Re: Update on z/VM 5.2.0 problem
Martha, You were planning a longer test over the Easter weekend. How did it go?
Re: Update on z/VM 5.2.0 problem
...RSU 0502 for z/VM 5.2 was just released... Arg! A victim of my own bad reading. I saw 5202RSU and typed 0502. It is z/VM 5.2 RSU LVL 0601 and/or 5202RSU. Clear, eh? Depending on how you look at it, it is either the 1st RSU of 2006 (0601) or Verion 5 release 2 RSU #2 (5.2 + #02 == 5202RSU). Either way it is the same. The easy way to do this: Track APAR VM63863 or PTF UM97520. They will always contain the current (and correct!) RSU info for z/VM 5.2 ___ James Vincent Systems Engineering Consultant Nationwide Services Co., Technology Infrastructure Engineering Mainframe, z/VM and z/Linux Support One Nationwide Plaza 3-25-02 Columbus OH 43215-2220 U.S.A Voice: (614) 249-5547Fax: (614) 677-7681 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Update on z/VM 5.2.0 problem
What other vendor software? -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Schuh, Richard Sent: Monday, March 27, 2006 4:22 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Update on z/VM 5.2.0 problem Then this is strictly a DIAG 10 problem? If so, that means that my system hosting 100+ TPF and 0 BD2 is not susceptible, right? We will be upgrading on 8 April. We tried a week ago but ran into a severe problem in other vendor code and had to fall back. We have the fix for that problem and are chomping at the bit. Regards, Richard Schuh -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Holder Sent: Monday, March 27, 2006 1:09 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject:Re: Update on z/VM 5.2.0 problem Thanks, Martha. Running DB2 for VM with plenty of other load is the main= exposure, as the behavior which triggers the problem (contact me directly= if you want the gory details) is quite unusual and unique to DB2, as far as = we know. There's a small possibility of hitting it while running a Linux th= at exploits the Diagnose x'10' page release ballooning device driver hack,= but I doubt many folks run with that (I'm not even sure of its proper nam= e or whether it ever made it into any distro). Once it starts happening, o= f course, the hang behavior starts spreading to other users, as the DB2 machines (or user machines trying to talk to it) almost invariably hold s= ome other serialization when they hit the hang. We'll be watching customer experience with the circumvention as well as doing ongoing investigation = to determine whether it's an appropriate permanent solution (I hope it is, a= s the alternative fixes are a lot more complicated). The only concern we h= ave with the circumvention isn't functional, it's the potential impact on performance of holding a share of one of the locks involved (VMDPTIL) for= a longer duration. - Bill Holder, z/VM CP Development, Storage Management If you are not an intended recipient of this e-mail, please notify the sender, delete it and do not read, act upon, print, disclose, copy, retain or redistribute it. Click here for important additional terms relating to this e-mail. http://www.ml.com/email_terms/
Re: Update on z/VM 5.2.0 problem
Hello Everyone, I have been following this thread with great interest. We are currently on z/VM 4.3 We are (like most everyone else) 24/7 and can not afford any known problems/errors that could/may happen. Is this Z/VM 5.2.0 problem associated with a particular hardware configuration or could it happen on any 5.2.0 system? Is this a reason to go to 5.1.0 and let the early test group shake it out? The question that will be asked, Can you tell me that it will not happen here? Yes or No. Tough question but it will be asked. We are a VSE/VM shop. With z/VM Web services for Nomad2 and Ultraquest reporting. We are doing somewhere between 500,000 to 750,000 transactions on one of the PROD CICS/TS systems. The others generate another 50,000 then we have the TEST(but read PROD) and BETA system. Interfaces to every other system within the hospital. We will get 20 minutes to bring the new system online. Ed Martin Aultman Health Foundation 330-588-4723 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ext. 40441
Re: Update on z/VM 5.2.0 problem
On Tuesday, 03/28/2006 at 11:29 EST, Edward M. Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am leaning toward the 5.1 upgrade. With the 5.2 at second level. Now comes the MP3000 to z/xxx box as they have not told me which one yet. We are getting prices on everything. The hospital area is an exciting place to work. We, like everyone it seems, have our restrictions. I do appreciate everyone opinions and info. I hate re-inventing the wheel. If you're on an MP3000, you can't migrate to 5.1 first. You'll need to check the PSP bucket for the z800/z900/z890/z990 box to see what PTFs are needed to get 4.3 to run (as you say, unsupported at this point) on those boxes. Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott
Re: Update on z/VM 5.2.0 problem
On Tuesday, 03/28/2006 at 12:06 EST, Edward M. Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But I could upgrade to z/VM 4.4 on the MP3000, get over to the z/xxx box and then upgrade to z/VM 5.1. Right? Or z/VM 5.2. Right. A lot depends on exactly which box you get. z/VM 4.3 supports z800/z900. z/VM 4.4 is needed for z890/z990. But since you may find yourself wanting software support during the upgrade, getting to 4.4 first would be a Good Thing. Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott
Re: Update on z/VM 5.2.0 problem
I used spxtape DUMP tape from a z/VM 3.1 system. During my testing I found out even files dumped from spxtape z/VM 5.2 caused the same problem. IBM ask me to test a fix which resolved the problem. An official fix should be out soon. Hans Sent via the WebMail system at hmrconsultants.com [This E-mail scanned for viruses]
Re: Update on z/VM 5.2.0 problem
Because of the growing pains with 5.2, is support for z/VM 4.4 going to be extended beyond 9/06? Thanks, Alyce -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jim Vincent Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 11:00 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Update on z/VM 5.2.0 problem RSU 0502 for z/VM 5.2 was just released - I would recommend that to start with. There have been a number of HTT001 abends due to various page translations too that you should also get the fixes for. Some additional ones I presented in our Early Experiences session at SHARE include: VM63630 UM31541 CONTROL REGISTER 12 IN SNAPDUMP IS NOT ACCURATE VM63785 UM31588 ABENDFRE016 HCPCDT RELEASES A RCDBK VM63808 UM31611 AFTER AN UNPLANNED HYPERSWAP VM CAN BECOME UNRESPONSIVE VM63827 UM31573 ABENDMCW002 IN INSTRUCTION SIMULATION VM63832 UM31583 LOOP IN HCPCUP AFTER CE PERFORMED CUIR OPERATION VM63837 UM31554 VARY ON PATH FAILS TO UNSUPPORTED DPS YES DEVICE VM63845 UM31626 HIGH HCPALS TIME IN PAGING WORKLOADS VM63867 UM31576 STORAGE SHORTAGE, VM NOT FLUSHING USER'S NDMBK'S VM63877 UM31606 LOCKEDRS FIELD INCORRECT IN QUERY FRAMES OUTPUT VM63879 UM31577 GUEST ZOS SYSTEM IN VIRTUAL SYSPLEX LOOPS VM63881 UM31591 SHUTDOWN EXPERIENCING LONG DELAYS VM63888 UM31605 LOOP LDSF, LDDSELR, PRESENT CC2 RC2, ACCEPT CC1 RC2 VM63893 UM31666 IMPROVE FULL TRACK MINIDISK CACHE PERFORMANCE VM63895 UM31613 PEVM63735 LINUX GUEST CANNOT RECONNECT TO NETWORK VM63897 UM31617 THE SUPPORT ELEMENT CAN'T KEEP UP WITH MSGS FROM APAR VM63815 VM63903 UM31669 PEVM63642 ABENDVDB007 VM63906 UM31677 ABENDPRG004 IN HCPDPS VM63911 UM31630 ABENDHTT001 PG TRANS EXCEPTION AT HCPIOG+778 VM63915 UM31648 GUEST DETECTS HOT I/O ON VM LOGICAL DEVICE VM63918 UM31659 INCORRECT LENGTH ERROR RETURNED INVALIDLY VM63957 UM31693 ABENDHTT001 WHEN SNA USER DOES LOGOFF HOLD VM63958 GUEST IPL UNDER Z/VM R520 IS SLOW VM63961 SPXTAPE LOAD FILLING UP SPOOL WITH UNACCOUNTED PAGES VM63971 UM31705 ABENDHTT001 INCORRECT USE OF FREED TRQBK VM63974 HCPSPO1838E PERMANENT I/O ERROR SPXTAPE RESTORE There may be others, but these are some of the big hitters we have found so far and some may not all apply to you. Considering your system up-time requirements, you would do well to build a test system with all the fixes applied and let it settle in a little with your hardware/software configuration. z/VM 5.2 was a jump in advancement for storage relief, so it is certainly a good thing to go to but it is still seeing a few growing pains. We have z/VM 5.2 on 12 systems here - all but 1 are production systems. Generally they have been running very well. As I mentioned, a couple HTT001 abends hit us along with a pesky HPC010 that is still eluding us. ___ James Vincent Systems Engineering Consultant Nationwide Services Co., Technology Infrastructure Engineering Mainframe, z/VM and z/Linux Support One Nationwide Plaza 3-25-02 Columbus OH 43215-2220 U.S.A Voice: (614) 249-5547Fax: (614) 677-7681 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Update on z/VM 5.2.0 problem
I can't/won't speak for IBM but I doubt it. If you can upgrade and are thinking of V5, V5.1 is very stable and has done us well since we had it. z/VM 5.2 is really good and especially useful for the 2G storage relief. Chances are you will be okay with V5.2 - you just have to keep in mind it is new and may need a little TLC. That means keeping an eye on the APAR list and doing preventive maintenance. Going with z/VM 5.1 is IMHO a good choice if you don't yet need the improvements 5.2 offers. Either way, you can't guarantee no outages. You just have to weigh the risks and benefits of each release. ___ James Vincent Systems Engineering Consultant Nationwide Services Co., Technology Infrastructure Engineering Mainframe, z/VM and z/Linux Support One Nationwide Plaza 3-25-02 Columbus OH 43215-2220 U.S.A Voice: (614) 249-5547Fax: (614) 677-7681 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU wrote on 03/28/2006 02:05:02 PM: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Because of the growing pains with 5.2, is support for z/VM 4.4 going to be extended beyond 9/06? Thanks, Alyce -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jim Vincent Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 11:00 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Update on z/VM 5.2.0 problem RSU 0502 for z/VM 5.2 was just released - I would recommend that to start with. There have been a number of HTT001 abends due to various page translations too that you should also get the fixes for. Some additional ones I presented in our Early Experiences session at SHARE include: VM63630 UM31541 CONTROL REGISTER 12 IN SNAPDUMP IS NOT ACCURATE VM63785 UM31588 ABENDFRE016 HCPCDT RELEASES A RCDBK VM63808 UM31611 AFTER AN UNPLANNED HYPERSWAP VM CAN BECOME UNRESPONSIVE VM63827 UM31573 ABENDMCW002 IN INSTRUCTION SIMULATION VM63832 UM31583 LOOP IN HCPCUP AFTER CE PERFORMED CUIR OPERATION VM63837 UM31554 VARY ON PATH FAILS TO UNSUPPORTED DPS YES DEVICE VM63845 UM31626 HIGH HCPALS TIME IN PAGING WORKLOADS VM63867 UM31576 STORAGE SHORTAGE, VM NOT FLUSHING USER'S NDMBK'S VM63877 UM31606 LOCKEDRS FIELD INCORRECT IN QUERY FRAMES OUTPUT VM63879 UM31577 GUEST ZOS SYSTEM IN VIRTUAL SYSPLEX LOOPS VM63881 UM31591 SHUTDOWN EXPERIENCING LONG DELAYS VM63888 UM31605 LOOP LDSF, LDDSELR, PRESENT CC2 RC2, ACCEPT CC1 RC2 VM63893 UM31666 IMPROVE FULL TRACK MINIDISK CACHE PERFORMANCE VM63895 UM31613 PEVM63735 LINUX GUEST CANNOT RECONNECT TO NETWORK VM63897 UM31617 THE SUPPORT ELEMENT CAN'T KEEP UP WITH MSGS FROM APAR VM63815 VM63903 UM31669 PEVM63642 ABENDVDB007 VM63906 UM31677 ABENDPRG004 IN HCPDPS VM63911 UM31630 ABENDHTT001 PG TRANS EXCEPTION AT HCPIOG+778 VM63915 UM31648 GUEST DETECTS HOT I/O ON VM LOGICAL DEVICE VM63918 UM31659 INCORRECT LENGTH ERROR RETURNED INVALIDLY VM63957 UM31693 ABENDHTT001 WHEN SNA USER DOES LOGOFF HOLD VM63958 GUEST IPL UNDER Z/VM R520 IS SLOW VM63961 SPXTAPE LOAD FILLING UP SPOOL WITH UNACCOUNTED PAGES VM63971 UM31705 ABENDHTT001 INCORRECT USE OF FREED TRQBK VM63974 HCPSPO1838E PERMANENT I/O ERROR SPXTAPE RESTORE There may be others, but these are some of the big hitters we have found so far and some may not all apply to you. Considering your system up-time requirements, you would do well to build a test system with all the fixes applied and let it settle in a little with your hardware/software configuration. z/VM 5.2 was a jump in advancement for storage relief, so it is certainly a good thing to go to but it is still seeing a few growing pains. We have z/VM 5.2 on 12 systems here - all but 1 are production systems. Generally they have been running very well. As I mentioned, a couple HTT001 abends hit us along with a pesky HPC010 that is still eluding us. ___ James Vincent Systems Engineering Consultant Nationwide Services Co., Technology Infrastructure Engineering Mainframe, z/VM and z/Linux Support One Nationwide Plaza 3-25-02 Columbus OH 43215-2220 U.S.A Voice: (614) 249-5547Fax: (614) 677-7681 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Update on z/VM 5.2.0 problem
On Tuesday, 03/28/2006 at 11:05 PST, Austin, Alyce (CIV) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Because of the growing pains with 5.2, is support for z/VM 4.4 going to be extended beyond 9/06? Alyce, what you aren't hearing about are all the sites that have z/VM 5.2 running with *no* problems; as stable as previous releases. Yes, there are a *few* sites that are having stability problems, but we are addressing them rapidly and with good results. So at this point, no, we have no plan to extend service for z/VM 4.4, but it is an interesting idea in any event, and it's something we'll think more about. Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott
Re: Update on z/VM 5.2.0 problem
Yes, there are a *few* sites that are having stability problems, Uh huh. And they're the whiney sites. That's right -- you know who you are!! :-) Mike (having a Chuckie moment) Walter Hewitt Associates The opinions expressed herein are mine alone, not my employer's. The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU wrote on 03/28/2006 03:52:02 PM: On Tuesday, 03/28/2006 at 11:05 PST, Austin, Alyce (CIV) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Because of the growing pains with 5.2, is support for z/VM 4.4 going to be extended beyond 9/06? Alyce, what you aren't hearing about are all the sites that have z/VM 5.2 running with *no* problems; as stable as previous releases. Yes, there are a *few* sites that are having stability problems, but we are addressing them rapidly and with good results. So at this point, no, we have no plan to extend service for z/VM 4.4, but it is an interesting idea in any event, and it's something we'll think more about. 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: Update on z/VM 5.2.0 problem
We've only had 1 problem to date on our very busy (overloaded :) z9-109 2 engine, 80 linux machine and we've had 5.2.0 there since 1/21. We had MPROUTE hang last week. It was due to *something* in our network which caused our MTU to change and MPROUTE to hang. Workaround fix (before PK20644 closes) is to code MTU on the LINK statements (instead of just in the MPROUTE CONFIG) and to apply: CMS VM63819 - LONG RUNNING C APPLICATION HITS OUT-OF-STORAGE ABEND CONDITION UM31618 R510 UM31619 R520 . LE APARS (For ALL z/VM R440/R510/R520 systems - same PTF all releases) VM63690- MPROUTE HANGS AFTER IOCTL() ABEND UM31365 . VM63755 - NEW FUNCTION IN Z/VM LE UM31521 . VM63778 - MPROUTE NOT RESPONDING TO COMMANDS FROM AUTHORIZED USER UM31470 . VM63507 - VARIOUS ABENDS WHEN NON-LE CODE USES AN LE STACK FRAME UM31245 . VM63795 - LE-BASED APPLICATION HANGS AFTER RECOVERABLE ABEND UM31480 (just 2 of those weren't on my 5.2.0 system with rsu 501). Apparently, this is also a 5.1.0 problem too - we just haven't seen it on our 5.1.0 systems. Other than that bad day, everything's been chugging right along (and performing very nicely). (Operations commented that a bad switch in the network caused problems on lots of things - that was as much as I've been able to find out). 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. -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Alan Altmark Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 13:52 To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: [IBMVM] Update on z/VM 5.2.0 problem On Tuesday, 03/28/2006 at 11:05 PST, Austin, Alyce (CIV) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Because of the growing pains with 5.2, is support for z/VM 4.4 going to be extended beyond 9/06? Alyce, what you aren't hearing about are all the sites that have z/VM 5.2 running with *no* problems; as stable as previous releases. Yes, there are a *few* sites that are having stability problems, but we are addressing them rapidly and with good results. So at this point, no, we have no plan to extend service for z/VM 4.4, but it is an interesting idea in any event, and it's something we'll think more about. Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott
Re: Update on z/VM 5.2.0 problem
On Tuesday, 03/28/2006 at 04:05 CST, Mike Walter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, there are a *few* sites that are having stability problems, Uh huh. And they're the whiney sites. That's right -- you know who you are!! :-) I wondered where the ol' Chuckster has been. Now I know. Chuckieee --- Time to come h-mmme!! Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott
Re: Update on z/VM 5.2.0 problem
We have to be whiney demanding. Having too many fall back events hurts our job stability, which is infinitely more critical than the stability of the system. Regards, Richard Schuh -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Mike Walter Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 2:06 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Update on z/VM 5.2.0 problem Yes, there are a *few* sites that are having stability problems, Uh huh. And they're the whiney sites. That's right -- you know who you are!! :-) Mike (having a Chuckie moment) Walter Hewitt Associates The opinions expressed herein are mine alone, not my employer's. The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU wrote on 03/28/2006 03:52:02 PM: On Tuesday, 03/28/2006 at 11:05 PST, Austin, Alyce (CIV) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Because of the growing pains with 5.2, is support for z/VM 4.4 going to be extended beyond 9/06? Alyce, what you aren't hearing about are all the sites that have z/VM 5.2 running with *no* problems; as stable as previous releases. Yes, there are a *few* sites that are having stability problems, but we are addressing them rapidly and with good results. So at this point, no, we have no plan to extend service for z/VM 4.4, but it is an interesting idea in any event, and it's something we'll think more about. 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: Update on z/VM 5.2.0 problem
Geeezztake a day off and the discussion gets completely out of control! First, no one was whining as far as I can tell. We all have pretty high expectations of VM now, and more often than not, it meets them. I'm not complaining about z/VM 5.2.0 in any way. We signed up for the early testing knowing that problems would happen. Its why IBM likes us to be involved. For the period of time we had it running, the system simply screamed! 500 Linux systems booting in minutes rather than hours, paging extremely lowjust what we are looking for. I'm confident when we get past this one problem, we will be very happy with 5.2.0. Ed and other folks who have very high availability requirements should be forewarned, however, so they can make informed decisions. CP 5.2.0 represents one of the biggest changes in VM in many years and there is bound to be a shake out period. Those who have to be very conservative might want to give it alittle time before jumping onto it. 5.1.0 is very stable. Martha
Re: Update on z/VM 5.2.0 problem
Thanks, Martha. Running DB2 for VM with plenty of other load is the main exposure, as the behavior which triggers the problem (contact me directly if you want the gory details) is quite unusual and unique to DB2, as far as we know. There's a small possibility of hitting it while running a Linux th at exploits the Diagnose x'10' page release ballooning device driver hack, but I doubt many folks run with that (I'm not even sure of its proper nam e or whether it ever made it into any distro). Once it starts happening, o f course, the hang behavior starts spreading to other users, as the DB2 machines (or user machines trying to talk to it) almost invariably hold s ome other serialization when they hit the hang. We'll be watching customer experience with the circumvention as well as doing ongoing investigation to determine whether it's an appropriate permanent solution (I hope it is, a s the alternative fixes are a lot more complicated). The only concern we h ave with the circumvention isn't functional, it's the potential impact on performance of holding a share of one of the locks involved (VMDPTIL) for a longer duration. - Bill Holder, z/VM CP Development, Storage Management
Re: Update on z/VM 5.2.0 problem
On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 16:11:09 -0600, Bill Holder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrot e: There are two aspects of the problem, only one of which is directly Diag nose x'10' / release processing related. The other aspect has to do with handling of the logically 0 page state created by Diagnose x'10', when the HPMA function is enabled and substantial paging load is present. I real ly doubt anyone not running DB2 for VM with dataspaces enabled on HPMA capa ble hardware with will experience the problem. - Bill Holder, IBM z/VM CP Development, Storage Management Ooops, change with will experience to will experience. :-) - Bill Holder
Re: Update on z/VM 5.2.0 problem
I have to apologize, I'm confusing two different problems I've been worki ng on. The hang condition that Martha reported is not the one related to HPMA enabled hardware or logically zero page states. Rather, it has to do with some unusual behavior by DB2 for VM (with dataspaces) in its usage o f Diagnose x'10' to release page ranges which include pages that are still being actively referenced by other threads. I still would not expect any other products or applications to expose that problem, though I can't guarantee that such cases do not exist. We've never seen or heard of the problem occurring for SFS with dataspaces (and the exposure isn't dataspa ce specific), or anything other than DB2, so I'm fairly confident your syste m will not experience it. - Bill Holder, IBM z/VM CP Development, Storage Management On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 14:50:50 -0800, Schuh, Richard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrot e: Not even SFS with dataspace enabled directories? Regards, Richard Schuh -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Holder Sent: Monday, March 27, 2006 2:11 PM To:IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Update on z/VM 5.2.0 problem There are two aspects of the problem, only one of which is directly Diag n= ose x'10' / release processing related. The other aspect has to do with handling of the logically 0 page state created by Diagnose x'10', when = the HPMA function is enabled and substantial paging load is present. I real l= y doubt anyone not running DB2 for VM with dataspaces enabled on HPMA capa b= le hardware with will experience the problem. - Bill Holder, IBM z/VM CP Development, Storage Management
