Re: vSwitch sanity check question
On Tuesday, 11/25/2008 at 03:33 EST, RPN01 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I have a production vSwitch with a back-up OSA, and I?d like to take out the > back-up OSA for a moment and test it separately from its normal vSwitch. > > If I redefine a vSwitch on the fly, will it go ?down? for any amount of time > while reconfiguring? Or for that matter, can I even do a DEFINE command for a > currently active vSwitch at all? Not DEFINE, but SET. Issue the SET VSWITCH RDEV with only the active device. To add it back, issue the command again with both devices. Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott
vSwitch sanity check question
I have a production vSwitch with a back-up OSA, and I¹d like to take out the back-up OSA for a moment and test it separately from its normal vSwitch. If I redefine a vSwitch on the fly, will it go ³down² for any amount of time while reconfiguring? Or for that matter, can I even do a DEFINE command for a currently active vSwitch at all? My current definition looks like this: q vswitch vswg VSWITCH SYSTEM VSWG Type: VSWITCH Connected: 36 Maxconn: INFINITE PERSISTENT RESTRICTEDPRIROUTER Accounting: OFF VLAN Unaware MAC address: 02-00-00-00-00-01 State: Ready IPTimeout: 5 QueueStorage: 8 Portname: OSASUE2RDEV: 8A00 Controller: DTCVSW1 VDEV: 8A00 RDEV: 8B00 VDEV: 8B00 Controller: DTCVSW2 BACKUP Ready; T=0.01/0.01 14:31:53 Could I issue the command ³CP DEFINE VSWITCH VSWG RDEV 8A00 IP PRIROUTER² without disrupting the current traffic on the vSwitch? -- Robert P. Nix Mayo Foundation.~. RO-OE-5-55 200 First Street SW/V\ 507-284-0844 Rochester, MN 55905 /( )\ -^^-^^ "In theory, theory and practice are the same, but in practice, theory and practice are different."
Re: Sanity check?
The idea is not unreasonable. We have discussed plan canidates in the past that would be more graceful about page space filling up. Not much agreement on what to do. This particular way of causing havoc wasn't discussed. I'll pass it on to others to think about. I don't recall having seen any formal requirements for this, but seems reasonable. On a side note, there is actual a limit on the size of individual virtual machines due to various processor implementations. On your box it happens to be 1TB. So even though you defined it larger, CP limited it to a 1TB guest. Since the same directory could be run on various machines, we don't enforce the max until you actually try to logon. Bit Marcy Cortes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >When I did an IND USER on him, it did say 1TB - must have taken him >lower at logon time. It happily let me put 1500GB in the directory.=20 > >
Re: Sanity check?
Marcy Cortes wrote: When I did an IND USER on him, it did say 1TB - must have taken him lower at logon time. It happily let me put 1500GB in the directory. Ah yes... that explains it. When you used the word "define", I thought you meant the DEFINE command. And yes, you can put any (acceptable) value in the directory, but CP will enforce the maximum storage size at LOGON time according to the machine restrictions. Ray
Re: Sanity check?
NO. Just take the day off. -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marcy Cortes Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 7:21 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Sanity check? I know, my gun my foot... But does anyone else think it might be a good idea for CP to check available page space before allowing a (really big) virtual machine to be logged on? One shouldn't define a virtual machine of size 1500G when one meant to do 1500M! Maybe I should just take a day off, huh? 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." This message w/attachments (message) may be privileged, confidential or proprietary, and if you are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender, do not use or share it and delete it. Unless specifically indicated, this message is not an offer to sell or a solicitation of any investment products or other financial product or service, an official confirmation of any transaction, or an official statement of Merrill Lynch. Subject to applicable law, Merrill Lynch may monitor, review and retain e-communications (EC) traveling through its networks/systems. The laws of the country of each sender/recipient may impact the handling of EC, and EC may be archived, supervised and produced in countries other than the country in which you are located. This message cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free. This message is subject to terms available at the following link: http://www.ml.com/e-communications_terms/. By messaging with Merrill Lynch you consent to the foregoing.
Re: Sanity check?
exactly what I thoughtset a vmsecure limit on virtual machine size. Marcy Cortes wrote: "x user direct" :) Ooo! - VMSECURE exit! Good idea! 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 *Michael MacIsaac *Sent:* Friday, October 12, 2007 7:17 AM *To:* IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU *Subject:* Re: [IBMVM] Sanity check? > But does anyone else think it might be a good idea for CP to check available page space before allowing a (really big) virtual machine to be logged on? Just a thought - maybe a SIZEMAP tool would be helpful - to head that situation off. I'm in the habit of doing: 1) x user direct 2) diskmap user => if any changes to a minidisk 3) directxa user Maybe one more step would be prudent: 1) x user direct 2) diskmap user => if any changes to a minidisk 3) sizemap user => if any changes to virtual machines 4) directxa user SIZEMAP would just create a report summarizing min/max machine sizes, or maybe it could be merged with DISKMAP. Again, just a thought, perhaps a bit simplistic... "Mike MacIsaac" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (845) 433-7061 -- 'in media stat virtus' Virtue's in the middle
Re: Sanity check?
"x user direct" :) Ooo! - VMSECURE exit! Good idea! 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 Michael MacIsaac Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 7:17 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: [IBMVM] Sanity check? > But does anyone else think it might be a good idea for CP to check available page space before allowing a (really big) virtual machine to be logged on? Just a thought - maybe a SIZEMAP tool would be helpful - to head that situation off. I'm in the habit of doing: 1) x user direct 2) diskmap user => if any changes to a minidisk 3) directxa user Maybe one more step would be prudent: 1) x user direct 2) diskmap user => if any changes to a minidisk 3) sizemap user => if any changes to virtual machines 4) directxa user SIZEMAP would just create a report summarizing min/max machine sizes, or maybe it could be merged with DISKMAP. Again, just a thought, perhaps a bit simplistic... "Mike MacIsaac" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (845) 433-7061
Re: Sanity check?
When I did an IND USER on him, it did say 1TB - must have taken him lower at logon time. It happily let me put 1500GB in the directory. 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 Ray Mansell Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 6:53 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: [IBMVM] Sanity check? Marcy Cortes wrote: > I know, my gun my foot... > > But does anyone else think it might be a good idea for CP to check > available page space before allowing a (really big) virtual machine to > be logged on? > One shouldn't define a virtual machine of size 1500G when one meant to > do 1500M! > > Maybe I should just take a day off, huh? > OK... I have to ask. How did you manage to define a virtual machine whose size was 1500G? There's a machine-dependent limit on the maximum virtual storage size (256GB for a z990, 1TB for a z9), so are you sure you successfully defined 1500G? Or did CP enforce the maximum supported for your machine? (Or maybe there's some way I'm not aware of to bypass this limit.) Of course, even if CP did constrain you to the maximum supported, you'd still be in trouble! I'm just curious concerning the actual numbers quoted. Ray Mansell P.s. "Constrained to 1TB" is really a sign of the times. My very first virtual machine, several decades ago, was 320KB!!
Re: Sanity check?
This was our test environment - z/VM 5.3, about 120 active VMs, 24 GB memory divided 20 central and 4 expanded, and 54 mod-3s as paging devices. STORBUF is 300 300 300. We've been short on memory for quite a while (typically 72+ GB virtual), but evidently nothing is gonna help in a case like this. Michael Czora Wells Fargo Mainframe Resource and Performance Management 612-667-0044 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 Rob van der Heij Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 3:33 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Sanity check? On 10/12/07, Marcy Cortes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > One shouldn't define a virtual machine of size 1500G when one meant to do > 1500M! We have been spoiled by an operating system that only uses what you need, rather than what you give it. So the big game with Linux is to give it just what it needs... Normally when paging space fills, you overflow into spool space. Because spool space is often small that does not help you a lot and you abend shortly after that. That message is clear. But I assume this is z/VM 5.2 and you were starting a Linux virtual machine, right? If so, then I would expect your system stalled because of PGMBK fragmentation. If you still have the performance data from that period, it would be good to look at the ESAASPC report - if possible with 1 minute granularity. Rob -- Rob van der Heij Velocity Software, Inc http://velocitysoftware.com/
Re: Sanity check?
PAGE spills over into SPOOL when it fills. It could have taken more time than you realize before filling both:-) Regards, Richard Schuh From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marcy Cortes Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 5:05 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Sanity check? Luckily on the test/dev Linux system, not production! Took 16 minutes to reach 90% page space, another 20 to reach 100% and limped along for another 15 before we IPL'd out of it (thinking it was our friend VM64297 not really solved). When we came back up and that server started near the end of the autolog list... paging rate when to 88K/sec to xstor and 40K/sec to dasd.Then I it occurred to me what might have happpened... forced it --- and it took another 25 minutes or so of it being logoff/force pending before it actually went away. We didn't abend though... strangely.. at 100% page space. That would have helped give me a clue sooner! 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 Mike Walter Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 4:45 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: [IBMVM] Sanity check? Ouch. It couldn't have been any worse if you had entered 1500T, 1500P, or 1500E! When you're out of chips (memory or potato) you're out of chips. Want to buy a different consonant? Maybe Sir Rich of Consonants would sell one to you? So, how did it take for CP to choke after the LOGON command was displayed on the console? And... yes. To me your suggestion makes eminent sense - particularly given that IBM does not ship z's with 16E of real storage, nor would z/VM support that much. I do wonder how much physical space 16E of z storage would take. :-) Mike Walter Hewitt Associates "Marcy Cortes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent by: "The IBM z/VM Operating System" 10/11/2007 06:21 PM Please respond to "The IBM z/VM Operating System" To IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU cc Subject Sanity check? I know, my gun my foot... But does anyone else think it might be a good idea for CP to check available page space before allowing a (really big) virtual machine to be logged on? One shouldn't define a virtual machine of size 1500G when one meant to do 1500M! Maybe I should just take a day off, huh? 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." 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. Emails 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 email.
Re: Sanity check?
> But does anyone else think it might be a good idea for CP to check available page space before allowing a (really big) virtual machine to be logged on? Just a thought - maybe a SIZEMAP tool would be helpful - to head that situation off. I'm in the habit of doing: 1) x user direct 2) diskmap user => if any changes to a minidisk 3) directxa user Maybe one more step would be prudent: 1) x user direct 2) diskmap user => if any changes to a minidisk 3) sizemap user => if any changes to virtual machines 4) directxa user SIZEMAP would just create a report summarizing min/max machine sizes, or maybe it could be merged with DISKMAP. Again, just a thought, perhaps a bit simplistic... "Mike MacIsaac" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (845) 433-7061
Re: Sanity check?
Marcy Cortes wrote: I know, my gun my foot... But does anyone else think it might be a good idea for CP to check available page space before allowing a (really big) virtual machine to be logged on? One shouldn't define a virtual machine of size 1500G when one meant to do 1500M! Maybe I should just take a day off, huh? OK... I have to ask. How did you manage to define a virtual machine whose size was 1500G? There's a machine-dependent limit on the maximum virtual storage size (256GB for a z990, 1TB for a z9), so are you sure you successfully defined 1500G? Or did CP enforce the maximum supported for your machine? (Or maybe there's some way I'm not aware of to bypass this limit.) Of course, even if CP did constrain you to the maximum supported, you'd still be in trouble! I'm just curious concerning the actual numbers quoted. Ray Mansell P.s. "Constrained to 1TB" is really a sign of the times. My very first virtual machine, several decades ago, was 320KB!!
Re: Sanity check?
On 10/12/07, Marcy Cortes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > One shouldn't define a virtual machine of size 1500G when one meant to do > 1500M! We have been spoiled by an operating system that only uses what you need, rather than what you give it. So the big game with Linux is to give it just what it needs... Normally when paging space fills, you overflow into spool space. Because spool space is often small that does not help you a lot and you abend shortly after that. That message is clear. But I assume this is z/VM 5.2 and you were starting a Linux virtual machine, right? If so, then I would expect your system stalled because of PGMBK fragmentation. If you still have the performance data from that period, it would be good to look at the ESAASPC report - if possible with 1 minute granularity. Rob -- Rob van der Heij Velocity Software, Inc http://velocitysoftware.com/
Re: Sanity check?
LDUBUF would not have helped, for once it was STORBUF. Since you have overallocated storage, likely by a factor of 3 (SET SRM STORBUF 300 300 300), at the point where your "big" linux had finally touched that many pages you were already in trouble. LDUBUF allows for many loading users so you likely never approached that limit, but STORBUF manages storage. It might make more sense to look at your "normal" overcommit ratio (defined virtual to real). If it is normally 2, then make your storbuf 200 200 200. Some systems (without the new IBM JDK) run with overcommit at over 5, in which case a higher STORBUF is needed. With the new IBM JDK, overcommit ratio numbers like 1.5 are difficult to achieve and those systems could run with STORBUF 150 150 150. So CP DOES have a check to help you stop this problem, but all the expert advice to you has been to turn that check off Marcy Cortes wrote: Well, looking at it.. CMS did IPL ok in it but when it went to IPL linuxwell, that's the last message on it's console. ldbuf was the default. No eligible list formation from the few ind commands i could get in. 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 David Kreuter Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 6:37 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: [IBMVM] Sanity check? well ... you may not like the answer ... but CP does sort of check. This is where LDUBUF comes into play. The scheduler is designed to evaluate your impact on storage. Also just 'cause your defined at 1500G doesn't mean your going to use it. Yeah, OK, it's linux I suppose, so it will use it. But a CMS machine at that size (if it could do anything) would use a mere fraction of the 1500G. CP will page to spool once the page resource is full. I'm curious - can you confirm or deny that you witnessed extreme eligible list formation? David P.S. enjoy that day off. -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System on behalf of Marcy Cortes Sent: Thu 10/11/2007 8:05 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: [IBMVM] Sanity check? Luckily on the test/dev Linux system, not production! Took 16 minutes to reach 90% page space, another 20 to reach 100% and limped along for another 15 before we IPL'd out of it (thinking it was our friend VM64297 not really solved). When we came back up and that server started near the end of the autolog list... paging rate when to 88K/sec to xstor and 40K/sec to dasd.Then I it occurred to me what might have happpened... forced it --- and it took another 25 minutes or so of it being logoff/force pending before it actually went away. We didn't abend though... strangely.. at 100% page space. That would have helped give me a clue sooner! 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 Mike Walter Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 4:45 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: [IBMVM] Sanity check? Ouch. It couldn't have been any worse if you had entered 1500T, 1500P, or 1500E! When you're out of chips (memory or potato) you're out of chips. Want to buy a different consonant? Maybe Sir Rich of Consonants would sell one to you? So, how did it take for CP to choke after the LOGON command was displayed on the console? And... yes. To me your suggestion makes eminent sense - particularly given that IBM does not ship z's with 16E of real storage, nor would z/VM support that much. I do wonder how much physical space 16E of z storage would take. :-) Mike Walter Hewitt Associates "Marcy Cortes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent by: "The IBM z/VM Operating System" 10/11/2007 06:21 PM Please respond to "The IBM z/VM Operating System" To IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU cc Subject Sanity check? I know, my gun my foot... But does anyone else think it might be a good idea for CP to check available page space before allowing a (really big) virtual machine to be logged on? One shouldn't define a virtual machine of
Re: Sanity check?
Well, looking at it.. CMS did IPL ok in it but when it went to IPL linuxwell, that's the last message on it's console. ldbuf was the default. No eligible list formation from the few ind commands i could get in. 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 David Kreuter Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 6:37 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: [IBMVM] Sanity check? well ... you may not like the answer ... but CP does sort of check. This is where LDUBUF comes into play. The scheduler is designed to evaluate your impact on storage. Also just 'cause your defined at 1500G doesn't mean your going to use it. Yeah, OK, it's linux I suppose, so it will use it. But a CMS machine at that size (if it could do anything) would use a mere fraction of the 1500G. CP will page to spool once the page resource is full. I'm curious - can you confirm or deny that you witnessed extreme eligible list formation? David P.S. enjoy that day off. -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System on behalf of Marcy Cortes Sent: Thu 10/11/2007 8:05 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: [IBMVM] Sanity check? Luckily on the test/dev Linux system, not production! Took 16 minutes to reach 90% page space, another 20 to reach 100% and limped along for another 15 before we IPL'd out of it (thinking it was our friend VM64297 not really solved). When we came back up and that server started near the end of the autolog list... paging rate when to 88K/sec to xstor and 40K/sec to dasd.Then I it occurred to me what might have happpened... forced it --- and it took another 25 minutes or so of it being logoff/force pending before it actually went away. We didn't abend though... strangely.. at 100% page space. That would have helped give me a clue sooner! 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 Mike Walter Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 4:45 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: [IBMVM] Sanity check? Ouch. It couldn't have been any worse if you had entered 1500T, 1500P, or 1500E! When you're out of chips (memory or potato) you're out of chips. Want to buy a different consonant? Maybe Sir Rich of Consonants would sell one to you? So, how did it take for CP to choke after the LOGON command was displayed on the console? And... yes. To me your suggestion makes eminent sense - particularly given that IBM does not ship z's with 16E of real storage, nor would z/VM support that much. I do wonder how much physical space 16E of z storage would take. :-) Mike Walter Hewitt Associates "Marcy Cortes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent by: "The IBM z/VM Operating System" 10/11/2007 06:21 PM Please respond to "The IBM z/VM Operating System" To IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU cc Subject Sanity check? I know, my gun my foot... But does anyone else think it might be a good idea for CP to check available page space before allowing a (really big) virtual machine to be logged on? One shouldn't define a virtual machine of size 1500G when one meant to do 1500M! Maybe I should just take a day off, huh? 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." _ 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
Re: Sanity check?
well ... you may not like the answer ... but CP does sort of check. This is where LDUBUF comes into play. The scheduler is designed to evaluate your impact on storage. Also just 'cause your defined at 1500G doesn't mean your going to use it. Yeah, OK, it's linux I suppose, so it will use it. But a CMS machine at that size (if it could do anything) would use a mere fraction of the 1500G. CP will page to spool once the page resource is full. I'm curious - can you confirm or deny that you witnessed extreme eligible list formation? David P.S. enjoy that day off. -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System on behalf of Marcy Cortes Sent: Thu 10/11/2007 8:05 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: [IBMVM] Sanity check? Luckily on the test/dev Linux system, not production! Took 16 minutes to reach 90% page space, another 20 to reach 100% and limped along for another 15 before we IPL'd out of it (thinking it was our friend VM64297 not really solved). When we came back up and that server started near the end of the autolog list... paging rate when to 88K/sec to xstor and 40K/sec to dasd.Then I it occurred to me what might have happpened... forced it --- and it took another 25 minutes or so of it being logoff/force pending before it actually went away. We didn't abend though... strangely.. at 100% page space. That would have helped give me a clue sooner! 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 Mike Walter Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 4:45 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: [IBMVM] Sanity check? Ouch. It couldn't have been any worse if you had entered 1500T, 1500P, or 1500E! When you're out of chips (memory or potato) you're out of chips. Want to buy a different consonant? Maybe Sir Rich of Consonants would sell one to you? So, how did it take for CP to choke after the LOGON command was displayed on the console? And... yes. To me your suggestion makes eminent sense - particularly given that IBM does not ship z's with 16E of real storage, nor would z/VM support that much. I do wonder how much physical space 16E of z storage would take. :-) Mike Walter Hewitt Associates "Marcy Cortes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent by: "The IBM z/VM Operating System" 10/11/2007 06:21 PM Please respond to "The IBM z/VM Operating System" To IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU cc Subject Sanity check? I know, my gun my foot... But does anyone else think it might be a good idea for CP to check available page space before allowing a (really big) virtual machine to be logged on? One shouldn't define a virtual machine of size 1500G when one meant to do 1500M! Maybe I should just take a day off, huh? 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." _ 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. Emails 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 email.
Re: Sanity check?
Luckily on the test/dev Linux system, not production! Took 16 minutes to reach 90% page space, another 20 to reach 100% and limped along for another 15 before we IPL'd out of it (thinking it was our friend VM64297 not really solved). When we came back up and that server started near the end of the autolog list... paging rate when to 88K/sec to xstor and 40K/sec to dasd.Then I it occurred to me what might have happpened... forced it --- and it took another 25 minutes or so of it being logoff/force pending before it actually went away. We didn't abend though... strangely.. at 100% page space. That would have helped give me a clue sooner! 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 Mike Walter Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 4:45 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: [IBMVM] Sanity check? Ouch. It couldn't have been any worse if you had entered 1500T, 1500P, or 1500E! When you're out of chips (memory or potato) you're out of chips. Want to buy a different consonant? Maybe Sir Rich of Consonants would sell one to you? So, how did it take for CP to choke after the LOGON command was displayed on the console? And... yes. To me your suggestion makes eminent sense - particularly given that IBM does not ship z's with 16E of real storage, nor would z/VM support that much. I do wonder how much physical space 16E of z storage would take. :-) Mike Walter Hewitt Associates "Marcy Cortes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent by: "The IBM z/VM Operating System" 10/11/2007 06:21 PM Please respond to "The IBM z/VM Operating System" To IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU cc Subject Sanity check? I know, my gun my foot... But does anyone else think it might be a good idea for CP to check available page space before allowing a (really big) virtual machine to be logged on? One shouldn't define a virtual machine of size 1500G when one meant to do 1500M! Maybe I should just take a day off, huh? 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." _ 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. Emails 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 email.
Re: Sanity check?
Ouch. It couldn't have been any worse if you had entered 1500T, 1500P, or 1500E! When you're out of chips (memory or potato) you're out of chips. Want to buy a different consonant? Maybe Sir Rich of Consonants would sell one to you? So, how did it take for CP to choke after the LOGON command was displayed on the console? And... yes. To me your suggestion makes eminent sense - particularly given that IBM does not ship z's with 16E of real storage, nor would z/VM support that much. I do wonder how much physical space 16E of z storage would take. :-) Mike Walter Hewitt Associates "Marcy Cortes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent by: "The IBM z/VM Operating System" 10/11/2007 06:21 PM Please respond to "The IBM z/VM Operating System" To IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU cc Subject Sanity check? I know, my gun my foot... But does anyone else think it might be a good idea for CP to check available page space before allowing a (really big) virtual machine to be logged on? One shouldn't define a virtual machine of size 1500G when one meant to do 1500M! Maybe I should just take a day off, huh? 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." 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. Emails 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 email.
Re: Sanity check?
Well, tomorrow is Friday, sounds like a good idea to me;-) Marcy Cortes wrote: I know, my gun my foot... But does anyone else think it might be a good idea for CP to check available page space before allowing a (really big) virtual machine to be logged on? One shouldn't define a virtual machine of size 1500G when one meant to do 1500M! Maybe I should just take a day off, huh? 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." -- DJ V/Soft
Sanity check?
I know, my gun my foot... But does anyone else think it might be a good idea for CP to check available page space before allowing a (really big) virtual machine to be logged on? One shouldn't define a virtual machine of size 1500G when one meant to do 1500M! Maybe I should just take a day off, huh? 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."
