting used to. (Especially so in zLinux where you are using Minidisks or 3390-9 volumes, or whatever your particular configuration entails.) (3) In accomplishing the above, you are automatically going to learn the basic set of commands, like ls, mv, rm, cat, etc. Also, how pipes work and how applications on a Unix system are really cobbled together from an almost infinite set of combinations of a very small set of tools. Think of it like language; English only has 27 letters in the alphabet, but how many words can be built from those tiny parts? Same idea in Unix. (4) Under SuSE, learn how to use YAST. It will *build* complex commands for you - so copy them down in your notebook and study them. Like learning assembler from Cobol listings. :) (5) Most importantly, ask questions, even if they seem elementary; don't be embarassed! How do I copy a file up one directory from where I am at? is *not* a stupid question. It has a lot of subtle issues surrounding it! (Relative vs. Absolute directory paths, permissions, etc. ) Permissions for example, is a whole odd kettle of fish to most Mainframers, since the permissions are in OCTAL - which a legacy from the DEC machines Unix was born on I suppose. It's like feeding the elephant; each peanut of information you glean will inevitably lead you to many other subjects and pockets of information. But don't worry, it is like a phase change; one day you will be frustrated, thinking you will never get it mastered. The next day, you will realize you just did an incredibly complex thing without giving it a second thought. :) Best -Paul On Aug 14, 2008, at 7:08 PM, Thomas Kern wrote: When CMS HELP first came out, the group I was with built a process to format and print all of the Help files into our own books. It would be nice if there was a process to format and print all of the MAN pages that are resident on an arbitrary linux system (z or x86). /Tom Kern David Boyes wrote: That's going to be complicated because every program you install becomes a new command, and some commands could be books all to themselves. There's also the complication that there are several variations to how documentation for Linux commands is prepared and maintained. All packages are *supposed* to include man pages, but that can be a bit spotty for some of the commands maintained by smaller groups or individuals. The man command will display summaries for each command and details. Some commands use the info command, and some supply HTML pages (which I personally detest). Example: 'man ls' will display a manual page for the ls command. If you're not sure of the exact command, try 'man -k' and a keyword, eg 'man - k mail' will get you all the commands that contain the keyword 'mail' somehow. The commands that use 'info' (usually things originating in the GNU project like GCC) work with similar syntax, but they bring up a full screen browser to navigate the documentation. Info tends to be used for more complex applications, like emacs. The emacs documentation is a full-scale book of it's own. Your best bet is a good Unix book like the O'reilly sysadmin guides. You can usually get copies of them at better tech bookstores (alas for Computer Literacysigh... RIP). - db On 8/14/08 5:39 PM, Alyce Austin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Does a manual exists that has all the SuSE Linux commands listed running on the Z series with really good examples? Thanks for your support, Alyce
Re: Nice idea in blog: Should we toss x86 architecture
I think that even 10 copies of Windows, especially in an emulated environment, will eat up enormous amounts of zSeries CPU. Add in the license costs from Microsoft, and I'm not sure it makes any kind of financial sense. But I like the idea. I plan to watch this develop with my eyes out on stalks. :) -Paul On Jul 22, 2008, at 1:53 PM, Rich Smrcina wrote: My guess is that all of the GUIs won't be actively doing things all at the same time. Newer levels of Windows can also run headless. Granted 3000 copies of Windows will probably require some pretty good sized hardware, this sounds like a pretty cool product. Romanowski, John (OFT) wrote: How can the z handle 3000 copies of Windows all running a graphic user interface (cpu-intensive) ? -- Rich Smrcina VM Assist, Inc. Phone: 414-491-6001 Ans Service: 360-715-2467 rich.smrcina at vmassist.com http://www.linkedin.com/in/richsmrcina Catch the WAVV! http://www.wavv.org WAVV 2009 - Orlando, FL - May 15-19, 2009
Re: FTP timeout on open request
I've seen that a lot when the FTP server is being run from inetd or xinetd, and requires and IDENT transaction. Did someone change your configuration, either adding an IDENT rquirement on the FTP server or removing an IDENT process on the remote machine? ---BeginMessage--- Hello all... for about four weeks we have a strange FTP problem. A Servicemachine working for months and gathering data from a remote system suddenly makes problems. The FTP open to the remote system always gets a timout: ftp 128.1.2.120 ( timeout 450 trace VM TCP/IP FTP Level 440 Translate Table: STANDARD about to call BeginTcpIp Connecting to 128.1.2.120, port 21 SysAct 0 21 -2147417480 CC -1 == Active open to host 128.1.2.120 port 21 from host 0 port 65535 Foreign host did not respond within OPEN timeout Unable to connect to 128.1.2.120 Foreign host did not respond within OPEN timeout Command: quit SysHalt has been Called Ready; T=0.01/0.02 14:08:40 Ping and traceroute are working well. This is z/VM 4.4, the remote system is an AIX system. A tcpdump analysis by a network guru shows that the z/VM FTP is resetting the packets receiving from the open request to AIX system. But in the tcpdump-file we find no reason for this behavior. Any ideas ? Thanks Ewald Roller Rolf Benz AG Co. KG ---End Message---
Re: IBM's Next Generation Mainframe Processor
Much as it is derided Alan, CPU speed is an important consideration. Not the only consideration of course, but important all the same. 4Ghz on a the PowerPC-like PU core of a mainframe is - impressive. Of course, IBM has always been a little retentive about stuff like that, because they always like to cap the processors for sales reasons. (One of which is of course, a customer never complains if it goes a little but faster than advertised, but will scream bloody murder if it ever runs slower than the maximum advertised speed. :) Besides which- the competition here is small machines that have boatloads of processor cycles; so much so it is not a problem at all to run three, four, or even five to ten virtual machines on them running a full PC OS. That also tells you how inefficient and poorly written most PC'Oss are, because Windows, for example, does not run noticeably faster *even when it has the entire machine*. Amazing... On the Mainframe side, that is also true, but with a twist. On the mainframe it is because the OS's are very efficient indeed, and very highly optimized to the underlying hardware (well, virtual hardware in the case of z/Arch I suppose.) That's a very big difference when you get down to the underlying core. So sure - yack up the 4Ghz- sing out about it at the top of your voice! Be sure to mention that a mainframe can actually USE all that processing power, especially running z/VM or z/OS. Something that the competition just cannot do, period. :) -Paul -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Alan Altmark Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2007 11:03 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: IBM's Next Generation Mainframe Processor On Saturday, 10/13/2007 at 06:03 EDT, McKown, John [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 3) The cycle time is 4GHz+ and just as with MIPS, GHz is a meaningless indicator of processor speed. True, but we will be able to shut the Intel bigots up just by saying that our CPU is 4 Ghz and not a paltry 3 Ghz like their's. Granted, meaningless, but it still will be nice. (sigh) I feel like saying to them, Is your fave machine so one-dimensional that all you can ever talk about is the frequency of the oscillator on the CPU chip? Describe for me, please, the business value of 1 MHz. I will wait Still waiting... Hello? Is anyone there? Hello? So we probably *don't* want to play up the 4 GHz because in 6 months, *they'll* have 4 GHz, and then where will we be? I suppose we should knuckle down and define a new eHG (e-holy grail) that is a function of CPU speed, disk access time, bus latency, memory latency, number of peripherals, wind direction, amount of local disk storage, number of tape drives, power consumption (kwh), mean age of programmers who wrote the code you're running, and the number of cubic meters it all occupies based on cabinet dimensions, the air-speed of an unladen *African* swallow (in April, of course), and total length of cables. Warning: If we could have such a number, it would probably be ignored in favor of CPU speed. Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott
Re: zSeries Linux - White Paper for Management
Nope, but I sure wish it were so Barton. We need a performance monitor anyway, and that would be just more fuel for the fire. :) What blew us away was a very simple desire to backup around 4 to 6 million files per night, store them on tape, and keep about 45 days of them on hand. Yes, this is perhaps primitive compared to what TSM can do, but we figured that was all the more to the better- it would be able to do it without any trouble. The sheer number of the files brought the machine here to it's knees - not because of the I/O, but because of the database transactions and the really huge size of the database after about of, three weeks. Tried it on bare metal as well, eliminating z/VM and every thing other possible source of any kind of overhead. Zang... BTW: That hugh size of te database was only a coupe hundred gigabytes, but the IBM TSM people goggled in horror at it... That was worth the trip to see! :) The blades have not even a fraction of the I/O throughput of the mainframe, but with four cores cranking on the database, we actually get four to five times higher throughput. I'm thinking of tossing a second blade at it if I can get 'em t share the TS1120s. Sometimes, no matter how clever or intelligent you are about using CPU resources, you just near to pour enormous numbers of cycles at a problem. At least, that is the TSM way... ;) -Paul ---BeginMessage--- Paul, any chance you are having an easily fixable performance problem with TSM backups that a decent performance monitor will point out? Paul Raulerson wrote: What are you running on Mark? And how much are you backing up. I really need some GOOD examples of TSM working! :) I do have a large number of document images to back up each day, so what happens to us is the database gets really large, well over a hungred gigabytes. At htat point, it cannot expire information before new backups are being added, and it *all* goes downhill from there. I blame the ancient version of DB/2 that is embededed it in, and the Linux kernel version that is required to run a TSM server on z/Linux on an IFL. -Paul Subject: Re: zSeries Linux - White Paper for Management From: Mark Wheeler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 19:23:00 + To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Really? That hasn't been my experience at all. Runs like a rocketship here. Mark L. Wheeler IT Infrastructure, 3M Center B224-4N-20, St Paul MN 55144 Tel: (651) 733-4355, Fax: (651) 736-7689 mlwheeler at mmm.com “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan ---End Message---
Re: zSeries Linux - White Paper for Management
You know it is a z800 IFL. ;) And yes a z9 is much faster, but not so much faster than it will make that much of a difference. Much as it pains me to say it, it is not just folklore that xSeries chips can do a whole lot of processing, enough to make them serious contenders now for scientific processing or relatively large data crunching tasks. A z/9 IPF is at least 2.4 times the speed of a 2066 IFL, but in terms of sheer data crunching, the xSeries chips we are using here are about 6x the data crunching power. (Heck, a blade here they will *emulate* over 240 Mainframe MIPS running z/Linux with Hercules, which is quite portable but at teh expensse of efficiency. They are at least an order of magnitude faster running native code, and probably two or possibly even three magnitudes faster.) TSM is really *really* due for an overhaul in terms of efficieny and speed. In comparison; z/Linux running under z/VM on on a z IFL sharing with other systems (and at a lower priority!! grin) can back up the same files to the same tapes using tar in a little over two hours. TSM on the same hardware, same Linux instance, and same tapes backing up the exact same files - 21 hours when the database is full. About 12 when it is empty. Something just ain't right there. For comparision, tar on the blade will max out in terms of I/O and take about 2.4 hours to backup those same files to the same tape. It varies with TSM, but four to six hours is the normal now I think, but that is with only 10 days oif rentition! NOT 45. A final point - an IFL costs $125K and up; a blade costs $11K, all other things being equal. Two IFLs to run TSM is a quarter of million dollars, while even 5 blades is only about $55K. Not saying those five blades can do what the IFLs can do of course, but in this one task, with this one ornery hunk of software, I believe they are a btter solution. At least until the TSM peopel get off their duffs and do something about the bloated out of date ill executed ... oh well, you get the idea. -Paul ---BeginMessage--- Ok, I had to ask. But also, which flavor IFL are you running? A z800 might be considered slow (or very slow) by some and not competitive, and a z9 might be considered a rocket ship Personally, the z9 IFL makes us competitive on a CPU basis (except for weather modeling and things like that). Paul Raulerson wrote: Nope, but I sure wish it were so Barton. We need a performance monitor anyway, and that would be just more fuel for the fire. :) What blew us away was a very simple desire to backup around 4 to 6 million files per night, store them on tape, and keep about 45 days of them on hand. Yes, this is perhaps primitive compared to what TSM can do, but we figured that was all the more to the better- it would be able to do it without any trouble. The sheer number of the files brought the machine here to it's knees - not because of the I/O, but because of the database transactions and the really huge size of the database after about of, three weeks. Tried it on bare metal as well, eliminating z/VM and every thing other possible source of any kind of overhead. Zang... BTW: That hugh size of te database was only a coupe hundred gigabytes, but the IBM TSM people goggled in horror at it... That was worth the trip to see! :) The blades have not even a fraction of the I/O throughput of the mainframe, but with four cores cranking on the database, we actually get four to five times higher throughput. I'm thinking of tossing a second blade at it if I can get 'em t share the TS1120s. Sometimes, no matter how clever or intelligent you are about using CPU resources, you just near to pour enormous numbers of cycles at a problem. At least, that is the TSM way... ;) -Paul Paul, any chance you are having an easily fixable performance problem with TSM backups that a decent performance monitor will point out? Paul Raulerson wrote: What are you running on Mark? And how much are you backing up. I really need some GOOD examples of TSM working! :) I do have a large number of document images to back up each day, so what happens to us is the database gets really large, well over a hungred gigabytes. At htat point, it cannot expire information before new backups are being added, and it *all* goes downhill from there. I blame the ancient version of DB/2 that is embededed it in, and the Linux kernel version that is required to run a TSM server on z/Linux on an IFL. -Paul Subject: Re: zSeries Linux - White Paper for Management From: Mark Wheeler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 19:23:00 + To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Really? That hasn't been my experience at all. Runs like a rocketship here. Mark L. Wheeler IT Infrastructure, 3M Center B224-4N-20, St Paul MN 55144 Tel: (651) 733-4355, Fax: (651) 736-7689
Re: zSeries Linux - White Paper for Management
Hey Paul - I have the barebones of one, but nothing in shape to publish at this time. A couple of notes though; Mainframe Linux has most of the same issues as workstation linux, but benefits greatly from the vast I/O resourcs of the mainframe. It works better under z/VM than on the bare metal (LPAR or no LPAR). It fails miserably only in one situation, and that is where whatever you are running on it is very compute intensive. For example, Tivoli really takes a couple of IFLSs to run all by iself, and is, IMNSHO, far better situated on an xSeries blade or pSeries server. Also, don't even think of running XWindows clients on it; much better to write customer Client/Server products, or use a web interface, than to do that. In general, avoid processor intensive work, like image manipulation or most scientific computing. -Paul ---BeginMessage--- Has anyone written a white paper on the how's and why's of zSeries Linux, and how it not only saves money but improves reliability and security? I need something to convince the management that having things scattered all over you-know-who's half acre is not the optimum way to run things. It's very hard (and frustrating...) trying to deal with the mainframes are obsolete and outdated mentality that exists. Thank You Paul Adrian. ---End Message---
Re: zSeries Linux - White Paper for Management
Sorry Marcy - Tivoli Storagte Manager (TSM). Running the server on an IFL, if you are backing up any number of files, will drag it down to the ground in versy short order because of the database. It always amazes me that TSM cannot do something simple, like backing up 4 or 5 million files per night, without busting it's database. :) I moved it from a Linux instance here to an LS20 Dual processor Dual Core Blade with 8gb od RAM and it is much happier. What took intolerably long times on the IFL runs in about 1/3 the time on the blade. That surprised me so much that I spent about three or four weeks testing and proviing it over and over and over. :) -Paul ---BeginMessage--- Tivoli what? Marcy Cortes 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Raulerson Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 10:21 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: [IBMVM] zSeries Linux - White Paper for Management Hey Paul - I have the barebones of one, but nothing in shape to publish at this time. A couple of notes though; Mainframe Linux has most of the same issues as workstation linux, but benefits greatly from the vast I/O resourcs of the mainframe. It works better under z/VM than on the bare metal (LPAR or no LPAR). It fails miserably only in one situation, and that is where whatever you are running on it is very compute intensive. For example, Tivoli really takes a couple of IFLSs to run all by iself, and is, IMNSHO, far better situated on an xSeries blade or pSeries server. Also, don't even think of running XWindows clients on it; much better to write customer Client/Server products, or use a web interface, than to do that. In general, avoid processor intensive work, like image manipulation or most scientific computing. -Paul ---End Message---
Re: zSeries Linux - White Paper for Management
Pretty much anything that works on a demand basis rather than a continuous drain. Printing has some interesting side issues, as in many ways, Unix/Linux printing is not as sophisticated as mainframe or midrange printing. That usually means buying a third party package, which is hard to find for z/Linux. There are some, but they are hard to find. CUPS, LPR, LPRng, etc can all be configured to do routine tasks, but do not provide AFP like printing features, and in some cases, only very basic printer control. Database services on Linux have to be tuned with great care, and the tuning is not so easy or as well defined as under z/OS. Backup services (other than TSM!) work reliably well and with z/VM in the backgroud to manage access to tapes, share quite nicely. -Paul ---BeginMessage--- It probably stands to reason I/O related activities are much better suited, what kinds of applications can we bunch in to this, of course Web Serving and Database Serving, how about other things, such as Printer Serving?? Paul Raulerson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU 09/27/2007 01:20 PM Please respond to The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU To IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU cc Subject Re: zSeries Linux - White Paper for Management Hey Paul - I have the barebones of one, but nothing in shape to publish at this time. A couple of notes though; Mainframe Linux has most of the same issues as workstation linux, but benefits greatly from the vast I/O resourcs of the mainframe. It works better under z/VM than on the bare metal (LPAR or no LPAR). It fails miserably only in one situation, and that is where whatever you are running on it is very compute intensive. For example, Tivoli really takes a couple of IFLSs to run all by iself, and is, IMNSHO, far better situated on an xSeries blade or pSeries server. Also, don't even think of running XWindows clients on it; much better to write customer Client/Server products, or use a web interface, than to do that. In general, avoid processor intensive work, like image manipulation or most scientific computing. -Paul - Message from [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Thu, 27 Sep 2007 13:13:00 + - To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: zSeries Linux - White Paper for Management Has anyone written a white paper on the how's and why's of zSeries Linux, and how it not only saves money but improves reliability and security? I need something to convince the management that having things scattered all over you-know-who's half acre is not the optimum way to run things. It's very hard (and frustrating...) trying to deal with the mainframes are obsolete and outdated mentality that exists. Thank You Paul Adrian. ---End Message---
Re: zSeries Linux - White Paper for Management
What are you running on Mark? And how much are you backing up. I really need some GOOD examples of TSM working! :) I do have a large number of document images to back up each day, so what happens to us is the database gets really large, well over a hungred gigabytes. At htat point, it cannot expire information before new backups are being added, and it *all* goes downhill from there. I blame the ancient version of DB/2 that is embededed it in, and the Linux kernel version that is required to run a TSM server on z/Linux on an IFL. -Paul ---BeginMessage--- Really? That hasn't been my experience at all. Runs like a rocketship here. Mark L. Wheeler IT Infrastructure, 3M Center B224-4N-20, St Paul MN 55144 Tel: (651) 733-4355, Fax: (651) 736-7689 mlwheeler at mmm.com “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan Paul Raulerson [EMAIL PROTECTED] com To Sent by: The IBM IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU z/VM Operating cc System [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject ARK.EDU Re: zSeries Linux - White Paper for Management 09/27/2007 12:30 PM Please respond to The IBM z/VM Operating System [EMAIL PROTECTED] ARK.EDU Sorry Marcy - Tivoli Storagte Manager (TSM). Running the server on an IFL, if you are backing up any number of files, will drag it down to the ground in versy short order because of the database. It always amazes me that TSM cannot do something simple, like backing up 4 or 5 million files per night, without busting it's database. :) I moved it from a Linux instance here to an LS20 Dual processor Dual Core Blade with 8gb od RAM and it is much happier. What took intolerably long times on the IFL runs in about 1/3 the time on the blade. That surprised me so much that I spent about three or four weeks testing and proviing it over and over and over. :) -Paul - Message from Marcy Cortes [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Thu, 27 Sep 2007 17:24:00 + - To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: zSeries Linux - White Paper for Management Tivoli what? Marcy Cortes 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Raulerson Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 10:21 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: [IBMVM] zSeries Linux - White Paper for Management Hey Paul - I have the barebones of one, but nothing in shape to publish at this time. A couple of notes though; Mainframe Linux has most of the same issues as workstation linux, but benefits greatly from the vast I/O resourcs of the mainframe. It works better under z/VM than on the bare metal (LPAR or no LPAR). It fails miserably only in one situation, and that is where whatever you are running on it is very compute intensive. For example, Tivoli really takes a couple of IFLSs to run all by iself, and is, IMNSHO, far better situated on an xSeries blade or pSeries server. Also, don't even think of running XWindows
Z/VM Cook book
Does anyone know if they have updated the z/VM cookbook for 5.3 yet? That is one really fine redbook. I'm proud of myself, I got 5.3 installed today! Not configured yet, but it *is* installed. Funny story about booting DVD's from the HMC goes with that, but I think I will wait to share it until after the pain goes away. :) -Paul
Re: CPFMTXA: Automation of?
Just an outside suggestion - do you have all four FICON channels defined for the controllers in your IODCS? From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Crispin Hugo Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2007 1:15 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: CPFMTXA: Automation of? Anybody out there using DS6800 with z/VM 5.2 or 5.3 . We are having problems that anytime we update the software on DS6800, it takes out z/VM. There are 4 FICON channels. DS6800 disables 2 at a time as it does upgrade. VM can't seem to cope with this ? Crispin Hugo Systems Programmer, Macro 4 http://www.macro4.com/ http://www.macro4.com/ Macro 4 plc, The Orangery, Turners Hill Road, Worth, Crawley, RH10 4SS Direct Line: +44 (0)1293 872121 Switchboard: +44 (0) 1293 872000 Fax: +44 (0) 1293 872001 This email has been scanned for all known viruses by the MessageLabs Email Security Service and the Macro 4 plc internal virus protection system.
Meet up a share?
I'll be at share Sunday - Thursday; if anyone wants to meet up for a few beers (or root beers, as your preference dictates!) I think I owe several people here a few. :) Drop me an e-mail at [EMAIL PROTECTED] or drop me a cell phone call - 512-630-5759. I would enjoy getting to put faces to you folks! -Paul
Re: Meet up a share?
I'll be doing that as well. ;) -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Alan Altmark Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2007 8:04 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Meet up a share? On Saturday, 08/11/2007 at 08:59 EDT, Paul Raulerson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I?ll be at share Sunday ? Thursday; if anyone wants to meet up for a few beers (or root beers, as your preference dictates!) I think I owe several people here a few. :) Better would be to find the VM Linux table at SCIDS, uh, evening receptions. Just look for Edgar (the bear)! See you! Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott
Re: zLinux instance on Mod3 and need to move to a Mod 9
zipl as far as I can tell, does not write out the boot sector on the DASD the same way, or at least it does not appear to. Running zipl on a freshly copied volume here will not result in a DASD unit that will IPL. dd will. As to traditional - well - dd pretty well predates zipl and chgroot; we were doing it in the late 1970's. ;) -Paul ---BeginMessage--- On Jul 23, 2007, at 8:43 PM, Paul Raulerson wrote: Well, yeah, but that won’t make the DASD bootable. You need to copy over the boot sector as well, dd if=/dev/dasda1 of=/dev/dasdb1 bs=512 count=1 (substitute the correct devices in the above command of course. The first one is the 3390-3 and the second the 3390-9. I have not tested this on a zSeries machine, but it should work just fine.) A chroot and running zipl is more traditional. Adam ---End Message---
Re: zLinux instance on Mod3 and need to move to a Mod 9
The command you showed will copy the entire drive - the extra commands cause dd to copy only the boot sector. You really need to run a mkinitrd before you run the zipl, so as far as I can see, traditional or not, zipl does not seem to do the job until you can IPL from the pack. -Paul ---BeginMessage--- On Mon, 23 Jul 2007, Paul Raulerson wrote: Well, yeah, but that won???t make the DASD bootable. You need to copy over the boot sector as well, dd if=/dev/dasda1 of=/dev/dasdb1 bs=512 count=1 I believe the current DASD driver will get it right: dd if=/dev/dasda of=/dev/dasdb where if you copy the whole disk you'll get a working bootstrap. But this requires that the disk was formatted with 'dasdfmt' ahead of time. More accurately, it requires that the target was formatted with the same layout as the source. Adam's point is important. ZIPL is not only traditional but is the only way to be sure you have a bootstrap on the target disk that has been put in the right place (from what ZIPL can determine). The CDL layout in particular does funny things (my term) with track 0. -- R; ---End Message---
Re: zLinux instance on Mod3 and need to move to a Mod 9
Well, yeah, but that won’t make the DASD bootable. You need to copy over the boot sector as well, dd if=/dev/dasda1 of=/dev/dasdb1 bs=512 count=1 (substitute the correct devices in the above command of course. The first one is the 3390-3 and the second the 3390-9. I have not tested this on a zSeries machine, but it should work just fine.) -Paul From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jones, Zachary Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 3:57 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: zLinux instance on Mod3 and need to move to a Mod 9 On a second Linux machine, attach both drives to the Linux guest. Bring each dasd online to the linux guest. # chccwdev --online 0.0. device address Find out the Linux device # lsdasd Use the Linux device to mount the drives. mount the 3390-3 as /mnt/3390-3 mount the 3390-9 as /mnt/3390-9 then do a recursive copy of the 3390-3 to the 3390-9 # cp -R /mnt/3390-3/* /mnt/3390-9 On Mon, 2007-07-23 at 15:45 -0500, McKown, John wrote: DFDSS will copy the data from a -3 to a -9 with no problems. However, it will not resize the Linux partition or filesystem on that drive. You'd need to do a TRACK copy using DFDSS. The way that I would do it is to mount the -3 filesystem on a second Linux, mount the -9 filesystem as well, then tar to copy the data from the -3 to the -9. Of course, this is very slow, comparatively. -- John McKown Senior Systems Programmer HealthMarkets Keeping the Promise of Affordable Coverage Administrative Services Group Information Technology This message (including any attachments) contains confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose, and its content is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this message and are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this transmission, or taking any action based on it, is strictly prohibited. -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sikich, Frank J. Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 3:40 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: zLinux instance on Mod3 and need to move to a Mod 9 To All: I know this has been asked before and I tried to search the archives but was unsuccessful. I have a zLinux instance on a Mod 3 and I need to move it to a mod 9. I was successful in moving a mod 9 to another mod 9 using ADRDSSU from the zOS side. I don’t this move will work using this method and was wondering if DDR is my only option to achieve the move. We are not using SFS. Any help would be useful Thanks Frank Sikich --- ***National City made the following annotations --- This communication is a confidential and proprietary business communication. It is intended solely for the use of the designated recipient(s). If this communication is received in error, please contact the sender and delete this communication. === Zachary Jones Operations Systems Analyst Northroup Grumman at City Of Grand Rapids, Michigan Office phone: 616-456-3456
Re: OS/390 as zVM 5.2 Guest on z9 ??
Might be a stupid question, but you are running this on a PU and not an IFL, right? -Paul -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Hammock Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2007 11:46 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: OS/390 as zVM 5.2 Guest on z9 ?? Is anyone out there running OS/390 2.9 (or earlier) as a guest of zVM (5.2 in my case, but probably does not matter) on a z9 ?? I'm trying to migrate a customer from a FLEX system to a z9 and they have an old, un-maintained OS/390 2.9 guest. It was running as a VM guest with dedicated disks on the FLEX system (zVM 4.4). I've brought everything over to the z9 and converted the disks to full-pack minidisks to (hopefully) eliminate problems related to using the DS6800 subsystem. Other than the full-pack minis vs. dedicated, I believe everything is the same. However, when I try to IPL OS/390, it runs for a while (say, 15 seconds) then gets: HCPGIR453W CP entered; program interrupt loop I know this can sometimes be an 'architectural' type problem and I'm just afraid it may be this time. I have verified that the OS/390 IPL does run a while... it gets to processing the IPLPARM. (If I specify an invalid IPLPARM I get an appropriate wait state code loaded.) So I know it is at least running for a little while. Any suggestions out there?? Mike C. M. (Mike) Hammock Sr. Technical Support zFrame IBM zSeries Solutions (404) 643-3258 [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive for the recipient), please contact the sender by reply email and delete all copies of this message. To reply to our email administrator directly, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CPFMTXA: Automation of?
I like! Thank you.
We primarily use Linux here, and just MDISK in the volumes for each instance.
They tend to wrok better if they are CP formated. :)
-Paul
---BeginMessage---
I wouldn't think that you would not have to CPFMTXA every volume. Only
the CPOWNED volumes need to be CMFMTXA'd.
Anyway, here is an EXEC that I used to initialize a large batch of
DASD when we installed out FLEX-ES system. I'm sure it could be
modified to fit your needs.
/Fran Hensler at Slippery Rock University of Pennsylvania USA for 44 years
[EMAIL PROTECTED] +1.724.738.2153
Yes, Virginia, there is a Slippery Rock
--
/** INITDASD EXEC
**
**
** Write a volume label on all dasd NOT attached to SYSTEM or CP OWNED
**
** Author: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**Date: May 6; 2003
**
**/
i=0
i=i+1;dasd.i=0680 VSESAM
i=i+1;dasd.i=0681 DOSRES
i=i+1;dasd.i=0682 SYSWK1
i=i+1;dasd.i=0683 CUFS90
i=i+1;dasd.i=0684 STAFF0
i=i+1;dasd.i=0685 ADVAN5
i=i+1;dasd.i=0686 NEW686
i=i+1;dasd.i=0687 ADVAN1
i=i+1;dasd.i=0688 NEW688
i=i+1;dasd.i=0689 POWER1
i=i+1;dasd.i=068A NEW68A
i=i+1;dasd.i=068B VSE002
i=i+1;dasd.i=068C VMSYS1
i=i+1;dasd.i=068D VSE001
i=i+1;dasd.i=068E 230RES
i=i+1;dasd.i=068F VSELIB
i=i+1;dasd.i=0690 STUDNT
i=i+1;dasd.i=0691 NEW691
i=i+1;dasd.i=0692 TEMP01
i=i+1;dasd.i=0693 SRULIB
i=i+1;dasd.i=0694 CICSUC
i=i+1;dasd.i=0695 TEMP02
i=i+1;dasd.i=0696 ZVM001
i=i+1;dasd.i=0697 ZVM002
i=i+1;dasd.i=0698 NEW698
i=i+1;dasd.i=0699 NEW699
i=i+1;dasd.i=06A0 VSAM90
i=i+1;dasd.i=06A1 VSAM93
i=i+1;dasd.i=06A2 VSAM91
i=i+1;dasd.i=06A3 COPY01
i=i+1;dasd.i=06A4 VSAM92
i=i+1;dasd.i=06A5 COPY00
i=i+1;dasd.i=06A6 PAGER2
i=i+1;dasd.i=06A7 SPOOL1
i=i+1;dasd.i=06A8 ADABAS
i=i+1;dasd.i=06A9 PAGER1
i=i+1;dasd.i=06AA DBMS01
i=i+1;dasd.i=06AB 230W01
i=i+1;dasd.i=06AC STAFF1
i=i+1;dasd.i=06AD ADVAN4
i=i+1;dasd.i=06AE ADVAN2
i=i+1;dasd.i=06AF ADVAN3
i=i+1;dasd.i=06B0 OSCAR0
i=i+1;dasd.i=06B1 ADVAN6
i=i+1;dasd.i=06B2 VM2VSE
i=i+1;dasd.i=06B3 CNEW01
i=i+1;dasd.i=06B4 NEW6B4
i=i+1;dasd.i=06B5 NEW6B5
i=i+1;dasd.i=06B6 ZVM003
i=i+1;dasd.i=06B7 ZVM004
i=i+1;dasd.i=06B8 NEW6B8
i=i+1;dasd.i=06B9 NEW6B9
dasd.0=i
Do i = 1 to dasd.0
Parse Var dasd.i cuu volid
'PIPE CP QUERY' cuu '| VAR RESPONSE | CONSOLE'
If Word(response,3) = 'CP' Then Iterate
Call initialize
'CP DETACH' cuu
End i
Exit
initialize:
'CP ATTACH' cuu '*'
If Rc /= 0 Then Return
j=0
j=j+1;init.j=' INITUNITADDRESS('cuu') -'
j=j+1;init.j=' DEVTYPE(3390) -'
j=j+1;init.j=' NOVERIFY-'
j=j+1;init.j=' NOCONTINUE -'
j=j+1;init.j=' DOSVTOC(0,1,1) -'
j=j+1;init.j=' NOVALIDATE -'
j=j+1;init.j=' VOLID('volid') -'
j=j+1;init.j=' PURGE -'
j=j+1;init.j=' MAP '
init.0=j
'PIPE STEM INIT. | PAD 80 | INITVM DSF A F 80'
'VMFCLEAR'
Say 'Ready to initialize' cuu 'to' volid 'Press ENTER or type HX'
Parse Upper Pull response
If response /= '' Then Exit
Queue 'INITVM DSF A' /* File containing parameters */
Queue 'CONSOLE' /* Output device */
'ICKDSF' /* Do the initialize */
Return
---End Message---
Welcome! (Was: Capturing Daily system logs ? )
Well Welcome to the VM World Lionel! For those of you who don't know, Lionel ranks as expert in the z/OS world, and is rather well known for helping people out with odd questions; even people asking very basic questions. Glad to see you here! -Paul
Re: Linux question
Not really, no. There are few virii that can infect z/Linux systems to begin with, and they are much more vulnerable to Trojans, worms, and other types of exploits. T here are two general exceptions though; if your z/Linux instance is acting as an e-mail server or if it is acting as a Windows SMB or NFS file server. In those cases, there are some serious advantages to running a virus scan product. -Paul From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 6:26 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Linux question To anyone running Linux under z/VM is it normal for companies to want to run a virus scan product when its on the mainframe? I'm more familiar with the z/OS world and I know we don't run any on that side of the shop. Thanks Andy Internet: Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] The information contained in this message may be CONFIDENTIAL and is for the intended addressee only. Any unauthorized use, dissemination of the information, or copying of this message is prohibited. If you are not the intended addressee, please notify the sender immediately and delete this message.
Re: Mini-survey: Linux usability
Yowza. A couple other options you might have used are: Ask the BladeServer people to mount the ISO images on the bladeserver and either share them via NFS (easiest way) or else make them available over FTP. The use z/VM FTP to put the files necessary to IPL Linux on the Linux guest 191 drive (SLES9.PARM, SLES9.IMITRD, SLES9.IMAGE) Or, if the z/VM instance was allowed to access the internet, once you IPL'ed as above, you could have downloaded the rest of the install over the internet. Slow, but it works. Or if worse came to worse, you could have used the DVD drive on the console, if you have one. J If I had realized, we could have sent you a starter image. Sorry if I missed the request. -Paul From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Walter Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 8:41 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Mini-survey: Linux usability Maybe not addressed to the most-affected list, but IBMVM subscribers are affected, too. Especially those getting into Linux for System z for the first time. It took us around a year to get the first P.O.C. server installed because our Internet Security group would not permit a CD drive on anyone's PC to be connected to the mainframe LAN - not even for a the time it takes to copy the ISO images. Eventually we received a DDR copy to tape of a running Linux FTP server which we quickly restored in our VM system, and by jumping through extensive hoops (inserting the CDs on a Linux blade server, then mounting them on USS in z/OS, and then again mounting them on the new Linux for System z FTP server to actually begin the installation). What a nightmare and what an absolute waste of time to begin a P.O.C (all in the name of security!). I began suggesting the following on July of 2006. Thus far there has been little-to-no response... If Novell wants to play in the z/VM market, they should provide an easy way for existing z/VM customers to download a stripped-down SLES FTP server using tools that every z/VM customer already has available: the z/VM TCP/IP FTPSERVE server, and (admittedly something requiring a download from the IBM VM Download site): the CMSDDR package. The new-to-Linux on System z customer could run CMSDDR to download a running Linux FTP server, bring that up, follow rather simple instructions to customize it for their network, and then bring it up. Novell could also supply access to the ISO images such that they could be downloaded directly through either the CMS FTPSERVE svm, and/or, the newly installed bare-bones SLES FTP server. There would be no need to permit access from someone's CD or DVD drive to the mainframe network, and... no need to go though MS Windows to perform the downloads... ugh! Before Mark Post moved to Novell, perhaps there were insufficient z/VM skills to make this or other ease/speed-of-installation techniques available at Novell. Now there may be a light shining at the end of the tunnel? Mike Walter Hewitt Associates Any opinions expressed herein are mine alone and do not necessarily represent the opinions or policies of Hewitt Associates. Rod [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU 06/13/2007 02:08 AM Please respond to The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU To IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU cc Subject Re: Mini-survey: Linux usability When I first got my mitts on this stuff I had awful trouble getting anything working until Rob walked down the corridor and helped me out. We then had a series of discussions concerning a bog-standard DDR image that would get people up and running. That was nearly 10 years ago. Given the recent discussion about having to send notes to Novell to generate sufficient interest to get something similar, it depresses me to see just how far things have come in 10 years. -- Rod (Moan over - back to fixing Access dBs (sigh)...) _ The information contained in this e-mail and any accompanying documents may contain information that is confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply e-mail and then delete this message, including any attachments. Any dissemination, distribution or other use of the contents of this message by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited.
Re: z/VM usability
5.2 - though for the life of me, I was thinking I received a DVD of 5.3 with no tape release. Perhaps I confused 5.1 and 5.2. Anything is possible this week- 15 projects to do and only me to do 'em. :) -Paul -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Walter Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 9:25 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: z/VM usability Good luck on upgrading z/VM from 4.4 to 5.3 on Memorial Day weekend. z/VM 5.3 does not reach General Availability until June 29, 2007. See: http://www-306.ibm.com/common/ssi/fcgi-bin/ssialias?infotype=ansubtype=caa ppname=GPAhtmlfid=897/[EMAIL PROTECTED]@89@ (Now THERE is a URL that looks like a masked curse word!). Or... maybe this is a long term contract, set for Memorial Day weekend 2008? :-) Mike Walter Hewitt Associates Any opinions expressed herein are mine alone and do not necessarily represent the opinions or policies of Hewitt Associates. Paul Raulerson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU 05/12/2007 08:12 PM Please respond to The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU To IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU cc Subject Re: z/VM usability grin Speaking of strange an Intuitive - I have a small contract open for an Austin VM'er, if there are any here besides me. ;) Bascially mentoring/emergency backup on upgrading and optimizing z/VM 5.3 as an upgrade from 4.4. Probably have to do it over the Memorial Day weekend though, due to service commitments. Anyone interested and in the area, drop me a line! -Paul -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Adam Thornton Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2007 5:14 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: z/VM usability On May 12, 2007, at 4:43 PM, Rob van der Heij wrote: On 5/12/07, Adam Thornton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, except by its also being called $OUTPUT_AUTOFLUSH, I mean. Strange... I would have thought the problem was that it was blocking its input, not the output... That's because you have not surrendered to the intuitiveness that is Perl. Adam The information contained in this e-mail and any accompanying documents may contain information that is confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply e-mail and then delete this message, including any attachments. Any dissemination, distribution or other use of the contents of this message by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited.
Re: z/VM usability
No, I have looked, and CMS Pipelines are nice indeed. But then so are pipes under UNIX; indeed, pipes are the very core of UNIX. If you are not annoyed by discussing it, I would love to hear your opinions on what is so primitive about UNIX. :) As I said: leaky garden hose. The analogy holds just as long as you use terms like nice Well- I was being polite, since this is pretty obviously a sore subject with you for some reason. * CMS Pipelines has multi stream pipelines which means that you can divert part of the input stream and have that go through a different segment of the pipeline and further down the pipe the streams can join again when desired. The closest you get in UNIX is something like the tee program. There is a reason for this in UNIX - most system utilties are built to do one or two things as well as possible, and that rather simple mindset leads to a single in / single out design prejudice. It does not mean they capability does not exist. For example, I have many mulitple input streams sending data to a named pipe, which has a director application reading from it, which sends things out of dynamically created streams of processing. For example, Job#1 may come down the pipe and need to be processed in Chinese, while Job#2 coming down the pipe may need to br printed in some other state, and Job#3 is credit card transaction. I did write the director application in C, but it could have been written just as well in Perl or Rexx or Pascal or Fortran for that matter. Granted, this is not a super high volume transactional system (it processed between 100 adn 200 jobs per minute) but if I needed that, I would use CICS. * The stages in CMS Pipelines are not limited by a single input and output (and stderr), but can have many streams which allows for building complex refineries without the need for endless copies of the data. * The way records are moving through the pipeline and the way stages interact means that you can reason about where records are and guarantee the order in which data is produced and consumed in parallel pipeline segments. This is more program design to me than a natural or intrinsic function of Pipes, but that's not a fact that is my opinion. :) * Dynamic changes to the topology of the pipeline where a stage can replace itself by a newly composed segment either permanently or temporary (a sipping pipeline). Combined with the strict order in which data is consumed, you control what part of the data flows through the modified pipeline. Again, this iis quite easily accomplished under Unix - though I admit the best solution tends to start a new process or thread, which is somewhat different. Then I think that process creation is more expensive under VM than under Linux. Opinion again though, I might be wrong. I do believe I am one of those many VM people who embraced Linux and the concepts are not alien to me (I avoid the term transition because that would suggest going from one to the other). Recently I wrote a simple Perl program - ptime - to take lines from stdin and write them out prefixed with the local time. To my surprise the following did not work to tag vmstat output with the time as I intended: vmstat 10 | ptime Turns out that something is doing an undetermined amount of buffering (and yes, I learned that I can set the $| variable (?) to change that). And there's many more cases where the tools violate the Principe of Least Astonishment. Things like njpipes and OS/2 pipe ran short of that and turned out to be far less useful. That kind of surprises me- though in this case I would most likely have written a short C program to do it and used fflush(). It seems silly that Perl did not automatically account for the buffering. There are other things that can drive you crazy too - like ever try to get a reasonable return code? Try sending back a -4 as the exit code on a program sometime. Annoying! There are certainly lots of rough edges in UNIX/Linux, but there are more than a few there in CMS too, most especially if you do not use it on a very regular basis. Sometimes, the problems in Linux are enough to make me scream and really REALLY miss JCL. -Paul I understand I have the option to write a C program from scratch to do what I want, or maybe copy an old one from when I wanted almost the same. We've done so with Rexx for quite some time. However, I find it way more productive to compose a pipeline out of many built-in stages and maybe a few reusable ones from myself in Rexx. Rob
Re: z/VM usability
A great summation Phil, and accurate. VM (and z/OS) are *comfortable* environments, because almost everything you can do you can only do one or two ways, and they are usually pretty darn well documented. In business, this is a *wonderful* thing. :) In UNIX, if there are not at least 5 different ways to do something, it is because nobody anywhere has ever gotten interested in doing it. And the documentaton is usually either very sloppy, or in a lot of cases, here just is not any documentation at all. Well, perhaps, there is a usage section in the code that will display a little help. The core idea of pipes in Unix was driven by, of all things - economics. To get the authorization to develop the system at the old Bell Labs, Kerningham, Ritchie, and company sold UNIX as a text processing system for the copyright or patent department. (I forget which.) This was on an old DEC PDP system which very limited memory. Much more limited memory than an IBM mainframe of the day. To allow multiple users to use the system, they *had* to keep the programs tiny and sort of stitch them together. Duct tape can fix almost anything I suppose. In any event, the nroff/troff system, which is a full fledged typesetting system, also derived from this, and so forth and so on. And since input was on an ASR-33 teletype machine (imagine wordprocessing on one of those beasties!) the names of the utilities were kept short because nobody liked typing in those days. In fact, in those days, some programmers felt it was beneath their dignity to learn to type, since that was what clerks and secretaries did. I had a guy who worked for me give me that line as late as 1987! And underneath all that, the *real* reason was to keep the computer on site - since all the other ones like the GE GECOS monster the PDP replaced, were pretty expensive. So to have a computer to develop their ideas on, the scientists went all out for text processing. AWK came of this as well- with the initials of the three developers making up the program name. The contention that it is AWKward to use or AWKward to learn is purely a coincidence. grin And I have a nice bridge to sell too. VM on the mainframe however, was being driven from different motivations. Perhaps someone here will share and contrast those reasona and activites for us. ---BeginMessage--- Paul Raulerson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No, I have looked, and CMS Pipelines are nice indeed. But then so are pipes under UNIX; indeed, pipes are the very core of UNIX. If you are not annoyed by discussing it, I would love to hear your opinions on what is so primitive about UNIX. :) This is an interesting topic: *IX fans are always horrified (at least, at first) by CMS Pipelines, I think mostly because since Pipes isn't part of the OS, you have to *gasp* enter a SEPARATE COMMAND to use them. That's obviously a nit in the scheme of things, but reflects one of the philosophical differences between the two worlds. *IX has been described as an environment with a lot of little tools that you glue (or maybe duct tape) together; CMS is an environment with larger tools that often don't play together so well. CMS Pipes bridges a lot of that gap, but (I suspect) since the *IX fans like their paradigm, they see it as a kludge. Which, in a way, it is. OTOH, we VMers look at *IX and say What kind of OS has awk AND sed AND Perl AND all these obscure little things like 'wc' and 'tr' and 'uniq' and and and...? It feels kludgy and awkward (no pun intended) to have so many overlapping functions. So maybe this is an agree to disagree deal -- the two camps may never really come together fully. I look forward to others' thoughts on this topic! ObAnecdote: 25 or so years ago, back at UofW, we had basic Pipe commands built into CMS: , , and at least. They were not a great success; whether this was due to the lack of the 273 other functions (wc et al.) or due to a difference in OS philosophy I'm not sure. ...phsiii ---End Message---
Re: z/VM usability
Well Rob - I maanged pretty much to buy, install, and bring up our zSeries here with z/VM and Linux, with only a few little gotcha's here and there. And keep it running for near on four years now. I'm not an IBM Systems Programmer, but I do resemble one at times. If you are in the Austin area sometime, let me know and I'll buy you a beer. I expect I know a bit more about UNIX than you do, so maybe we can trade. -Paul ---BeginMessage--- On 5/8/07, Paul Raulerson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well- I was being polite, since this is pretty obviously a sore subject with you for some reason. I was being polite too, as we all are on this list. There is nothing sore about this with me, but I consider myself a bit more knowledgeable than you on the capabilities of CMS Pipelines. So I decided to correct you. I did not expect to teach you CMS Pipelines with my post. Rob ---End Message---
Re: z/VM usability
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 ---BeginMessage--- By business as usual, I mean that IBM continually withdraws products from the marketplace, even some that people are using. Granted. IBM has that privilege, no argument. We rarely force you to change your mind on these issues (at least where it really counted, somebody took a risk continuing VM development, with obvious results). It's sad to accept that CMS won't be the application hosting solution in the future -- I think it's a mistake, but like Mike Walter, this is a battle we probably can't win, and pretty much it won't be a win to try. So what do we do? It's true that if there is no replacement product from IBM, and no 3rd-party substitute, then, yes, the application is eventually re-hosted or discontinued completely. And sometimes on a non-IBM, non-Linux platform. IBM makes the decisions it makes and has to live with the consequences. I think the best mitigation for those consequences would be to provide some type of migration aid. So, I'd really like to turn the discussion back to the original question: what do we need and how do we get from the existing CMS-based environment to a new environment? ---End Message---
Re: z/VM usability
Well - Linux works now, and can talk to all the CP services. Linux also comes with Rexx (Regina), XEdit (THE Editor from Tim Hessling), and pipes that are roughly equivalent to CMS Pipelines. Named pipes and message queues and such are all available and under Linux and Solaris, very heavily used. The biggest darn problem is that Linux is not very efficient compared to CMS (or mvs, z/.OS, OS/390, etc.) which was written with the IBM arch. in mind, and probably in assembler to boot. Linux is quite capable and fast on a zSeries machine, but not as fast as or anywhere near as efficient as CMS. Music is pretty good I suppose. -Paul ---BeginMessage--- Has anyone written a third party OS that can easily replace CMS? None are easy replacements, but IMHO there are several possible candidates: MUSIC Linux Solaris (coming soon) Only MUSIC is really CMS-like. The other two are obvious Unix derivatives, and would require retooling or emulation of the CMS DIAG API. Linux would be consistent with other things going on in the industry and inside IBM, and Solaris would ...well, just be weird. The key bit would be the presence of REXX and Pipes, IMHO. The other external commands could be built on a piece-by-piece basis, but there's a lot of logic for CMS users that really depends on those two parts. ---End Message---
Re: z/VM usability
Yep, it is Mark indeed. My mistake. I should not type at work. :) -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rich Smrcina Sent: Monday, May 07, 2007 2:15 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: z/VM usability Umm... that's Mark Hessling. Paul Raulerson wrote: Well - Linux works now, and can talk to all the CP services. Linux also comes with Rexx (Regina), XEdit (THE Editor from Tim Hessling), and pipes that are roughly equivalent to CMS Pipelines. Named pipes and message queues and such are all available and under Linux and Solaris, very heavily used. The biggest darn problem is that Linux is not very efficient compared to CMS (or mvs, z/.OS, OS/390, etc.) which was written with the IBM arch. in mind, and probably in assembler to boot. Linux is quite capable and fast on a zSeries machine, but not as fast as or anywhere near as efficient as CMS. Music is pretty good I suppose. -Paul -- Rich Smrcina VM Assist, Inc. Phone: 414-491-6001 Ans Service: 360-715-2467 rich.smrcina at vmassist.com Catch the WAVV! http://www.wavv.org WAVV 2007 - Green Bay, WI - May 18-22, 2007
Re: z/VM usability
No, I have looked, and CMS Pipelines are nice indeed. But then so are pipes under UNIX; indeed, pipes are the very core of UNIX. If you are not annoyed by discussing it, I would love to hear your opinions on what is so primitive about UNIX. :) Linux is more suitable in many ways; but that has a caveat - it depends of course, on exactly what you are doing. For example, Linux (or UNIX) in the raw character oriented mode is very *very* much like CMS with a bunch of different commands. And UNIX is much nicer to code C programs in that is VM. grin But what would you expect? It was designed around C! It was also designed to do text processing, and even today, it does that very well. Still can drive typesetters in fact. Perl is a nice language - but so is REXX - and if you are using THE editor, REXX is much cleaner than Perl. But along with Perl and REXX, you have about six thousand other scripting languages you can use - everything from basic sh scripts to TCL/TK and beyond. If you are a VM'er, the transition to Linux/UNIX is not as painful as you might think. I never did system admin on VM, and only a very small amount of development, while the opposite is true under UNIX. The opposite is also true under OS/390 or z/OS) That probably warps my perceptive a bit, but not that much. Well, I do admit to excessive nervousness when I have to make changes in VM these days though. (I have to act like a System Prog for VM. :) Anyway, I'd love to have a discussion about that. -Paul -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rob van der Heij Sent: Monday, May 07, 2007 2:17 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: z/VM usability On 5/7/07, Paul Raulerson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well - Linux works now, and can talk to all the CP services. Linux also comes with Rexx (Regina), XEdit (THE Editor from Tim Hessling), and pipes that are roughly equivalent to CMS Pipelines. Named pipes and message queues and such are all available and under Linux and Solaris, very heavily used. We're told Linux was so much more suitable because of the tools available and was so much more intuitive to the new generation of systems people. I fail to see what problem we solve by writing system automation using Regina and THE because it will not be easier to maintain or enhance for people used to Perl. Compared to CMS Pipelines, UNIX pipes are a leaky garden hose. In a CMS Pipelines introduction class, people are already beyond the capabilities of UNIX pipes by the time of the first coffee break. Your suggestion that it's roughly equivalent suggest to me you never bothered to look at CMS Pipelines. Rob
Re: VM-VTAM/VSCS question
There is at least one VTAM session manager on the CBT tapes. I don't know what it would take to port it to run under VM, but.. the price is right and it comes with source. SOL is the name of the thing I think. -Paul ---BeginMessage--- PVM might be an answer. It had both SNA and scripting capabilities, and its a pretty decent session manager. NVAS would have been another option, but it requires VSAM, so prob not viable over the long term. If you had to roll your own, the IBM CCL code does have API libraries for some SNA functions, or you could probably easily add SNA function to YVETTE. -Original Message- From: Colin Allinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Sent: 5/4/07 10:21 AM Subject: VM-VTAM/VSCS question The background to this question is that we have 95% of our VM users accessing the system via TCPIP TELNET sessions. However we have a handful of remote users still accessing us via SNA and efforts to convert these to IP seem to continually meet roadblocks. For a number of reasons we want to remove VTAM from our main VM systems but we do also have a small 'server' system. Our idea is, as an interim solution, we route all SNA traffic to VTAM on the small server and then use a session manager on that server to allow users to access our main systems. (Load is very low - maximum 6-8 users at any one time - 200 users in total). However, if we do this we would like to make it as transparent as possible so I have some questions :- 1) Normally incoming terminal users use VSCS as the application - could this be a different application (say a session manager). 2) If we stay with VSCS, can this be set up to automatically 'dial' to a session manager userid 3) From the 'session manager' we would want to open a telnet session to another VM system 4) Are there any recommendations for free/cheap session manager (or tools with which to build one). The ideal would be for the SNA session to point to an application on the small server which would then, transparently, take the user over a telnet session to the target VM. I suspect that this is one step to far and they would, at least, have to make a selection from a session manager panel. Any advice/help would be welcome. With best regards / mit den besten Grüßen, Colin G Allinson Technical Manager VM Amadeus Data Processing GmbH T +49 (0) 8122-43 49 75 F +49 (0) 8122-43 32 60 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.amadeus.com IMPORTANT - CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE - This e-mail is intended only for the use of the individual or entity shown above as addressees . It may contain information which is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure under applicable laws . If the reader of this transmission is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, printing, distribution, copying, disclosure or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify us by reply e-mail or using the address below and delete the message and any attachments from your system . Amadeus Data Processing GmbH Geschäftsführer: Eberhard Haag Sitz der Gesellschaft: Erding HR München 48 199 Berghamer Strasse 6 85435 Erding Germany ---End Message---
Re: How are you handling z/Linux
Snort- Depends upon what the *nix servers are doing now doesn't it? We have a few instances that have not been patched in a couple years, but they are running an internal application, have strict change control applied, and have not access to the outside world. Indeed, the *inside* world has only very limited (and well logged) access to them. I should explain here that we have only 10 standalone Windows workstations in the entire organization; everyone else is running Citrix, which is centrally managed and running on IBM blades behind locked doors. Instances running web servers however, and very much patched with just about every patch that applies to them, even though they are also subject to very tight change control. Something the 'PC' crowd just doesn't understand. Now, if by midrange you mean the iSeries machines; and they are telling you that the *nix instances on the machine are only patched twice a year, they are blowing smoke. First, the iSeries will only run either AIX or Linux, both of which have more than twice a year patch cycles, and second, the mainframe hardware platform is more, not less - secure than the iSeries. -Paul -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Alan Ackerman Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 11:54 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: How are you handling z/Linux On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 13:43:39 -0400, Sikich, Frank J. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The struggle is that our midrange world claims to apply patches to the UNIX servers only once or twice a year and they are concern that they will have more interruption on zLinux. They never apply security patches? I'm on a list for these, and I get MANY alerts for Linux/Unix patches. (Not to mention the last-minute Solaris DST fiasco...) Or perhaps they merely want total control over the outage schedule? That could be political reality in your shop, or it could be just another excuse to fight change.
Date Time Changes...
Whooo boy... I feel like such an idiot. I took advantage of another system being down yesterday and IPLed our mainframe. Because I was under tight time constraints, I just updated the TOD at IPL time to be current with CDT. And fat fingered it. And did not notice till all the production Linux instances were up and running. The Linux Instances of course, were easy to manually correct, but z/VM still thinks it is in 2006. (*sigh*) Is there anyway to update the date and time non-disruptively, or do I just need to come in on Saturday and IPL the beastie again? P.S. This is on the production instance which I have not upgraded - it is still at a three year old level of z/VM 4.4. Yes, I know, but, if it ain't broken... :) Thanks -Paul
Re: Date Time Changes...
Thanks Alan - Saturday afternoon IPL for me I suppose then. -Paul
Re: Date Time Changes...
Really nice try Mike - I appreciate it. I feel pretty annoyed with myself right now. -Paul From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Walter Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 5:09 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Date Time Changes... Actually, after our Operator's took us past Y2K, and back to 1900, too - I placed a TODALLOW package on the IBM VM Download page: http://www.vm.ibm.com/download/packages/ No problems since! ---snip--- The TODALLOW EXEC is intended to be called from the PROFILE EXEC of AUTOLOG1. It is used to prevent AUTOLOG1 from continuing with standard AUTOLOG commands and other procedures if the current date and time are outside defined limits. TODALLOW compares the current date/time to the date/time of the most recent file on a specified, accessed CMS minidisk (e.g an OPERATOR system console log file - select one that is frequently updated). If the current date/time are different by more than a specified time range (e.g. 02:00 hours) from that file, a message is issued to a specified userid (typically OPERATOR) and an reply is required from that user before the new date/time is accepted and standard procedures continue. This gives the Operator a chance to shutdown and change the TOD clock before application damage (tapes scratched, files deleted, etc.) can occur. The only pre-requisites are CMS Pipelines, and the IBM-distributed RXTOD MODULE (on MAINT's 193 disk). Updated 2000-10-13 to accept 'WNG' from OPERATOR, and reduce the time window between setting MSG/WNG/SMSG IUCV and waiting for a response, and better handle manual interrupts. ---snip--- Mike Walter Hewitt Associates Any opinions expressed herein are mine alone and do not necessarily represent the opinions or policies of Hewitt Associates. Kris Buelens [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU 03/14/2007 04:10 PM Please respond to The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU To IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU cc Subject Re: Date Time Changes... I just updated the TOD at IPL time to be current with CDT If you set a correct timezone, you don't set datetime do you? Unless to adjust the time drift of the z9 clock. I did write some code to be included in AUTOLOG1 that will ask the operator to send an OK if the date differs more than 3 days with the last known date (which is saved daily by VMUTIL) -- Kris Buelens, IBM Belgium, VM customer support _ The information contained in this e-mail and any accompanying documents may contain information that is confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply e-mail and then delete this message, including any attachments. Any dissemination, distribution or other use of the contents of this message by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited.
Re: Off Topic: Unix FTP Client
Have you looked at sftp? It uses the ssl libraries to make secure FTP connections. If you really do mean running over ssh, then just plain on ssh will do that for you. -Paul ---BeginMessage--- I am looking for a Unix FTP Client with support for Explicit SSL. Suggestions? Jim Hughes 603-271-5586 There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're talking about. John von Neumann ---End Message---
Re: OT:I/O in Emulated Mainframes (Was Re: PSI story)
We share with the PC's - but OpenSystems DASD cannot be 'shared' with the Mainframe DASD. That essentialy means that all the open systems are on their own disk ranks. Our piggy old Exchange Server handles only a few hundred connected users, and still gets slower than slow. This is Exchange Server 2003, which is still 32 bit code, so that may change when and if we move to Exchange Server 2007 and 64bit code. That's on a four processor machine with plenty of RAM, and the DASD using dual connections to the Shark. -Paul ---BeginMessage--- --- Paul Raulerson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey Dave - (Also speaking for myself) I agree with you in part. But add 100 users to a PC and watch what happens to the IO. Or add a heavily used database with a few hundred users. PC Servers just do not scale in terms of I/O the same way. iSCSI and other technologies are starting to change that, but... -Paul I would like to disagree. Our busiest servers, i/o wise is our mail server. It normally runs around 1000 concurrent connected users. It does slow on busy days, such as the first day after a holiday period, when users have a few hundred e-mails to process. I did investiagate and found the bottle neck is either the SAN switches or the SAN proper. That is the same SAN and Switchs that the mainframe uses. The reason they slow is beacuse of the way the I/O is designed in the SAN, that is down to a price not up to an commited I/O bandwidth and throughput. We recently upgraded the SAN and saw a significant improvement in both Mainframe and PC operation. A quick question. Do users with Sharks dedicate them to their Mainframes? or share with PCs? From: Dave Wade [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2007 08:17:00 + Subject: OT:I/O in Emulated Mainframes (Was Re: PSI story) --- Jeff Gribbin, EDS [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: With a small amount of trepidation (but inviting stomping from anybody who feels that I'm off-base here) can I remind folk that, on IBM mainframe hardware, MIPS aren't the whole story. There's channels too - and in an I/O-related situation their power needs to be ADDED to the CPU power to come up with a realistic, comparative MIPS figure. It's a very long time since I saw anything that indicated how much MIPpage is offloaded into the channels by a typical, mainframe workload but please remember that, unless you understand how channels are implemented when comparing two different solutions, you can quickly mislead yourself regarding the genuine value of the, MIPS comparison. (I have a similar problem regarding, channel bandwidth - each individual channel on a mainframe might be, slow but potentially I can have several hundred running in parallel - in the right circumstances doesn't this give me greater capacity to work with than a single but much faster I/O portal? Do I want a firehose or do I want the Mississippi? As a man to whom I would happily defer when it comes to performance issues has occasionally been heard to comment, I think, It depends ...) Regards Jeff Gribbin (Speaking only for himself.) Jeff, Hercules runs channel emulation and CPU emulation in separate threads, so in a multi CPU box with say n CPUS, if you define m Mainframe CPU, n-m are generally (pedants note generally) free for channel emulation. However whilst I have never tried to do a real benchmark, I am firmly convinced that I/O is not an issue on a modern PC. To expand a little, I have tried a few simple things to drive the I/O system up and bottleneck the I/O in Hercules.. Sadly, every time, I have failed. I do keep trying, but I have never been able to justify adding RAID, SATA, or even SCSI (other than for tape) to the box I use for Hercules. When I look in PERFMON the i/o queue length and the i/o service times remain short. As I only emulate one CPU and have (kind of two) on the Hyperthreaded box, I see the second CPUs utilization remains low. I have therefore concluded that emulating S/370 channels does not tax the system. Again it might be different for the XA I/O system , but I don't think so. (In fact I think it may be simpler) Dave. Also speaking for himself. Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. http://new.mail.yahoo.com Yahoo! Music Unlimited Access over 1 million songs. http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited ---End Message---
Re: PSI story
grin You may be right Ed. Sometimes it feels like Second Start to the left and straight on till morning stuff. Difficult to believe, but IBM usually does right by their customers. -Paul ---BeginMessage--- To both Paul Raulerson and David Boyes. I believe that you are Preaching to the Choir. It is a loss. And some day Hercules may be supplied/support/allowed by IBM, but when small to medium companies switch it takes a long time for them to get the bad taste of what IBM did to us out of their mouths. Such is life! Ed Martin Aultman Health Foundation 330-588-4723 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ext. 40441 ---End Message---
Re: PSI story
--- Paul Raulerson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I see two problems with this story - one is they quoted Phil Payne, whose has some kind of vendetta against IBM going. (I suspect he lost money in an emulator solution) and two, His input is pretty small and pretty accurate. Even for us Mainframe Software costs are hefty... I object more to the spin on that; Mr. Payne has a way of taking facts and presenting them in such as way as to lead people down the path he wants them to follow, even to the point where people will draw erroneous conclusions based on insufficient and/or incomplete facts. In specific, sure traditional mainframe software costs are high. zIIPs, zAAPs, and ILF's can be used to mitigate that cost, and the best part? IBM is producing those speciality engines in direct response to use complaints about cost. While I am not saying that a 10 person windows shop shoudl run out and but a mainframe as a file and print server, a 10 person shop with a high end software product just might find that a mainframe would host their product better than any other machine in the world. (Or not - it all depends doesn't it?) I simlpy don't know what Mr. Payne's agenda is, except I know he has an agenda, and that agenda is not compatible with getting lower cost high quality IBM products out on the market. Especially emulators. Itanium hardware is faster and more modern than a mainframe PC, but ... it is not running Itanium software, it is emulationg the zSeries arch. How does this make it slower? The zArch is implemented largely with microcode (well, millicode perhaps) which servers to somewhat isolate the hardware of the machine from the processor instruction set it presents to software and programmers. An IBM processor (PC) is tuned to run that instruction set and does so very well indeed. There is also a lot of hardware stuff in a CP that helps too. Hint: the iSeries and pSeries (or whatever they are called these days) run POWER processors, which descend from and borrow from mainframe technology. NOT the zArch instruction set, but some of the underlying CP technology. An Itanium chip is not tuned to run that processor instruction set; it is by definition a General Purpose Digitial Processor. To emulate a MVI or LHI instruction on an emulator can require an order of magnitude more processing than on a CP (or IFL). For one thing, it has to emulate the GPRs, and may have to emulate the Access Registers and more. Then it has to reliable produce the correct results from exectution of the instruction. And those are two of the most simple instructions in the processor to emulate. The emulation may also be required to do things like run a 31bit OS under a 64bit OS - such as running OS390 under zVM or something. That is even before you beging to consider the subject of I/O. On a mainframe, I/O is usually handled by a SAP (System Assist Processor) which is nothing more of less than an entire CP. Also, each channel controller is smart, about the equivalent of a fast PC. Mainframes will usually loose out on raw processing power to the new generation of microchips - but they can move some I/O brother. There are not other GPDC machines around that move I/O like a mainframe. In short, additional overhead and a speed reduction is unavoidable when using emulation. Now, the Itanium processor is fast enough that slowdown may not be that much of a big deal. Again, it depends entirely upon the application set and the way the system will be used. Heck, anyone with a P4 running at a couple gig can build an emulated mainframe system that will clock in with a sustained 40 to 60 MIPS. It isn't legal to run anything other than Linux and some very old copies of VM and MVS on it, but it will run just about anything. That's on a X86 chip base. (BTW: Mentioning that to Mr. Payne will usually produce a strong reaction.) Anyway, point it, the article did not present the complexity and true situation very well, at least in my opinion. Your milage may vary. :) I'm not sure the authors of this article really get those ideas. :) -Paul From: Phil Smith III [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 13:17:00 + Subject: PSI story Interesting -- if not particularly accurate, at least in some areas I know about -- story about PSI and IBM: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/02/16/psi_ibm_hp/print.html ...phsiii
Re: PSI story
Well, just my $0.02, and I have no inside knowledge at all... But... My guess is IBM is doing it's level (and legal) best to get out from under encumbering agreements, and will sooner or later, embrace Hercules as the platform of choice for Sub 200 mips Mainframe platforms. Yep - Hercules. There are no downsides to this from IBM's point of view - they only license mainframe software, such as z/OS, to IBM branded hardware and they build in a hardware dongle to make sure. They can of course do exactly that, since the source code is open and there is no restriction on how you use Hercules that would apply. They simply *do not charge for Hercules*. If and when they do so, it is a great financial advantage to everyone, and they may just open up and restructe the PWD program to be very much more cost effective to developers. At least, that is the pattern IBM seems to follow - every time a PWD program dies off, there is a better one to replace at less cost and with more functionality to the user. (Except for the innumerable an annoying times the website is redesigned. That just keeps getting worse, in my no so humble opinion.) Anyways, it could happen. :) -Paul ---BeginMessage--- With the loss of the Flex 64-bit capability for general use Sorry to nitpick, but I don't believe there has ever been a FLEX 64-bit capability for general use. I'd say that the unavailability of the 64 bit FLEX *is* the loss I'm talking about. On this list (and others), we've been discussing the problems between FSI and IBM on public release of the 64 bit FLEX for months. It will not see the light of day for general customers due to IBM and FSI being unable to come to an agreement. We've seen Cornerstone and T3 present different sides of the case, and you have also responded to the discussion. I call that inability to find common ground a loss. It's an obvious loss to FSI who did follow the rules and tried to work it out with IBM, for obvious reasons. It's a loss to IBM for people who a) don't have the space for a z9, b) don't have the environmentals for a z9, and c) can't afford a z9. IBM is losing, and will continue to lose unless there is a different approach from System z marketing, those small to medium Z customers -- not to the z9 BC, pSeries or iSeries, but to *other vendors* who can deliver a solution that doesn't require a lot of renovation. Ultimately, the loser is the poor schmuck at the customer who's stuck with having to cope with the switch when some finance bozo cuts off the funding for a working solution because it would require renovating the machine room. IBM certainly has the RD capability to out-innovate these upstarts -- the patent IP that seems to be the point of the PSI discussion makes it clear that there's plenty more brains at IBM than elsewhere. The question is how quickly it can be transformed into *something people want to buy*. Clearly there's a desire for a solution in this space that IBM is not providing. How long can IBM afford to bleed small customers that eventually might grow up to be bigger customers -- but have already switched to competing technology? That's really the open question. The current marketing strategy is killing your pipeline of new workload. (We won't raise the general dumbness of the current software marketing campaigns, although it's hardly helping the story...) IMHO, it comes down to the statement that if you can keep a small customer on z until they *are* bigger, then it becomes an inertial decision to STAY on z. The longer you keep them, the harder it is to switch either to -- or from -- System z. So, call it what you will. Loss suits me. ---End Message---
Re: PSI story
I see two problems with this story - one is they quoted Phil Payne, whose has some kind of vendetta against IBM going. (I suspect he lost money in an emulator solution) and two, Itanium hardware is faster and more modern than a mainframe PC, but ... it is not running Itanium software, it is emulationg the zSeries arch. I'm not sure the authors of this article really get those ideas. :) -Paul ---BeginMessage--- Interesting -- if not particularly accurate, at least in some areas I know about -- story about PSI and IBM: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/02/16/psi_ibm_hp/print.html ...phsiii ---End Message---
Re: LPD from Linux versus VAX
This sounds like an error in whatever filter software they are using on the remote UNIX side to convert the UNIX file (in which X'0C' is a FormFeed) to whatever you are accepting. It sounds like they have a custom filter there. Without knowning more about their UNIX/Linux setup, it is really difficult to tell. For example, if they are using dd to convert the file to EBCDIC, is that conversion the culprit? Or do they have a custom filter program that converts X'0A' to a X'40' (space) and should convert X'0C' to a X'41' ? That could explain your X'400C' pattern. Without knowing details however, those are just guesses. But the chances are good your problem is somewhere on the UNIX system. Yours, -Paul ---BeginMessage--- Hi, I have a customer whos is sending files from their VAX system to PSF on my z/VM system via LPSERVE to the appropriate printer queue. When the files come from their old VAX system I grab them from the SPOOL and they have the appropriate ANSI CC (1 in byte one, column one to skip to top of page). The same file sent from their Linux system has the correct ANSI 1 in the first record, but later records that should have the ANSI CC instead have x'400C' instead. Since both versions of the file are coming to the same queue on my side, I'm assuming the problem is on their end, but they are stumped, saying when they send the file there are no ANSI CC 1s anywhere on either. Where is this FF translation handled? Are there Linux LPD settings that will help? Thanks in advance, Peter ---End Message---
Re: FCP SCSI support on z/VM in basic mode
Are you running this direct or through a SAN switch? It doesn't make all that much difference, but a SAN switch also gives you direct access to Fibre connected tapes and such. (If your OS supports them.) I have this on a z800 - don't know if would help you much on a z9* machine though. Also, check out Steve Wilkins page. Kind of VM specific, but VERY helpful. http://www.vm.ibm.com/devpages/wilkinss/ -Paul ---BeginMessage--- I'm working on setting up a SHARK connected via fiber (FCP)on a z900 as a SCSI device. Our z900 runs in basic mode (no LPARs). Is this feasible or do you have to run in LPAR mode. Also, do you have to define an EDEVICE or just set the loaddev? I've looked at several redbooks but haven't found exactly what I'm looking for. Is there an example somewhere that shows setting this up from start to end? Just a simple example showing the IOCP, HMC screens, VM CONFIG, directory entry, etc. ---End Message---
Re: zSeries Linux - How Many Users?
We may be in a rather unique situation then. I typically backup on the zLinux side, about 160BG/night, 80 gigabytes of which consist of a few million wee little images. (80K is the average size.) On top of that, I backup 30 Gigabytes from a Microsoft Exchange Server, and 60 Gigabytes of PC file storage, which again consists of a lot of small files. Our projected load is between 400gb and 700 gb per night. These are going to two TS1120 tapes connected via Fibre Channel to their own little Ficon port on the zSeries machine. On an IFL, just doing a simple 'dsmc archive /cti/*' for say, the 80 gigabytes of images, will easily soak up 200 mips, and take over 20 hours. You don't wat me to tell you how long a selective backup takes... Obivouisly, either something is drastically wrong in the the zLinux, the tape drivers, or most likely, that pesky database is too damn slow. (The Database is over 60 gigs at this point.) We are running SuSE 9 at the required kernel level, and 5.3 on TSM. I moved the server to (shudder) Windows on an IBM blade with dual processor dual core AMD chips and plenty of memory - on the theory that it was processor lock causing the problem. The same command now on the same machine will backup the 80 gigs of images in about an hour. And that is using the network, not even touching LAN free operations. I did think about trying Linux on the xSereis blade, but there are more people here who can handle Windows than can handle Linux, so... The end result is that I can do a simple archive each night, which makes people here happy since the offsite tape rotation is simpler, and it completes in about 4 hours, which is what I predicited when I bought the things, and is well within my backup window. We don't have an automated tape library here at this point, so I really go for simplicity. Now, on the other hand, we have several interactive applications on zLinux that we wrote, and they are easily shown to support several hundred users while only sipping gently at the available MIPS. In theory, we should be able to support around 3000 simultaneous users on a single instance, but since that application runs on 31bit Linux, memory limiations would probably hold that to about 1100 users per instance. We look at out stuff, which is doing quite as much as TSM is doing application wise, albeit with a different signature for the I/O, and then at TSM, and wonder how the devil TSM every got out the door for zLinux... I'm glad your expereince is different, that means there may be hope in the future. -Paul ---BeginMessage--- snip Take Tivoli Storage Manager for instance... Please do take it -- as the play says: God bless and keep the Tsar... far away from us! That's a good example of an inefficient and poorly application on ANY platform. Funny thing, the CMS version wasn't nearly such a pig...but I digress. Interesting... That hasn't been my experience at all. I recently migrated from ADSM/VM to TSM on zLinux and didn't see a significant difference in MIPs consumption. I haven't had any problems keeping multiple STK 9940 tapes busy at 30-40 MB/sec each. I back up about 30 GB/night, on average. Morning housekeeping activities (expiration/migration/dbbackup) averages 30-50 MIPs for an hour or so. DB is 38 GB, 62% full, 38 million objects, 12 TB storage. Backups at night consume an average of less than 20 MIPs, with exception of one 40-50 MIP spike for an hour or so. I have seen initial backups of large clients run at 1.5+ TB/day. The only time I've seen high I/O rates to the DB was when I ran a GENERATE BACKUPSET of a 4 TB node. For brief periods I would see as many as 2500 IOs/sec and as much as 200 MIPs. I'm not saying this invalidates the experiences of others. Just adding my own to the collection. YMMV. Mark Wheeler, 3M Company ---End Message---
Re: zSeries Linux - How Many Users?
I have run into a lot of folks, but we bought the first zSeries machine that I know configured to run only z/VM and Linux. May have something to do with longevity... :) I'd recommend that you look twice at loading things like print servers and etc. on a zSeries unless you are basically swimming in free MIPS. A lot of Linux stuff is written with very little, if any, consideration for efficiency. Take Tivoli Storage Manager for instance... it can easily bring a z800 IFL to it's knees in seconds, and even with a dedicated channel (configured as Fibre Channel Protocol of course) it can not seem to drive a 1120 tape anywhere near normal speed. Most of that is because it swamps the CPU with database updates. (*sigh*) There *are* some things that Intel / AMD processors can do better - for example, I suggest you talk to RSA (Rochester Software Associates) about printing. We have managed to come up with a total replacement for InfoPrint that works from zLinux, i5OS, and Winders without much trouble, and hosting the print server on an Intel Blade means we have lots of speed and redundancy. On the other hand, there is not doubt at all that a well designed *efficient* application under zLinux can and does directly complete with just about any other platform in the world, including z/OS. Admittedly, we write most of appliations in HLASM under zLinux, so we are less likely to include cruft in a program, but we still make intensive use of the stdlib and all sorts of C calls where appropriate. For example, we use the stdlib for I/O. We did layer a homebuilt ISAM/VSAM like filesystem over that, but that was driven by (1) No VSAM under zLinux and (2) even DB/2 is slower than what we wanted. We looked at using some of the COBOL compilers, which were *great*, but we did not like paying a per user cost. On the other hand, tasks that are pretty efficient CPU wise and hogs I/O wise run fantastic on the zSeries machine - stuff like basic print management (no overlays, no data merges, that kind of stuff), web servering, FTP servers, just about any kind of network server including NFS, user interactive tasks, etc. It's a slightly different world, and you can take advantage of 'Open Systems' in ways that are both innovative and sometimes amazing. -Paul ---BeginMessage--- Does anyone happen to know a ballpark figure of how many companies are using zSeries Linux?? My reason for asking is I am working on trying to convince the management here that we could save tons of money by consolidating a lot of the easier workloads (ie- print servers) to zSeries Linux. One of the things I get back is no one is doing it, although I have to think there is a lot of it being used, especially with todays economy as it is. I think IBM has not done a very good job of promoting zSeries Linux, although from a marketing standpoint they undoubtedly make more money with a room full of p-boxes than one or two z-boxes running the same workload. Thanks, Paul Adrian. ---End Message---
Re: zSeries Linux - How Many Users?
http://www.rocsoft.com MIS Print and QDirect together make a pretty awesome combination. They will also do custom work to integrate to other products. They do keep at it until it works as promised. -Paul ---BeginMessage--- I'd recommend that you look twice at loading things like print servers and etc. on a zSeries unless you are basically swimming in free MIPS. A lot of Linux stuff is written with very little, if any, consideration for efficiency. I'd modify that statement to be commercial software deployed on Linux. Most of the stuff that originated on Linux or in the spirit of open source has usually been fairly efficient, or at least you have the opportunity to do something about it if it is a pig. Take Tivoli Storage Manager for instance... Please do take it -- as the play says: God bless and keep the Tsar... far away from us! That's a good example of an inefficient and poorly application on ANY platform. Funny thing, the CMS version wasn't nearly such a pig...but I digress. I suggest you talk to RSA (Rochester Software Associates) about printing. We have managed to come up with a total replacement for InfoPrint that works from zLinux, i5OS, and Winders without much trouble, and hosting the print server on an Intel Blade means we have lots of speed and redundancy. Interesting -- pointer? What does it do that CUPS doesn't do natively? ---End Message---
Re: Question on LINUX
There are no costs that *have* to be incurred. However, all the zLinux companies will try their best to get you to buy their Patch/Fix support. For SuSE that has been less than $5K/year, but I understand the price has not 'gone up' a bit. Don't have the details at this time, but I expect they will make something fairly reasonable available. Once you have a copy up and running it is pretty rare to need to change it, especially in a production environment. And the system is solid as a rock, especially under z/VM. One note - don't expect good support on zLinux from anyone- including IBM. All of the support people are basically Intel people, and don't have much of a clue of the difference between DASD and a harddisk - and no idea about how things like FICON work. SuSE has some really good people in place who can help out, but getting to them can be a challenge. On the flip side - it is cheap and works really well. -Paul ---BeginMessage--- Hello Everyone, I am just being to review LINUX on z/VM. I have played with it on a PC, took an IBM install class way back when. The question I have been asked is Linux for z/VM truly free?. Or are there costs that HAVE to be incurred? Salesmen never true answers. Ed Martin Aultman Health Foundation 330-588-4723 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ext. 40441 ---End Message---
Re: a C language question....
Yes, thank you! z/VM is not our primary production environment (that would be zLinux :) so we have few tools on z/VM to do anything with. I'd definately love to have a C compiler over there... -Paul ---BeginMessage--- Paul, if you are interested in a free C compiler for z/VM (CMS) you might want to look at the port of gcc over to that environment. The porting effort is being led by Dave Wade, and you can get more details, as well as a download copy of the compiler, here: http://www.vsoft-software.com/gccesa/ Hope this helps DH P. Raulerson wrote: Well, this code compiles perfectly under SuSE Linux 9, so I think that the compiler is telling you it cannot find any function named getaddrinfo(). Make sure you have the correct MACLIBS or whatever the C compiler uses set up. Come to think of it, what C compiler are you using under VM? Is it a freebie? :) -Paul ---End Message---
Re: z800 OSA GbENET LX card
Ah-- nope. They have it setup correctly. However, in my experience, that 'mode conditioning cable' just never seems to work. The real simple answer is to put a GBIC in the switch that takes long wave connections. Assuming you are using a switch that uses GBICs of course. The cost will be a PITA - somewhere between $500 and $1000. -Paul ---BeginMessage--- Hi, We have purchased a used z800 to use as our compiler server. The box came with one GbENET LX card. All our infrastructure is set-up for SX and not LX mode. Our hardware group added a IBM Mode Conditioning Patchcord to the connection on the z800 end. They did not use one at the switch end. I read in one of the manuals that the mode conditioning cable should be used at both ends, but the Hardware group said it should only be on the z800 end. They said the switch is set-up to take SX mode cable, so the patch cord is not needed. We can not get the OSA card to connect. When they dial into the switch, they do not see a connection on the two ports we are using. The card has a series of lights on it. The top half has an E0, D0, A0, B0, and a C0 light.The bottom half has a similar arrangement, but uses a '1' instead of a '0'. The only lights that are on are the A0 and A1, and they are flashing. I tried to find a book on-line that shows the z800 card, but I have not been able to find one. Do you think this issue is caused by the lack of the mode conditioning patchcord at both ends? Thanks, Ken Vance Amadeus ---End Message---
Re: Remote Tape drives
There are lots of ways to do that, depending upon what it is attached to and what (if any) budget you have to do it with. Some more details would help get you better suggestions. : ) -Paul ---BeginMessage--- Chaps, Any suggestions on ways we could have a tape drive 3490 in a remote location attached to our mainframe. We are talking about 1 thousand of miles. Speed is not important Crispin Hugo Systems Programmer, Macro 4 http://www.macro4.com/ http://www.macro4.com/ Macro 4 plc, The Orangery, Turners Hill Road, Worth, Crawley, RH10 4SS Direct Line: +44 (0)1293 872121 Switchboard: +44 (0) 1293 872000 Fax: +44 (0) 1293 872001 This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required please request a hard-copy version. This message is provided for informational purposes and should not be construed as a solicitation, offer or acceptance of any offer. This email has been scanned for all known viruses by the MessageLabs Email Security Service and the Macro 4 plc internal virus protection system. ---End Message---
Re: When the CPU phones home....
It sends different things depending upon what you have selected. If you have an HSC, most of the options for what it sends are set in there. If not, you can access the same screens from a service element. It can send a lot of information, but none of what it sends was important to our SOX auditors. Call 1-800-IBM-SERV and they can help you out pretty quickly with that issue. ---BeginMessage--- This year's urgent question is, When the mainframe calls in a service problem to IBM, what data gets transmitted to IBM? Is this information published somewhere? I haven't even figure out who within our local IBM team I'd ask such a question of, but maybe IBM published the spec in case of auditors wanting to know that or something. Thanks, Nick ps -- yes, it's come up about three different times this year. I suspect it's the same provocateur each time, but this time, that itch is finally getting scratched. ---End Message---
Re: IBM sues PSI
Well, if you limit that to IBM software, sure, and that is their right. I have not heard of any lawsuits about it in direct relation to Hercules, but then, I don't follow it all that closely anymore. I think even IBM Legal would have a tough time making a case about Hercules and Linux/390/zLinux though. Nor would they particuarly care I think. My guess is that IBM is coming out with a PowerPC based platform that will support all three major major non-Intel platforms; pSeries, iSeries, and zSeries. You can already load with AIX or i5OS on the latest pSeries boxes, and zSereis is only a few steps away. When that happens, IBM will explode into the area currently held by FlexES and/or Hercules. Or they might choose to emulate that on an Intel platform - Intel is projecting *80* core chips. That would certainly be enough to make something like Hercules capable of being a major problem for IBM. Heck, they might just go and buy Hercules then turn it into their own product. Or the rights to do something like that. Never can tell, IBM has, upon occasion, shown marketing savvy and a heck of a lot of good sense. Of course, they are also known for the exact opposite, and the current OO push with WebSphere may backfire bigtime with 'em in the mainframe area. It is WILDY sucessful in the iSeries world though. Partnerworld for Developers has turned into a sad joke compared to what it was in the mid 1990s. Only speculation, and in the meantime, I doubt seriously IBM has even a slight bit of heartburn about people running MVS or VM or Linux or whatever else is available out there under Herc. ---BeginMessage--- Hello Paul, I can say that IBM has targeted anyone using non-public domain IBM software and Hercules. Fact. Ed Martin Aultman Health Foundation 330-588-4723 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ext. 40441 -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of P. Raulerson Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 9:26 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: IBM sues PSI I don't think they will ever target Hercules, even if someone puts out a commercial product with it. Does anyone know what PSI is using under the covers? A horrid thought just occurred to me that it might BE Hercules. -Paul ---End Message---
Re: IBM sues PSI
Yeah, but if they decided to go that way, you can bet that z/OS and z/VM would stop running on Hercules immediately - something would be built into the OCO IBM version to authenticate and license it. Which would leave Herc exactly where it is a today - a super cool place to run historical OS's and Linux. :) -Paul ---BeginMessage--- Hercules cannot be bought in that sense of the word. It is distributed under the QPL. IBM could, of course, hire the developers and create a commercial fork in addition to stopping all other development by the current developers (if they become IBM employees). But that cannot stop other developers from continuing the public Hercules development (short of lawsuits, of course). -- John McKown Senior Systems Programmer HealthMarkets Keeping the Promise of Affordable Coverage Administrative Services Group Information Technology This message (including any attachments) contains confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose, and its content is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this message and are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this transmission, or taking any action based on it, is strictly prohibited. -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Raulerson Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 2:17 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: IBM sues PSI Heck, they might just go and buy Hercules then turn it into their own product. Or the rights to do something like that. ---End Message---
Re: VM web site
Woo boy - it *is* Friday... grin -Paul ---BeginMessage--- The Webmaster To Whom We Are Eternally Grateful is busy contacting our ISP as we speak. Our admin, who art in Endicott, Hallowed be thy userid. Thy login comes, Thy will be done. On VM as it is on real hardware. Give us this day our daily WWW pages And forgive us our access violations As we forgive stupid WWW-based application delivery. For thine is the ESM admin role, and the DIRMAINT privileged userid, and the access to the console, Forever, and ever. Amen. And people ask me what a proper liberal arts education is good for...8-) -- db ---End Message---
Re: Assembler class
Drop Steve Comstock an e-mail and he can probably help you out. ([EMAIL PROTECTED]). Also Dave Bond over at Tachyon might be interested and be able to provide some assistance. http://www.tachyonsoft.com -Paul ---BeginMessage--- Does anyone know of any one or any group that teaches Assembler? This would be for a VM environment. Order of preference: 1) over the internet. 2) something in the midwest area 3) something in the continental US Thanks, Steve G. ---End Message---
Re: Another long slow decline.
So counter propose a zSeries based solution - say using Linux in an IFL and DB/2 with some kind of Client/Server application. IBM has some GREAT support for that now. Also talk to people like Dave Rivers (SYS/ASM) and Dave Bond (TACHYON) , both of whom frequent this list. They both have assembler products that run just dandy under Linux/390 on the mainframe. Faster than greased lightening too. And remember, that if you can come in with a proposal that preseves the legacy systems, satifies the Windows crowd who don't know anything about non-Windows platforms, and do it cheaper, faster, and better... well - that is a no-brainer for anyone. -Paul ---BeginMessage--- Having worked for the Leon County Court systems in Tallahassee, I would suggest that your statements are not Politically Correct. They are true but not PC. Ed Martin Aultman Health Foundation 330-588-4723 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ext. 40441 -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve_Domarski/[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 8:15 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Another long slow decline. The jaw dropper here was from the consultants that keep asking for the mainframe budget figures over and over. They just couldn't believe that we were operating what we have for the costs. The mantra then became performance. Everything was suddenly so slow that almost no one could get there work done. Which was unusual because in that year we finished more ownership changes and set new values on more parcels then in any of the previous three years. The real issue here appears to be political. Conservatives believe privatizing government will make government smaller. No one ever said it would be cheep. Don't get me wrong I would be leading this charge if it was cheaper. I pay taxes in this town to. But to pay 300% more than the current cost, loose facility, loose performance, and the tax dollars go out of town is just mind numbing. ---End Message---
Re: Another long slow decline.
Sure it is - the people at the top are probably pretty smart people, though they may not be knowledable in IT subjects. They speak in terms of money - so you just have to use the right language. As in dollars and cents make SENSE. Very very rarely are their places where economic sense is totally ignored, and that is rarely in a government office, despite zillinos of jokes to the contrary. -Paul ---BeginMessage--- Title: Message No, it isn't a "no brainer". I know. Previous management here had "no brains". They always chose Windows. Regardless of what was said or done or needed. --John McKownSenior Systems ProgrammerHealthMarketsKeeping the Promise of Affordable CoverageAdministrative Services GroupInformation TechnologyThis message (including any attachments) contains confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose, and its content is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this message and are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this transmission, or taking any action based on it, is strictly prohibited. -Original Message-From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul RaulersonSent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 1:19 PMTo: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDUSubject: Re: Another long slow decline. So counter propose a zSeries based solution - say using Linux in an IFL and DB/2 with some kind of Client/Server application. IBM has some GREAT support for that now. Also talk to people like Dave Rivers (SYS/ASM) and Dave Bond (TACHYON) , both of whom frequent this list. They both have assembler products that run just dandy under Linux/390 on the mainframe. Faster than greased lightening too. And remember, that if you can come in with a proposal that preseves the legacy systems, satifies the Windows crowd who don't know anything about non-Windows platforms, and do it cheaper, faster, and better... well - that is a no-brainer for anyone. -Paul ---End Message---
Re: Moving a guest to new DASD
If the disk has been formatted previous, using CPFMTXA or CPVOLUME, it will remain usable for Linux no matter how many times you change or rearrange mini-disks on it. (You do have the the first cyl allocated to $ALLOC, right? :) You just need to dasdfmtthe beasties each time you change them. The other key is to be sure to dasdfmt them as cdl - compatible disk layout. That is the default, so you would have to intentionally change it to do otherwise. Now, a dump z/VM question - with DDR, I usually link the minidisks I am copy to copy and do a COPY ALL. I saw in a previous message that someone was doing a DUMP ALL and RESTORE ALL. My limited understandingis that DUMP and RESTORE only seem to work to tape - is that correct? Or is there an easier way to copy volumes around lurking in there somewhere??? I *never* have trouble with the COPY ALL bit. -Paul ---BeginMessage--- Kim, Good analogy. But these are not new DASD, they have been well-used. The were originally formatted with ICKDSF before ever being used by VM. Now we're just carving up some set of previously used cylinders for use by Linux. Since the cylinders had previous lives (perhaps as a CMS minidisk, perhaps as part of multiple CMS minidisks, perhaps even as part of a Linux minidisk) they had been hardware formatted. If previously used as CMS minidisks they certainly had 4k blocks written all over them. If previously used as a Linux mdisk, then before that they had been used as a CMS mdisk, again having been well-used before the first time Linux ever saw them. I would expect that as long as dasdfmt completed successfully, then it should have written everything Linux would need to use the device - not just formatting part of the disk. I'm still leaning towards Linux expecting to see some sort of label or VTOC, that for some reason dasdfmt doesn't (always?) write. Perhaps in the cases where Linux could use the new MDISK after dasdfmt, it was because in a previous life the first cylinder of the MDISK had been the start of a CMS or OS MDISK. Maybe we only need to format cylinder zero of each new Linux guest MDISK to get a label or VTOC written. Or, maybe we just need to add another parameter to the dasdfmt command to get such written so we can skip the CMS format? Mike Walter Hewitt Associates The opinions expressed herein are mine alone, not my employer's. Kim Goldenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU 05/23/2006 02:11 PM Please respond to The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU To IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU cc Subject Re: Moving a guest to new DASD Mike Walter wrote: An IBMer from Omaha told us that one should always format with CMS or ICKDSF before giving an MDISK to a Linux guest before the guest formats the MDISK with dasdfmt. No reason for the CMS or ICKDSF format was given. Formatting an MDISK twice really, really (pun intended) rubs me the wrong way. Except you are not really formatting it twice. You are formatting the hardware disk in CMS format the first time, and then formatting the area withing that space for Linux's use (dasdfmt). just laying down data within the MDISK. It' kinda like the pre-ata hard drives that had to be hardware formatted (with a servo track or some other) the first time, before you could DOS format them. Think of the ICKDSF format as a hardware format and the dasdfmt as the software format, even though both are software generated. The CMS format is just arranging the ECKD dasd in 4k blocks with the appropriate pseudo-IRGs betweeen them. Linux is then putting down it's formatting on the disk so that ext2/3 can find the eyecatchers it's looking fo on the disk. Remember, the file system doesn't care what is on the disk, but is expecting information that dasdfmt has left behind, perhaps in control blocks in the first block or two of the partition. That partition has to look the same on my laptop as on a SCSI disk, as on a USB keyfob drive, as on a 3390... But we have experienced inconsistent problems with MDISKs given to Linux guests after formatting with only dasdfmt (i.e. not with ICKDSF or CMS FORMAT). Sometimes the MDISK worked with only dasdfmt, other times Linux would not recognize it and we had to format it with CMS, then dasdfmt. When at a Linux workshop in Poughkeepsie, the IBM instructor related that Linux mdisks should always be formatted by CMS or ICKDSF before giving them to the Linux guest to beformatted with dasdfmt - having experienced random failures himself. I suspect that the problem is related to the MDISK needing a volser or dummy VTOC, but have never had time to research it. My guess is that skipping the CMS format works when the newly defined MDISK happens to align with a previously used MDISK beginning at that same cylinder extent. Does anyone have a verifiable explanation for the requirement to format the MDISK before giving it to Linux for a
Re: FCP Attached Tape Drives (z/VM, z/Linux) - Help Please!
Steve Wilkin's page is a goldmine! Thanks for the pointer. :) I see I gotten myself in a conumdrum here - the FCP port if available, but I should not have defined any devices on it. "SET EDEVICE xxx xx xx xx ... " results in a complaint that 'D200 is a defined as a real device". I suppose it istime for yet another maintenance window, and bring her down again. (*sigh*) I should not be this difficult. :) :) :) :) I suppose I am going to have to start a VM User group down here - the closest one I know of the CaveMen guys up in Chigaco. :) -Paul ---BeginMessage--- On Monday, 05/08/2006 at 04:20 GMT, Paul Raulerson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I modified the IODC (using the HMC, I have not figured out how to use the z/VM software for doing so yet... :) to change a free FC channel to a FCP channel, and added a CUNUMBR line to support. I?ve included the definition file below, with the interesting bits marked in red.:) From z/VM I can do a query on the CHPID (F3 in this case) and I see that it thinks there are devices available out there. That is kind strange, because the new tapes are not yet attached there are two new 3592 TS1120 tape drives ready to connect to the SAN switch and configure. The FiCON port is also ready to connect to the SAN switch and, if necessary, do any configuration. Actually, VM doesn't see the SCSI devices. What it sees are the subchannels on the chpid. In normal ESCON attachment, the control units actively participate in the I/O process. They know which devices are available and which devices are not. For SCSI, there is no traditional control unit to manage device attachment to the I/O subsystem. There's just a cable the plugs into your FC switch. The connection to a particular drive is established dynamically via a specific protocol between the guest or CP and the switch. So as long as the chpid is active, all of the devices you defined on the chpid will appear, but they don't have active devices on them until CP (via EDEVICE) or a guest (via its own SCSI device drivers) does something. Problem is, from this point on I am lost there are WorldWidePort addresses and a lot of other terminology I am not familiar with. So any references or pointers would be very much appreciated. I have a feeling that this is not all that hard. The Shark is current attached to the same SAN switches, and provides DASD for the PC?s. See Steve Wilkins' home page: http://www.vm.ibm.com/devpages/wilkinss where you will find several of his presentations on z/VM and SCSI. These are excellent resources. (Steve is the Father of z/VM SCSI.) It helps if you can sit down with someone who has storage expertise to help round out some of the practical considerations. And get thee to a VM user group near thee! If the user group requests someone come and speak on SCSI, we are more than happy to oblige. Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott ---End Message---
