Re: Maximum Virtual Storage
On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 1:11 AM, Gary M. Dennis wrote: > If the volume limit for a z/VM page volumes is 240+, how does this relate to > maximum defined virtual storage for all active guests under a z/VM image? The total amount of virtual storage in the universe is limited by the amount segment and page tables in PTRM address spaces that we'd need to span that virtual memory. Some of that is resident, some is paged out, and some is just not there. The amount resident is limited by your real memory, paged out is limited by the amount of paging space, etc. Paging volumes is due cpowned maximum and number of spool packs, plus size of a device, etc. The way I remember the presentation is that Bit points at the various restrictions independent of each other. So you know that once this restriction is gone, the next barrier in space would be that one. Or the other way around: don't start bugging us about this limit because the other one is hitting you first. We don't want the car manufacturers to list all cars maximum speed at 55 mph because that's the local limit in your area. But looking at the glossies, it does make sense to realize whether a listed 110 mph does you any good... | Rob
Re: Maximum Virtual Storage
There is also that intangible factor of how each of those 4GB guests make use of memory.. combine that with use of VDISK for things like Linux swapping ... another unpredictable. That's why 'how many xxGB guests can I run within the maximum architectural limits' isn't really answerable.. all you can really do is come up with a worst case value and estimate. Yet another factor is your willingness to suffer poor performance .. overcommit to 5x and if response times are acceptable -- than you can have twice as many guests running than with an overcommit of 2.5x. (and yes - you need the paging space available to support those overcommit levels) Anyway - unless all those 4GB guests are doing exactly the same thing, and accepting work at exactly the same rate - the number you can support isn't really predictable except within some broad ranges. Cost effective virtualization sort of depends on the hypothesis that there is usually a natural disparity of work between guests moment to moment. Ideally - the peaks and valleys of activity all average into that 'sweet spot' plateau we are all searching for. So - 4 paragraphs to say 'it depends' again. :-)Friday night and time for a nightcap and some sleep.. dreaming of dolphins and swimming after imaginary numbers. Good discussion, I think -- nite all - Scott Rohling On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 7:06 PM, Phil Smith wrote: > Gary M. Dennis asked: > >If the volume limit for a z/VM page volumes is 240+, how does this relate > to > >maximum defined virtual storage for all active guests under a z/VM image? > > Well, in theory, I guess it's >(real storage)+(page space)-(real system requirements) > but that's cutting it close to the line. So it's more like >(real storage)*n > where n is the overcommit ratio, as Scott Rohling indicated -- likely no > more than 3x in production, probably closer to 2x. > > If you're thinking "Ginormous zEnterprise with 3TB of real and one z/VM > system", do the math: > 240 x 48GB* = 11TB, if I'm doing it right. So you're "OK", FSVO "OK". > > Let us know how that baby runs, eh? > > ...phsiii > > * 48GB = 65530*180*4096 >
Re: Maximum Virtual Storage
Gary M. Dennis asked: >If the volume limit for a z/VM page volumes is 240+, how does this relate to >maximum defined virtual storage for all active guests under a z/VM image? Well, in theory, I guess it's (real storage)+(page space)-(real system requirements) but that's cutting it close to the line. So it's more like (real storage)*n where n is the overcommit ratio, as Scott Rohling indicated -- likely no more than 3x in production, probably closer to 2x. If you're thinking "Ginormous zEnterprise with 3TB of real and one z/VM system", do the math: 240 x 48GB* = 11TB, if I'm doing it right. So you're "OK", FSVO "OK". Let us know how that baby runs, eh? ...phsiii * 48GB = 65530*180*4096
Re: Maximum Virtual Storage
Well - this probably seems circular .. but it depends on the level of overcommitment of virtual to real you define and on what size your paging volumes are. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding (frequently the case).. Scott Rohling On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 5:11 PM, Gary M. Dennis wrote: > The thread on mixed paging volumes caused me to ask the question. I should > have been more specific. > > If the volume limit for a z/VM page volumes is 240+, how does this relate > to > maximum defined virtual storage for all active guests under a z/VM image? > > For example, in an environment where each guest requires 4BG virtual, how > many such guests could a single z/VM system manage? > > > > On 10/1/10 3:07 PM, "Mike Walter" wrote: > > > Do you mean REAL virtual storage, to which answers have already been > > supplied? > > Or do you mean VIRTUAL virtual storage, as documented as the "Maximum > > Input Values for Storage Units" in the CP Planning and Administration > > manual? > > > > For z/VM 5.4 and 6.1 the maximum "stor" size for any virtual machine is > > 16E (exabytes). > > > > I'd venture a guess that IBM would be pleased to sell you sufficient real > > storage and DASD to support a few of those VMs, their paging and dump > > space requirements. :-) > > > > > 11010100100010011001001011010100111001101001100100111010001111 > > 0110011001 > > > > Mike Walter > > Hewitt Associates > > The opinions expressed herein are mine alone, not my employer's. > > > > > > > > > > "Gary M. Dennis" > > > > Sent by: "The IBM z/VM Operating System" > > 10/01/2010 02:47 PM > > Please respond to > > "The IBM z/VM Operating System" > > > > > > > > To > > IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU > > cc > > > > Subject > > Maximum Virtual Storage > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What is the maximum guest virtual storage supported by z/VM? > > > > --. .- .-. -.-- > > > > Gary Dennis > > Mantissa Corporation > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. All messages sent to and from this e-mail address may be > monitored > > as permitted by applicable law and regulations to ensure compliance with > our > > internal policies and to protect our business. E-mails are not secure and > > cannot be guaranteed to be error free as they can be intercepted, > amended, > > lost or destroyed, or contain viruses. You are deemed to have accepted > these > > risks if you communicate with us by e-mail. > > > > --. .- .-. -.-- > > Gary Dennis > Mantissa Corporation > 1121 Edenton Street > Birmingham, Alabama 35242-9257 > > 0 ... living between the zeros... 0 > > p: 205.968-3942 > m: 205.218-3937 > f: 205.968.3932 > > gary.den...@mantissa.com > http://www.mantissa.com > http://www.idovos.com >
Re: Maximum Virtual Storage
The thread on mixed paging volumes caused me to ask the question. I should have been more specific. If the volume limit for a z/VM page volumes is 240+, how does this relate to maximum defined virtual storage for all active guests under a z/VM image? For example, in an environment where each guest requires 4BG virtual, how many such guests could a single z/VM system manage? On 10/1/10 3:07 PM, "Mike Walter" wrote: > Do you mean REAL virtual storage, to which answers have already been > supplied? > Or do you mean VIRTUAL virtual storage, as documented as the "Maximum > Input Values for Storage Units" in the CP Planning and Administration > manual? > > For z/VM 5.4 and 6.1 the maximum "stor" size for any virtual machine is > 16E (exabytes). > > I'd venture a guess that IBM would be pleased to sell you sufficient real > storage and DASD to support a few of those VMs, their paging and dump > space requirements. :-) > > 11010100100010011001001011010100111001101001100100111010001111 > 0110011001 > > Mike Walter > Hewitt Associates > The opinions expressed herein are mine alone, not my employer's. > > > > > "Gary M. Dennis" > > Sent by: "The IBM z/VM Operating System" > 10/01/2010 02:47 PM > Please respond to > "The IBM z/VM Operating System" > > > > To > IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU > cc > > Subject > Maximum Virtual Storage > > > > > > > What is the maximum guest virtual storage supported by z/VM? > > --. .- .-. -.-- > > Gary Dennis > Mantissa Corporation > > > > > > 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. All messages sent to and from this e-mail address may be monitored > as permitted by applicable law and regulations to ensure compliance with our > internal policies and to protect our business. E-mails are not secure and > cannot be guaranteed to be error free as they can be intercepted, amended, > lost or destroyed, or contain viruses. You are deemed to have accepted these > risks if you communicate with us by e-mail. > --. .- .-. -.-- Gary Dennis Mantissa Corporation 1121 Edenton Street Birmingham, Alabama 35242-9257 0 ... living between the zeros... 0 p: 205.968-3942 m: 205.218-3937 f: 205.968.3932 gary.den...@mantissa.com http://www.mantissa.com http://www.idovos.com
Re: Maximum Virtual Storage
On 10/1/2010 10:07 PM, Mike Walter wrote: I'd venture a guess that IBM would be pleased to sell you sufficient real storage and DASD to support a few of those VMs, their paging and dump space requirements. :-) 110101001000100110010010110101001110011010011001001110100011110110011001 Ah.. IBM & Storage.. I was a bit appalled by the ad I was (and still am) seeing here locally (I don't know if you all get that kind).. Basically, the poster was saying : Storage requirements double every 18 hours (!!??) And since I've been seeing this one for about a couple of years, I figured that by now, the 'storage requirement' would have, by far, exceed the number of electrons in the whole universe by several orders of magnitude.. Of course, I may be a bit conservative by assigning 1 bit per electron. But sure - they'll sell it ! (Hey - it's Friday !) --Ivan
Re: Maximum Virtual Storage
Do you mean REAL virtual storage, to which answers have already been supplied? Or do you mean VIRTUAL virtual storage, as documented as the "Maximum Input Values for Storage Units" in the CP Planning and Administration manual? For z/VM 5.4 and 6.1 the maximum "stor" size for any virtual machine is 16E (exabytes). I'd venture a guess that IBM would be pleased to sell you sufficient real storage and DASD to support a few of those VMs, their paging and dump space requirements. :-) 110101001000100110010010110101001110011010011001001110100011110110011001 Mike Walter Hewitt Associates The opinions expressed herein are mine alone, not my employer's. "Gary M. Dennis" Sent by: "The IBM z/VM Operating System" 10/01/2010 02:47 PM Please respond to "The IBM z/VM Operating System" To IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU cc Subject Maximum Virtual Storage What is the maximum guest virtual storage supported by z/VM? --. .- .-. -.-- Gary Dennis Mantissa Corporation 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. All messages sent to and from this e-mail address may be monitored as permitted by applicable law and regulations to ensure compliance with our internal policies and to protect our business. E-mails are not secure and cannot be guaranteed to be error free as they can be intercepted, amended, lost or destroyed, or contain viruses. You are deemed to have accepted these risks if you communicate with us by e-mail.
Re: Maximum Virtual Storage
Memory
? Central storage
? Supported central storage: 256 GB
? Unsupported central storage (maximum LPAR size):
? z9: 512 GB minus your HSA
? z10: 1 TB
? z196: 1TB
? z/VM primitive tests with 1TB
? Expanded storage (architected): 16TB
? z/VM Limit: 128GB supported
? Upto 660GB unsupported (depends on other factors)
? See http://www.vm.ibm.com/perf/tips/storconf.html
? Virtual machine size:
? Supported/Tested 1 TB (240)
? Hardware limits
? z10 8TB
? z9 1TB
? z990 256GB
? z900 256GB
Memory
? Active, or instantiated, guest real limit imposed by
PTRM space limits (architected): 8 TB
? 16 4-GB PTRM spaces; each PTRM space can map 512 GB of guest real
http://proceedings.share.org/client_files/SHARE_in_Boston_2/Session_7124_handout_372_0.pdf
From: "Gary M. Dennis"
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Date: 10/01/2010 03:47 PM
Subject:Maximum Virtual Storage
Sent by:The IBM z/VM Operating System
What is the maximum guest virtual storage supported by z/VM?
--. .- .-. -.--
Gary Dennis
Mantissa Corporation
*** IMPORTANT
NOTE*-- The opinions expressed in this
message and/or any attachments are those of the author and not
necessarily those of Brown Brothers Harriman & Co., its
subsidiaries and affiliates ("BBH"). There is no guarantee that
this message is either private or confidential, and it may have
been altered by unauthorized sources without your or our knowledge.
Nothing in the message is capable or intended to create any legally
binding obligations on either party and it is not intended to
provide legal advice. BBH accepts no responsibility for loss or
damage from its use, including damage from virus.
Re: Maximum Virtual Storage
Gary, It depends on your hardware. From Bill Bitner's z/VM System Limits SHARE presentation: Virtual machine size: - Supported/Tested 1 TB (240) - Hardware limits * z10 8TB * z9 1TB * z990 256GB * z900 256GB That's for one virtual machine. There's also a guest real limit of 8 TB imposed by PTRM space limits. Dennis "Decision" is not a verb. From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Gary M. Dennis Sent: Friday, October 01, 2010 12:47 To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: [IBMVM] Maximum Virtual Storage What is the maximum guest virtual storage supported by z/VM? --. .- .-. -.-- Gary Dennis Mantissa Corporation
Re: Maximum virtual storage
And I pulled yours. You are right, it does feel better. Regards, Richard Schuh -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Alan Altmark Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 10:01 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Maximum virtual storage On Monday, 02/05/2007 at 10:01 PST, "Schuh, Richard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Since it is a directory defined value and the user cannot change it and > the user's ability to update the directory is under control of the ESM, > maxstor already is under control of the ESM. I was being facetious, of course. I just needed to pull Sir Rob's chain. (I feel better now.) :-) Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott
Re: Maximum virtual storage
> > I was being facetious, of course. I just needed to pull Sir Rob's > chain. > > (I feel better now.) :-) > I'm sure that little curl on your head is standing upright again now :-) WAY more information than we need8-) -- db
Re: Maximum virtual storage
On 2/6/07, Alan Altmark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Monday, 02/05/2007 at 10:01 PST, "Schuh, Richard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Since it is a directory defined value and the user cannot change it and > the user's ability to update the directory is under control of the ESM, > maxstor already is under control of the ESM. Right.. like we believe it is sufficient to grant access to a vswitch once... I was being facetious, of course. I just needed to pull Sir Rob's chain. (I feel better now.) :-) I'm sure that little curl on your head is standing upright again now :-) Rob
Re: Maximum virtual storage
On Monday, 02/05/2007 at 10:01 PST, "Schuh, Richard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Since it is a directory defined value and the user cannot change it and > the user's ability to update the directory is under control of the ESM, > maxstor already is under control of the ESM. I was being facetious, of course. I just needed to pull Sir Rob's chain. (I feel better now.) :-) Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott
Re: Maximum virtual storage
Since it is a directory defined value and the user cannot change it and the user's ability to update the directory is under control of the ESM, maxstor already is under control of the ESM. Regards, Richard Schuh -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Alan Altmark Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2007 7:17 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Maximum virtual storage On Saturday, 02/03/2007 at 10:17 CET, Rob van der Heij <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Next time we may get that also for when you try to link a disk which > the ESM does not allow, just have you link some other disk instead > that you can have... ;-) Now you've gone and done it. You've discussed "ESM" and "maxstor" in the same note. Now I want to put maxstor under control of the ESM! H.. :-) Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott
Re: Maximum virtual storage
What release are you running? Here is the result on my 5.2 system: def stor 4g HCPDST094E Storage exceeds allowed maximum of 2G Regards, Richard Schuh -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rich Smrcina Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2007 6:19 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Maximum virtual storage Wow, that is interesting, but this is what I get when I try to define 1G to MAINT: def stor 1g HCPDST025E Storage missing or invalid Ready(00025); T=0.01/0.03 08:17:25 Ron Schmiedge wrote: > Odd that the online help on z/VM 4.4.0 would mention them then > > On 2/3/07, Rich Smrcina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> G, P and E were added with Version 5. >> >> Ron Schmiedge wrote: >> > You guys must be on the new z/VM. My old unsupported z/VM 4.4 (32 bit) >> > simply tells me what the max is when I ask for more than I am allowed. >> > Interestingly, even though the online help for DEFINE STORAGE says I >> > can ask for G or P or E, when I ask for 16E the error message just >> > says that is invalid. The message explanation says I can only ask for >> > K or M. >> > But if I ask for something like 1024M, it tells me I can''t have that >> > much, here's your max, but storage is not reset >> > >> > On 2/3/07, Rob van der Heij <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> On 2/3/07, Ray Mansell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> >> > I just tried this second-level. You did not misread . This looks >> like a >> >> > very good reason to request Q STOR MAX. >> >> >> >> Right, someone has been way too helpful in making CP do what is good >> >> rather than what you asked for. But let's hope the person who designed >> >> that is not looking or they may even change it into always taking your >> >> directory maximum when you aim too high. >> >> >> >> Next time we may get that also for when you try to link a disk which >> >> the ESM does not allow, just have you link some other disk instead >> >> that you can have... ;-) >> >> >> >> Rob >> >> >> > >> >> -- >> 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 >> > -- 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: Maximum virtual storage
> -Original Message- > From: The IBM z/VM Operating System > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rob van der Heij > Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2007 3:18 PM > To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU > Subject: Re: Maximum virtual storage > > Next time we may get that also for when you try to link a disk which > the ESM does not allow, just have you link some other disk instead > that you can have... ;-) > > Rob > Nah, just create a TDISK of a default size. Also, if you happen to be running CMS, automagically invoke the CMS format command. -- John McKown Senior Systems Programmer HealthMarkets Keeping the Promise of Affordable Coverage Administrative Services Group Information Technology The information contained in this e-mail message may be privileged and/or confidential. It is for intended addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, reproduction, distribution or other use of this communication is strictly prohibited and could, in certain circumstances, be a criminal offense. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by reply and delete this message without copying or disclosing it.
Re: Maximum virtual storage
That sounds like a great solution to a problem that doesn't exist!!! (Those are not exclamation points, they are sarcasm dripping from the page.) :-) Regards, Richard Schuh -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rob van der Heij Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2007 1:18 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Maximum virtual storage Next time we may get that also for when you try to link a disk which the ESM does not allow, just have you link some other disk instead that you can have... ;-) Rob
Re: Maximum virtual storage
On 2/5/07, Alan Altmark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Now you've gone and done it. You've discussed "ESM" and "maxstor" in the same note. Now I want to put maxstor under control of the ESM! H.. :-) Sounds great Alan. The profile should probably hold the maximum size in binary, so that you can use generic profiles. So a permit to a generic profile consisting of 39 0's and then a 1like this 01* would allow any size up to 16M. And don't let confusing CP error messages for lack of authorization (like with the VMNODE) hold you back in this. Telling Alan something is a dumb idea only encourages him, so I try like this now... :-) Rob
Re: Maximum virtual storage
On Saturday, 02/03/2007 at 10:17 CET, Rob van der Heij <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Next time we may get that also for when you try to link a disk which > the ESM does not allow, just have you link some other disk instead > that you can have... ;-) Now you've gone and done it. You've discussed "ESM" and "maxstor" in the same note. Now I want to put maxstor under control of the ESM! H.. :-) Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott
Re: Maximum virtual storage
MY 4.3 VM (64 bit) behaves as reported if I 'define stor 16E' ( says your machine does not support that much storage etc etc) ... My 4.3 VM (32 bit) does not recognise the E suffix. ( I guess PETA or EXA makes no sense in a 32 bit world!) I think that's were the difference is, not whethere it is VM 4.4 or 5.x There!... I don't feel so back level after all ! Phil Steele -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ron Schmiedge Sent: Monday, 5 February 2007 2:23 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Maximum virtual storage Yep, me too. The online message explanation for HCP025E says I can only specify K or M, but the online HELP CP DEFINE lists them all. Guess IBM "pre-announced" the feature! def stor 1g HCPDST025E Storage missing or invalid Ready(00025); T=0.01/0.01 09:22:58 def stor 1024m HCPDST094E Storage exceeds allowed maximum of 128M Ready(00094); T=0.01/0.01 09:23:05 q cplevel z/VM Version 4 Release 4.0, service level 0403 (32-bit) On 2/4/07, Rich Smrcina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Wow, that is interesting, but this is what I get when I try to define > 1G to MAINT: > > def stor 1g > HCPDST025E Storage missing or invalid > Ready(00025); T=0.01/0.03 08:17:25 > > > Ron Schmiedge wrote: > > Odd that the online help on z/VM 4.4.0 would mention them then > > > > On 2/3/07, Rich Smrcina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> G, P and E were added with Version 5. > >> > >> Ron Schmiedge wrote: > >> > You guys must be on the new z/VM. My old unsupported z/VM 4.4 (32 > >> > bit) simply tells me what the max is when I ask for more than I am allowed. > >> > Interestingly, even though the online help for DEFINE STORAGE > >> > says I can ask for G or P or E, when I ask for 16E the error > >> > message just says that is invalid. The message explanation says I > >> > can only ask for K or M. > >> > But if I ask for something like 1024M, it tells me I can''t have > >> > that much, here's your max, but storage is not reset > >> > > >> > On 2/3/07, Rob van der Heij <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> >> On 2/3/07, Ray Mansell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> > I just tried this second-level. You did not misread . This > >> >> > looks > >> like a > >> >> > very good reason to request Q STOR MAX. > >> >> > >> >> Right, someone has been way too helpful in making CP do what is > >> >> good rather than what you asked for. But let's hope the person > >> >> who designed that is not looking or they may even change it into > >> >> always taking your directory maximum when you aim too high. > >> >> > >> >> Next time we may get that also for when you try to link a disk > >> >> which the ESM does not allow, just have you link some other disk > >> >> instead that you can have... ;-) > >> >> > >> >> Rob > >> >> > >> > > >> > >> -- > >> 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 > >> > > > > -- > 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 > *** PLEASE NOTE: This internet email message has been checked for viruses and appropriate content to ensure it complies with TABCORP's electronic communication policy. *** *** The information in this e-mail message and any files transmitted with it are intended to be confidential and for the use of only the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. The message and files may be protected by legal professional privilege, or other legal rules. The confidentiality of and privilege applying to this message and files is not waived if this message or files has been sent to you by mistake. If the reader of this message or files is not the intended recipient, you are notified that retention, distribution or copying of this message and files are strictly prohibited. If you receive this message or files in error, please notify us immediately by telephone or return e-mail and delete all copies from your computer system. It is the recipient's responsibility to check this message and files for viruses. Thank you. ***
Re: Maximum virtual storage
Yep, me too. The online message explanation for HCP025E says I can only specify K or M, but the online HELP CP DEFINE lists them all. Guess IBM "pre-announced" the feature! def stor 1g HCPDST025E Storage missing or invalid Ready(00025); T=0.01/0.01 09:22:58 def stor 1024m HCPDST094E Storage exceeds allowed maximum of 128M Ready(00094); T=0.01/0.01 09:23:05 q cplevel z/VM Version 4 Release 4.0, service level 0403 (32-bit) On 2/4/07, Rich Smrcina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Wow, that is interesting, but this is what I get when I try to define 1G to MAINT: def stor 1g HCPDST025E Storage missing or invalid Ready(00025); T=0.01/0.03 08:17:25 Ron Schmiedge wrote: > Odd that the online help on z/VM 4.4.0 would mention them then > > On 2/3/07, Rich Smrcina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> G, P and E were added with Version 5. >> >> Ron Schmiedge wrote: >> > You guys must be on the new z/VM. My old unsupported z/VM 4.4 (32 bit) >> > simply tells me what the max is when I ask for more than I am allowed. >> > Interestingly, even though the online help for DEFINE STORAGE says I >> > can ask for G or P or E, when I ask for 16E the error message just >> > says that is invalid. The message explanation says I can only ask for >> > K or M. >> > But if I ask for something like 1024M, it tells me I can''t have that >> > much, here's your max, but storage is not reset >> > >> > On 2/3/07, Rob van der Heij <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> On 2/3/07, Ray Mansell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> >> > I just tried this second-level. You did not misread . This looks >> like a >> >> > very good reason to request Q STOR MAX. >> >> >> >> Right, someone has been way too helpful in making CP do what is good >> >> rather than what you asked for. But let's hope the person who designed >> >> that is not looking or they may even change it into always taking your >> >> directory maximum when you aim too high. >> >> >> >> Next time we may get that also for when you try to link a disk which >> >> the ESM does not allow, just have you link some other disk instead >> >> that you can have... ;-) >> >> >> >> Rob >> >> >> > >> >> -- >> 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 >> > -- 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: Maximum virtual storage
Ray Mansell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I just tried this second-level. You did not misread . This looks like a >very good reason to request Q STOR MAX. OK, I still wasn't sure, so I tried it. I have access to a 5.2 system, but not as MAINT, so I can't fully test this. My machine has a directory max of 16M. q v stor STORAGE = 8M Ready; T=0.01/0.01 10:24:55 def stor 1e HCPDST093E Storage size requested (1E) exceeds maximum allowed on this processor (1T). Size set to maximum allowed. HCPDST094E Storage exceeds allowed maximum of 16M Ready(00094); T=0.01/0.01 10:24:58 def stor 32m HCPDST094E Storage exceeds allowed maximum of 16M Ready(00094); T=0.01/0.01 10:25:07 So the only way you get something unintuitive is if your directory entry specifies a ginormous number -- more than the capability of the hardware -- and you try to DEF STOR more than the hardware limit. Still not 100% consistent for the end-user, and still a *ix-like kludgy way of querying the max. Query Virtual STORage would sure be a nice addition! MEMO XMASGIFT, anyone? ...phsiii
Re: Maximum virtual storage
Wow, that is interesting, but this is what I get when I try to define 1G to MAINT: def stor 1g HCPDST025E Storage missing or invalid Ready(00025); T=0.01/0.03 08:17:25 Ron Schmiedge wrote: Odd that the online help on z/VM 4.4.0 would mention them then On 2/3/07, Rich Smrcina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: G, P and E were added with Version 5. Ron Schmiedge wrote: > You guys must be on the new z/VM. My old unsupported z/VM 4.4 (32 bit) > simply tells me what the max is when I ask for more than I am allowed. > Interestingly, even though the online help for DEFINE STORAGE says I > can ask for G or P or E, when I ask for 16E the error message just > says that is invalid. The message explanation says I can only ask for > K or M. > But if I ask for something like 1024M, it tells me I can''t have that > much, here's your max, but storage is not reset > > On 2/3/07, Rob van der Heij <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On 2/3/07, Ray Mansell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> > I just tried this second-level. You did not misread . This looks like a >> > very good reason to request Q STOR MAX. >> >> Right, someone has been way too helpful in making CP do what is good >> rather than what you asked for. But let's hope the person who designed >> that is not looking or they may even change it into always taking your >> directory maximum when you aim too high. >> >> Next time we may get that also for when you try to link a disk which >> the ESM does not allow, just have you link some other disk instead >> that you can have... ;-) >> >> Rob >> > -- 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 -- 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: Maximum virtual storage
Odd that the online help on z/VM 4.4.0 would mention them then On 2/3/07, Rich Smrcina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: G, P and E were added with Version 5. Ron Schmiedge wrote: > You guys must be on the new z/VM. My old unsupported z/VM 4.4 (32 bit) > simply tells me what the max is when I ask for more than I am allowed. > Interestingly, even though the online help for DEFINE STORAGE says I > can ask for G or P or E, when I ask for 16E the error message just > says that is invalid. The message explanation says I can only ask for > K or M. > But if I ask for something like 1024M, it tells me I can''t have that > much, here's your max, but storage is not reset > > On 2/3/07, Rob van der Heij <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On 2/3/07, Ray Mansell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> > I just tried this second-level. You did not misread . This looks like a >> > very good reason to request Q STOR MAX. >> >> Right, someone has been way too helpful in making CP do what is good >> rather than what you asked for. But let's hope the person who designed >> that is not looking or they may even change it into always taking your >> directory maximum when you aim too high. >> >> Next time we may get that also for when you try to link a disk which >> the ESM does not allow, just have you link some other disk instead >> that you can have... ;-) >> >> Rob >> > -- 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: Maximum virtual storage
G, P and E were added with Version 5. Ron Schmiedge wrote: You guys must be on the new z/VM. My old unsupported z/VM 4.4 (32 bit) simply tells me what the max is when I ask for more than I am allowed. Interestingly, even though the online help for DEFINE STORAGE says I can ask for G or P or E, when I ask for 16E the error message just says that is invalid. The message explanation says I can only ask for K or M. But if I ask for something like 1024M, it tells me I can''t have that much, here's your max, but storage is not reset On 2/3/07, Rob van der Heij <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 2/3/07, Ray Mansell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I just tried this second-level. You did not misread . This looks like a > very good reason to request Q STOR MAX. Right, someone has been way too helpful in making CP do what is good rather than what you asked for. But let's hope the person who designed that is not looking or they may even change it into always taking your directory maximum when you aim too high. Next time we may get that also for when you try to link a disk which the ESM does not allow, just have you link some other disk instead that you can have... ;-) Rob -- 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: Maximum virtual storage
You guys must be on the new z/VM. My old unsupported z/VM 4.4 (32 bit) simply tells me what the max is when I ask for more than I am allowed. Interestingly, even though the online help for DEFINE STORAGE says I can ask for G or P or E, when I ask for 16E the error message just says that is invalid. The message explanation says I can only ask for K or M. But if I ask for something like 1024M, it tells me I can''t have that much, here's your max, but storage is not reset On 2/3/07, Rob van der Heij <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 2/3/07, Ray Mansell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I just tried this second-level. You did not misread . This looks like a > very good reason to request Q STOR MAX. Right, someone has been way too helpful in making CP do what is good rather than what you asked for. But let's hope the person who designed that is not looking or they may even change it into always taking your directory maximum when you aim too high. Next time we may get that also for when you try to link a disk which the ESM does not allow, just have you link some other disk instead that you can have... ;-) Rob
Re: Maximum virtual storage
On 2/3/07, Ray Mansell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I just tried this second-level. You did not misread . This looks like a very good reason to request Q STOR MAX. Right, someone has been way too helpful in making CP do what is good rather than what you asked for. But let's hope the person who designed that is not looking or they may even change it into always taking your directory maximum when you aim too high. Next time we may get that also for when you try to link a disk which the ESM does not allow, just have you link some other disk instead that you can have... ;-) Rob
Re: Maximum virtual storage
I just tried this second-level. You did not misread . This looks like a very good reason to request Q STOR MAX. q v stor STORAGE = 64M def stor 16e HCPDST093E Storage size requested (16E) exceeds maximum allowed on this processor (256G). Size set to maximum allowed. STORAGE = 256G Storage cleared - system reset. Ray Mansell Phil Smith III wrote: So if I had 1G before, I get to reIPL? That's a change in behavior, and makes the "issue a ridiculous size to see what my max is" unworkable! Or am I misreading what you wrote? ...phsiii
Re: Maximum virtual storage
Alan Altmark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> HCPDST093E Storage size requested (16E) exceeds maximum allowed on this >> processor (256G). Size set to maximum allowed. >I suppose that should be an "I" or "W", not an "E". The request continues >as though you had issued DEFINE STORAGE 256G. If your directory maximum >was 256G, your DEFINE STORAGE 16E would have worked. So if I had 1G before, I get to reIPL? That's a change in behavior, and makes the "issue a ridiculous size to see what my max is" unworkable! Or am I misreading what you wrote? ...phsiii
Re: Maximum virtual storage
On Friday, 02/02/2007 at 09:13 CST, Mike Walter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Is that worth my opening a PMR? I would not ask for the red coloring in the > messages. (Gee, that makes me think of the old command CMS command "SET > REDTYPE ON"!) ;-) :-) The help for HCP093E is also a bit misleading in this cont (Pardon me. No.) (Move over. No.) (MOVE YOUR BLINKIN' ARSE! Fine!) (Thank you.) How does one measure the worth of a PMR? Good question. Have you ever noticed that there's never a good philosopher around when you need one? Opinionated IT professionals (yes, that includes sysprogs, too!) are a dime a dozen, but a good philosopher is as rare as hen's teeth. I imagine The Bard would have something to say about PMRs. As would Scott Adams. Ah, but would they say the same thing? I think not (poof!) -- C
Re: Maximum virtual storage
I did try setting my max to 256G, and as you advised it did work. But it seems as if there should be two separate messages (or text variations)... If it does nothing, as it did in the case when I asked for more storage than permitted, it should say something like (with red below showing the changes): HCPDST093E Storage size requested (16E) exceeds maximum allowed on this processor (256G). Size remains unchanged. If it actually made a change (although different from the requested size: HCPDST093W Storage size requested (16E) exceeds maximum allowed on this processor (256G). Size set to maximum allowed. Is that worth my opening a PMR? I would not ask for the red coloring in the messages. (Gee, that makes me think of the old command CMS command "SET REDTYPE ON"!) ;-) Mike Walter Hewitt Associates Any opinions expressed herein are mine alone and do not necessarily represent the opinions or policies of Hewitt Associates. "Alan Altmark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent by: "The IBM z/VM Operating System" 02/02/2007 08:55 AM Please respond to "The IBM z/VM Operating System" To IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU cc Subject Re: Maximum virtual storage On Friday, 02/02/2007 at 08:45 CST, Mike Walter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > cp def stor 16e > > HCPDST093E Storage size requested (16E) exceeds maximum allowed on this > processo > r (256G). Size set to maximum allowed. <--- Not sure why is says > "Size set to maximum allowed; nothing changed! I suppose that should be an "I" or "W", not an "E". The request continues as though you had issued DEFINE STORAGE 256G. If your directory maximum was 256G, your DEFINE STORAGE 16E would have worked. Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott 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: Maximum virtual storage
On Friday, 02/02/2007 at 08:45 CST, Mike Walter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > cp def stor 16e > > HCPDST093E Storage size requested (16E) exceeds maximum allowed on this > processo > r (256G). Size set to maximum allowed. <--- Not sure why is says > "Size set to maximum allowed; nothing changed! I suppose that should be an "I" or "W", not an "E". The request continues as though you had issued DEFINE STORAGE 256G. If your directory maximum was 256G, your DEFINE STORAGE 16E would have worked. Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott
Re: Maximum virtual storage
To Rob's point, here's a console cut/paste... -- cp q v stor STORAGE = 999M M2WALTER HALINVA1; T=0.01/0.01 08:37:07 cp def stor 16e HCPDST093E Storage size requested (16E) exceeds maximum allowed on this processo r (256G). Size set to maximum allowed. <--- Not sure why is says "Size set to maximum allowed; nothing changed! HCPDST094E Storage exceeds allowed maximum of 16G<--- this is the CP msg from which you could get the maxM2WALTER HALINVA1(00094); T=0.01/0.01 08:37:15 * vmsecure inquire storage <--- this is the Hewitt-developed VM:Secure "INQUIRE" command STORAGE: Default= 999M Maximum= 16G <--- info directly from the source directory entry.M2WALTER HALINVA1; T=0.01/0.01 08:37:23 -- Mike Walter Hewitt Associates Any opinions expressed herein are mine alone and do not necessarily represent the opinions or policies of Hewitt Associates. "Rob van der Heij" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent by: "The IBM z/VM Operating System" 02/02/2007 02:48 AM Please respond to "The IBM z/VM Operating System" To IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU cc Subject Re: Maximum virtual storage On 2/2/07, Colin Allinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I guess our case maybe a bit specific but it is an example of where a > QUERY VIRTUAL STORAGE MAXIMUM might be of help. Colin, I think you missed the point that was made. If you issue the DEFINE STORAGE with a outrageous silly large number that will never work, the error message tells what the maximum in the directory is. I think it's cheating and if it were me that message should not show it, but you can take advantage of it. Rob -- Rob van der Heij Velocity Software, Inc http://velocitysoftware.com/ 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: Maximum virtual storage
Rob van der Heij <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Colin, > I think you missed the point that was made. If you issue the DEFINE > STORAGE with a outrageous silly large number that will never work, the > error message tells what the maximum in the directory is. I think it's > cheating and if it were me that message should not show it, but you > can take advantage of it. > > Rob > -- Hi Rob, No, I don't think I missed the point. That is exactly what we take advantage of. An interesting point is that it functions better with 64 bit VM. With 32bit VM, if you used a silly number greater than 2047M, you got a different error message that did NOT show the maximum storage allowed. And, no, I don't think it is cheating to use such a feature to tell a user the maximum facilities they are allowed to use in a user friendly way. After all it is the users that keep us in a job ;-) Colin Allinson Amadeus Data Processing
Re: Maximum virtual storage
On 2/2/07, Colin Allinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I guess our case maybe a bit specific but it is an example of where a QUERY VIRTUAL STORAGE MAXIMUM might be of help. Colin, I think you missed the point that was made. If you issue the DEFINE STORAGE with a outrageous silly large number that will never work, the error message tells what the maximum in the directory is. I think it's cheating and if it were me that message should not show it, but you can take advantage of it. Rob -- Rob van der Heij Velocity Software, Inc http://velocitysoftware.com/
Re: Maximum virtual storage
Alan Altmark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote : > Could you change to use: > XAUTOLOG STORAGE > ? > If it exceeds the maximum, the command will fail and the user doesn't > start. Sorry, I wasn't very clear. In our case this wouldn't work. What we are actually doing is setting up a test TPF system (guest OS) to work. All the userids have a relatively small default but large maximum storage. The guy or gal setting up the TPF system logs on (into CMS) and runs an EXEC that allows them to specify the resources (including memory) that they require to run this specific instance of TPF. Once everything is validated the EXEC then defines the resources and RE-IPL's into TPF. If an invalid storage was specified at the wrong time then the user could just IPL CMS and start over - but they would have to fill in the panel again, and it is not very user friendly. I guess our case maybe a bit specific but it is an example of where a QUERY VIRTUAL STORAGE MAXIMUM might be of help. Colin Allinson Amadeus Data Processing
Re: Maximum virtual storage
On Thursday, 02/01/2007 at 04:19 CET, Colin Allinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In our case we have an EXEC that set up a GUEST region (OS) with a requested > store. If we just believe the requestor, and the amount they request is too > large, we loose control. So, we try to validate the request before we action > it. > > On 32bit VM we used to define 2047M (more than that gave a different message) > but now, on 64 bit Z/VM, we define M as we are unlikely to have a user > larger than that. However, I do agree with Greg that 16E is probably the best > option. Could you change to use: XAUTOLOG STORAGE ? If it exceeds the maximum, the command will fail and the user doesn't start. Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott
Re: Maximum virtual storage
It really wouldn't be too hard to have something like QUERY VIRTUAL STORAGE and get the default or maximum storage from the directory definitions. Phil Smith III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent by: The IBM z/VM Operating System 02/01/2007 08:45 AM Please respond to The IBM z/VM Operating System To IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU cc Subject Maximum virtual storage A customer asked me today how she could find out what the maximum allowable virtual storage size was for a given guest (without looking at the CP directory entry). The only thing I could think of was CP DEFINE STORAGE and seeing if it fails. Of course, that carries a risk: if you happen to hit a value that *is* allowed, you get to reIPL. Is there another way? QUERY VIRTUAL STORAGE MAX or something would seem like a reasonable extension... ...phsiii
Re: Maximum virtual storage
On Thursday, 02/01/2007 at 08:20 PST, "Schuh, Richard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Or you could use TRACK or DISPLAY HOST to look at the VMDBK. CP doesn't keep the maximum size in the VMDBK. Have you ever noticed that you don't have to logoff/logon after you raise the maximum in the directory? You actually have to read the directory. Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott
Re: Maximum virtual storage
So make it really, really big - E, for example. :-) Or you could use TRACK or DISPLAY HOST to look at the VMDBK. Regards, Richard Schuh -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Phil Smith III Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 5:45 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Maximum virtual storage A customer asked me today how she could find out what the maximum allowable virtual storage size was for a given guest (without looking at the CP directory entry). The only thing I could think of was CP DEFINE STORAGE and seeing if it fails. Of course, that carries a risk: if you happen to hit a value that *is* allowed, you get to reIPL. Is there another way? QUERY VIRTUAL STORAGE MAX or something would seem like a reasonable extension... ...phsiii
Re: Maximum virtual storage
Do you use VM:Secure on those systems? If so, I've previously posted a home-grown VM:Secure macro (thus, user command) "INQUIRE", which will return most directory information (obviously, not passwords or other security-related info) from the source directory entry. I can post it again if anyone wants. Mike Walter Hewitt Associates Any opinions expressed herein are mine alone and do not necessarily represent the opinions or policies of Hewitt Associates. The syntax for INQUIRE is: Function: Provides users with information about their or other's directory entry without the need to enter VMSECURE menus. Syntax: >>--VMSECURE-INQUIRE--+-+--+--+---> +-Account-+ +-ACIgroup-+ >--+--+--+-+-> +-APPCpass-+ +-AUTOlog-+ >--+---+--+-+--++> +-CLass-+ +-Console-+ +-CRYPto-+ >--++--+--+--+--+> +-DATEFformat+ +-DISTcode-+ +-D8ONECMD-+ >--+-+--+--+--+-+--+-+---> +-Ipl-+ +-IUCV-+ +-LOGONBY-+ +-MACHine-+ >--+--+--+-+--++-> +-NAMEsave-+ +-NOPDATA-+ +-Option-+ >--+--+--+--+--++> +-PRIOrity-+ +-PRIVclas-+ +-SCReen-+ >--+---+--+---+--+---+---> +-SHARE-+ +-Spool-+ +-SPOOLFile-+ >--+--+--+-+--+--+---> +-STDEvopt-+ +-STORage-+ +-User-+ >--+--+--+-+--++-> +-XAUTOlog-+ +-XCONFig-+ +-XSTORE-+ >--+--+--+-+--++-> +-*LL=-+ +-*LA=+ +-*UI=---+ >--+--+--> +-LOGON+ >---+-+->< +-(-| Options |-+---+-+ +-)-+ Options: |--+-+-+--+-+--+| +-USER userid-+ +-COMPRESS-+ +-LIFO-+ +-FIFO-+ Where: userid Is another userid other than your own. *LL= returns the "*LL=" (Last Logon) record *LA= returns the "*LA=" (Last Autolog) record Sent by: "The IBM z/VM Operating System" 02/01/2007 09:19 AM Please respond to "The IBM z/VM Operating System" To IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU cc Subject Re: Maximum virtual storage Rob van der Heij <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote (in part): > But I am tempted to reply that I need to see the first case where > there is a valid reason to know what the maximum value is if you're > not going to use it... In our case we have an EXEC that set up a GUEST region (OS) with a requested store. If we just believe the requestor, and the amount they request is too large, we loose control. So, we try to validate the request before we action it. On 32bit VM we used to define 2047M (more than that gave a different message) but now, on 64 bit Z/VM, we define M as we are unlikely to have a user larger than that. However, I do agree with Greg that 16E is probably the best option. Colin Allinson Amadeus Data Processing 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: Maximum virtual storage
Rob van der Heij <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote (in part): > But I am tempted to reply that I need to see the first case where > there is a valid reason to know what the maximum value is if you're > not going to use it... In our case we have an EXEC that set up a GUEST region (OS) with a requested store. If we just believe the requestor, and the amount they request is too large, we loose control. So, we try to validate the request before we action it. On 32bit VM we used to define 2047M (more than that gave a different message) but now, on 64 bit Z/VM, we define M as we are unlikely to have a user larger than that. However, I do agree with Greg that 16E is probably the best option. Colin Allinson Amadeus Data Processing
Re: Maximum virtual storage
I don't (famous last words...) to see CP DEF STOR 16E *real soon now* HCPDST093E Storage size requested (16E) exceeds maximum allowed on this processor (1T). Size set to maximum allowed. HCPDST094E Storage exceeds allowed maximum of 512M Gregg office:404-322-2316 mobile:404455-1291 text page:[EMAIL PROTECTED] "No plan survives execution" revised: 01Jun06 file:\\Usfs01\Common\CPPS\VM\VMCapPlan.htm
Re: Maximum virtual storage
yes but if it works you're toast! Reipl time David -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System on behalf of Ed Zell Sent: Thu 2/1/2007 9:28 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: [IBMVM] Maximum virtual storage > Is there another way? QUERY VIRTUAL STORAGE MAX or something > would seem like a reasonable extension... Phil, Could you do a "DEF STOR 1024M" or some other really large value and check the value specified in the CP response saying you asked for too much? def stor 1024m HCPDST094E Storage exceeds allowed maximum of 64M Ed Zell (309) 674-8255 x-107 [EMAIL PROTECTED] . CONFIDENTIAL NOTICE: This communication, including any attachments, is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and contains information which may be confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, any distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, notify the sender immediately, delete the communication and destroy all copies. Thank you for your compliance.
Re: Maximum virtual storage
> Is there another way? QUERY VIRTUAL STORAGE MAX or something > would seem like a reasonable extension... Phil, Could you do a "DEF STOR 1024M" or some other really large value and check the value specified in the CP response saying you asked for too much? def stor 1024m HCPDST094E Storage exceeds allowed maximum of 64M Ed Zell (309) 674-8255 x-107 [EMAIL PROTECTED] . CONFIDENTIAL NOTICE: This communication, including any attachments, is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and contains information which may be confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, any distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, notify the sender immediately, delete the communication and destroy all copies. Thank you for your compliance.
Re: Maximum virtual storage
On 2/1/07, Phil Smith III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Is there another way? QUERY VIRTUAL STORAGE MAX or something would seem like a reasonable extension... There's a package LCLQRY package on the VM download site that does a few query commands. I believe it was fairly easy to enhance that to view more things for the user. But I am tempted to reply that I need to see the first case where there is a valid reason to know what the maximum value is if you're not going to use it... Rob
