Re: IFCONFIG to -REMOVE a link
On Tuesday, 08/25/2009 at 09:59 EDT, Rich Smrcina wrote: > The clouds parted, beams of sun streak through, it is a good day to be a > sysprog. And a heavenly chorus was heard. You make it sound like I'm an opinionated old goat who never changes his mind on anything. Oh. I see your point. ;-) Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott
Re: IFCONFIG to -REMOVE a link
David Boyes wrote: On 8/24/09 7:12 PM, "Alan Altmark" wrote: I am rapidly moving to the opinion that VM TCP/IP should use a VSWITCH and let the VSWITCH handle failover at the hardware level rather than needing multiple IP addresses, VIPAs, and dynamic routing. When VSWITCHes first became available, I was reluctant to put all my eggs in one basket. Now, however, "no problem." You grow wise, grasshopper.. 8-) The clouds parted, beams of sun streak through, it is a good day to be a sysprog. -- Rich Smrcina Phone: 414-491-6001 http://www.linkedin.com/in/richsmrcina Catch the WAVV! http://www.wavv.org WAVV 2010 - Apr 9-14, 2010 Covington, KY
Re: IFCONFIG to -REMOVE a link
On 8/24/09 7:12 PM, "Alan Altmark" wrote: > I am rapidly moving to the opinion that VM TCP/IP should use a VSWITCH and > let the VSWITCH handle failover at the hardware level rather than needing > multiple IP addresses, VIPAs, and dynamic routing. > When VSWITCHes first became available, I was reluctant to put all my eggs > in one basket. Now, however, "no problem." You grow wise, grasshopper.. 8-)
Re: IFCONFIG to -REMOVE a link
Thank you Miguel, That did it. > Shimon, > > Stop the interface with IFCONFIG VSECM DOWN first. It turns out that > IFCONFIG doesn't use the actual device status to decide whether an > interface is UP or DOWN...it considers a device UP if it has usable routes > (i.e. it can actually send traffic). We should probably change that :-) > > Regards, > Miguel Delapaz > z/VM Development
Re: IFCONFIG to -REMOVE a link
TCPIP works really nicely using a VSWITCH... at my current location, we've reduced TCPIP's role to the VM stack only -- and share the VSWITCH with Linux guests. We can bounce TCPIP without affecting anyone but the VM sysprogs telnetting in.. I'm a fan of letting the vswitch controllers manage the real OSA's - and leaving VM TCPIP to manage the VM stack.. with virtual devices attached to a vswitch. The VSWITCH implementation seems really solid in my experience. Scott On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 5:12 PM, Alan Altmark wrote: > On Monday, 08/24/2009 at 02:19 EDT, "Dean, David (I/S)" > wrote: > > We had a situation where one of our OSA links died, but failover did not > > > occur. It appeared to us that the zVM was not aware that the card was > actually > > ?down?. This seemed similar to what you were referencing. I could be > wrong?.. > > There can be failures where OSA does not notify the host of a failure. The > VSWITCH was designed to detect an OSA "stall". TCP/IP's OSD device driver > was not. > > I am rapidly moving to the opinion that VM TCP/IP should use a VSWITCH and > let the VSWITCH handle failover at the hardware level rather than needing > multiple IP addresses, VIPAs, and dynamic routing. > > When VSWITCHes first became available, I was reluctant to put all my eggs > in one basket. Now, however, "no problem." > > Alan Altmark > z/VM Development > IBM Endicott >
Re: IFCONFIG to -REMOVE a link
On Monday, 08/24/2009 at 02:19 EDT, "Dean, David (I/S)" wrote: > We had a situation where one of our OSA links died, but failover did not > occur. It appeared to us that the zVM was not aware that the card was actually > ?down?. This seemed similar to what you were referencing. I could be wrong?.. There can be failures where OSA does not notify the host of a failure. The VSWITCH was designed to detect an OSA "stall". TCP/IP's OSD device driver was not. I am rapidly moving to the opinion that VM TCP/IP should use a VSWITCH and let the VSWITCH handle failover at the hardware level rather than needing multiple IP addresses, VIPAs, and dynamic routing. When VSWITCHes first became available, I was reluctant to put all my eggs in one basket. Now, however, "no problem." Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott
Re: IFCONFIG to -REMOVE a link
We had a situation where one of our OSA links died, but failover did not occur. It appeared to us that the zVM was not aware that the card was actually "down". This seemed similar to what you were referencing. I could be wrong. From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Miguel Delapaz Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 2:01 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: IFCONFIG to -REMOVE a link IFCONFIG doesn't display information about VSWITCHes or their controllers...so I'm not sure what you're referring to. Could you clarify? Regards, Miguel Delapaz z/VM Development > "Dean, David (I/S)" > > Yep, and if you have two controllers for failover to two OSA's this > is a problem ... am I up or am I down? - Please see the following link for the BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee E-mail disclaimer: http://www.bcbst.com/email_disclaimer.shtm
Re: IFCONFIG to -REMOVE a link
IFCONFIG doesn't display information about VSWITCHes or their controllers...so I'm not sure what you're referring to. Could you clarify? Regards, Miguel Delapaz z/VM Development > "Dean, David (I/S)" > > Yep, and if you have two controllers for failover to two OSA’s this > is a problem … am I up or am I down?
Re: IFCONFIG to -REMOVE a link
Yep, and if you have two controllers for failover to two OSA's this is a problem ... am I up or am I down? From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Miguel Delapaz Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 11:33 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: IFCONFIG to -REMOVE a link Shimon, Stop the interface with IFCONFIG VSECM DOWN first. It turns out that IFCONFIG doesn't use the actual device status to decide whether an interface is UP or DOWN...it considers a device UP if it has usable routes (i.e. it can actually send traffic). We should probably change that :-) Regards, Miguel Delapaz z/VM Development The IBM z/VM Operating System wrote on 08/23/2009 05:01:55 AM: > Hi, > I tried to use IFCONFIG to remove a link. According to the help file > the interface must be inactive first. I assumed that an interface which is > "DOWN" can be considered "inactive", but apparently I was wrong: > > IFCONFIG VSECM > VSECMINET ADDR: 10.1.5.2 P-T-P: 10.1.6.2 MASK: 255.0.0.0 > DOWN BROADCAST MULTICAST POINTOPOINT MTU: 32760 > VDEV: 0902 TYPE: CTC PORTNUMBER: 1 > CPU: 0 FORWARDING: ENABLED > RX BYTES: 0 TX BYTES: 1524 > READY; T=0.13/0.14 14:51:26 > > IFCONFIG -SHOW VSECM -REMOVE > DTCIFC2668E -REMOVE CANNOT BE SPECIFIED FOR AN ACTIVE INTERFACE > READY(8); T=0.11/0.12 14:51:35 > Can someone explain what else I need to do to remove this interface? > Thanks, > Shimon - Please see the following link for the BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee E-mail disclaimer: http://www.bcbst.com/email_disclaimer.shtm
Re: IFCONFIG to -REMOVE a link
Shimon, Stop the interface with IFCONFIG VSECM DOWN first. It turns out that IFCONFIG doesn't use the actual device status to decide whether an interface is UP or DOWN...it considers a device UP if it has usable routes (i.e. it can actually send traffic). We should probably change that :-) Regards, Miguel Delapaz z/VM Development The IBM z/VM Operating System wrote on 08/23/2009 05:01:55 AM: > Hi, > I tried to use IFCONFIG to remove a link. According to the help file > the interface must be inactive first. I assumed that an interface which is > "DOWN" can be considered "inactive", but apparently I was wrong: > > IFCONFIG VSECM > VSECM INET ADDR: 10.1.5.2 P-T-P: 10.1.6.2 MASK: 255.0.0.0 > DOWN BROADCAST MULTICAST POINTOPOINT MTU: 32760 > VDEV: 0902 TYPE: CTC PORTNUMBER: 1 > CPU: 0 FORWARDING: ENABLED > RX BYTES: 0 TX BYTES: 1524 > READY; T=0.13/0.14 14:51:26 > > IFCONFIG -SHOW VSECM -REMOVE > DTCIFC2668E -REMOVE CANNOT BE SPECIFIED FOR AN ACTIVE INTERFACE > READY(8); T=0.11/0.12 14:51:35 > Can someone explain what else I need to do to remove this interface? > Thanks, > Shimon
