Re: z/VM ISFC links

[Ronald van der Laan]

Mark,

On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 5:15 PM, Mark Pace  wrote:

> CHPID PATH=(CSS(0),14),SHARED,PARTITION=((BP,IT),(=)),*
>   PCHID=271,TYPE=CTC
> CHPID PATH=(CSS(0),24),SHARED,PARTITION=((BP,IT),(=)),*
>   PCHID=272,TYPE=CNC
> CNTLUNIT CUNUMBR=1400,PATH=((CSS(0),14)),UNITADD=((00,032)),  *
>   UNIT=SCTC
> IODEVICE ADDRESS=(1400,032),CUNUMBR=(1400),STADET=Y,UNIT=SCTC
> CNTLUNIT CUNUMBR=2400,PATH=((CSS(0),24)),UNITADD=((00,032)),  *
>   UNIT=SCTC
> IODEVICE ADDRESS=(2400,032),CUNUMBR=(2400),STADET=Y,UNIT=SCTC
>

It's been a while since I coded an IOCDS,  but I think your problem is in
missing CUADD parameters.
You must tell the IOCDS how the device numbers map to each other.
If you would code it this way, address 1400 maps to 2400, but as you have
two lpars, there would be 4 possible combinations for your two lpars.

As I wrote, it's been so long ago for me, that I'm confident enough to give
you some IOCDS definitions, but please look for instance at note 7 on
http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/zvm/v5r3/topic/com.ibm.zvm.v53.hcpb7/defcu.htm

Ronald van der Laan

Re: z/VM ISFC links

[Brian Nielsen]

The output of your Q PATH 2400 command shows that the CHPID is offline. 
 
You need to vary the CHPID online.

Brian Nielsen


On Thu, 7 Oct 2010 11:15:01 -0400, Mark Pace  
wrote:

>So now I'm trying to define a shared CTC environment so that I can 
connect a
>real CTC to a 2nd level vm.
>It was working when I dedicated the CHPID to each partition.  Now that I
 
am
>sharing the CHPIDs between LPARS the the 2400 range will not come online
 
to
>either LPAR.   Messages and relevant pieces of IOCDS is below.
>
>q chpid 24
>
>Path 24 offline to devices 2400 2401 2402 2403 2404 2405 2406 2407
>
>Path 24 offline to devices 2408 2409 240A 240B 240C 240D 240E 240F
>
>Path 24 offline to devices 2410 2411 2412 2413 2414 2415 2416 2417
>
>Path 24 offline to devices 2418 2419 241A 241B 241C 241D 241E 241F
>
>Ready; T=0.01/0.01 11:13:41
>
>q path 2400
>
>Device 2400, Status OFFLINE
>
> CHPIDs to Device 2400 (PIM)  : 24
>
>  Physically Available (PAM)  : +
>
>  Online   (LPM)  : -
>
>   Legend + Yes - No
>
>Ready; T=0.01/0.01 11:13:44
>
>vary on 2400
>
>HCPCPN6283I Device 2400 cannot be varied online because no channel path 
is
>available.
>HCPCPN6785E Unable to identify device 2400 dynamically.
>
>1 device(s) specified; 0 device(s) successfully varied online
>
>Ready(06785); T=0.01/0.01 11:14:00

Re: z/VM ISFC links

[Mark Pace]

So now I'm trying to define a shared CTC environment so that I can connect a
real CTC to a 2nd level vm.
It was working when I dedicated the CHPID to each partition.  Now that I am
sharing the CHPIDs between LPARS the the 2400 range will not come online to
either LPAR.   Messages and relevant pieces of IOCDS is below.

q chpid 24

Path 24 offline to devices 2400 2401 2402 2403 2404 2405 2406 2407

Path 24 offline to devices 2408 2409 240A 240B 240C 240D 240E 240F

Path 24 offline to devices 2410 2411 2412 2413 2414 2415 2416 2417

Path 24 offline to devices 2418 2419 241A 241B 241C 241D 241E 241F

Ready; T=0.01/0.01 11:13:41

q path 2400

Device 2400, Status OFFLINE

 CHPIDs to Device 2400 (PIM)  : 24

  Physically Available (PAM)  : +

  Online   (LPM)  : -

   Legend + Yes - No

Ready; T=0.01/0.01 11:13:44

vary on 2400

HCPCPN6283I Device 2400 cannot be varied online because no channel path is
available.
HCPCPN6785E Unable to identify device 2400 dynamically.

1 device(s) specified; 0 device(s) successfully varied online

Ready(06785); T=0.01/0.01 11:14:00



CHPID PATH=(CSS(0),14),SHARED,PARTITION=((BP,IT),(=)),*
  PCHID=271,TYPE=CTC
CHPID PATH=(CSS(0),24),SHARED,PARTITION=((BP,IT),(=)),*
  PCHID=272,TYPE=CNC
CNTLUNIT CUNUMBR=1400,PATH=((CSS(0),14)),UNITADD=((00,032)),  *
  UNIT=SCTC
IODEVICE ADDRESS=(1400,032),CUNUMBR=(1400),STADET=Y,UNIT=SCTC
CNTLUNIT CUNUMBR=2400,PATH=((CSS(0),24)),UNITADD=((00,032)),  *
  UNIT=SCTC
IODEVICE ADDRESS=(2400,032),CUNUMBR=(2400),STADET=Y,UNIT=SCTC


On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 1:25 PM, O'Brien, Dennis L <
dennis.l.o'br...@bankofamerica.com >wrote:

>  Mark,
>
> You need a real CTC with both ends connected to the same system.  You
> ACTIVATE ISLINK for one end on the first-level system.  You ATTACH or
> DEDICATE the other end on first level to the virtual machine for the
> second-level system.  You then ACTIVATE ISLINK for that device on the
> second-level system.
>
>
>
>
>   Dennis
>
>
>
> "Decision" is not a verb.
>
>
>
> *From:* The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] *On
> Behalf Of *Mark Pace
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 05, 2010 09:57
>
> *To:* IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
> *Subject:* Re: [IBMVM] z/VM ISFC links
>
>
>
> Hi, Clovis -
>
> Thanks, but I knew how to do that.  I've used VCTC between guests for
> years.  What I needed, but apparently is not supported is a VCTC, connecting
> CP to a virtual machine for ISFC links.
>
> On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 12:40 PM,  wrote:
>
> > Now I'm trying to figure out how to define a virtual CTC between CP and
> the 2nd level VM.
>
> Mark, it is easy.
>
> On first level, define one Virtual CTC (FCTC, SCTC) into TCPIP (or another
> capable machine) to connect to second level VM.
>
> On second level VM, *define* and *couple* the Virtual CTC to first level
> TCPIP *before* his IPL (COMMAND into Directory is a good place to set it).
> After the IPL, DEDICATE the CTC (the second level thinks it is a REAL CTC)
> to his TCPIP machine.
> Done, you have the two TCPIPs connected by CTCs...
>
> Work fine also for VTAM machines, RSCS, PVM, zOS and so long...
>
> __
> Clovis Pereira
>
>
> *Error! Filename not specified.*Mark Pace ---04/10/2010 10:06:05---Real
> CTC link are working between LPARs. I have a 2nd level VM that I dedicated a
> CTC address to tha
>
>   *Error! Filename not specified.*
> From:
>
> *Error! Filename not specified.*
>
> Mark Pace 
>
>   *Error! Filename not specified.*
> To:
>
> *Error! Filename not specified.*
> IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
>
> *Error! Filename not specified.*
> Date:
>
> *Error! Filename not specified.*
>
> 04/10/2010 10:06
>
>   *Error! Filename not specified.*
> Subject:
>
> *Error! Filename not specified.*
>
> Re: z/VM ISFC links
>
>   *Error! Filename not specified.*
> Sent by:
>
> *Error! Filename not specified.*
>
> The IBM z/VM Operating System 
>
>   --
>
>
>
>
> Real CTC link are working between LPARs.
> I have a 2nd level VM that I dedicated a CTC address to that is also
> talking to the other LPAR.
>
> Now I'm trying to figure out how to define a virtual CTC between CP and the
> 2nd level VM.
> CP DEFINE CTC is for a virtual machine.
> VMA = LPAR
> VMB = 2nd level VMA guest
> VMC = LPAR
>
>
> VMA  VMC
>ctc|
>  ?|
> VMB --+
> ctc
>
> On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 10:14 AM, Mark Wheeler 
> wrote:
>
> In the Better Late (for John) Than Never department, the Redbook "FICON CTC
&

Re: z/VM ISFC links

[O'Brien, Dennis L]

Mark,

You need a real CTC with both ends connected to the same system.  You
ACTIVATE ISLINK for one end on the first-level system.  You ATTACH or
DEDICATE the other end on first level to the virtual machine for the
second-level system.  You then ACTIVATE ISLINK for that device on the
second-level system.

 

 
Dennis

 

"Decision" is not a verb.

 

From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On
Behalf Of Mark Pace
Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2010 09:57
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: [IBMVM] z/VM ISFC links

 

Hi, Clovis -

Thanks, but I knew how to do that.  I've used VCTC between guests for
years.  What I needed, but apparently is not supported is a VCTC,
connecting CP to a virtual machine for ISFC links.

On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 12:40 PM,  wrote:

> Now I'm trying to figure out how to define a virtual CTC between CP
and the 2nd level VM.

Mark, it is easy.

On first level, define one Virtual CTC (FCTC, SCTC) into TCPIP (or
another capable machine) to connect to second level VM.

On second level VM, define and couple the Virtual CTC to first level
TCPIP before his IPL (COMMAND into Directory is a good place to set it).
After the IPL, DEDICATE the CTC (the second level thinks it is a REAL
CTC) to his TCPIP machine.
Done, you have the two TCPIPs connected by CTCs...

Work fine also for VTAM machines, RSCS, PVM, zOS and so long... 

__
Clovis Pereira


Error! Filename not specified.Mark Pace ---04/10/2010 10:06:05---Real
CTC link are working between LPARs. I have a 2nd level VM that I
dedicated a CTC address to tha

Error! Filename not specified.
From:

Error! Filename not specified.
Mark Pace 

Error! Filename not specified.
To:

Error! Filename not specified.
IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU

Error! Filename not specified.
Date:

Error! Filename not specified.
04/10/2010 10:06

Error! Filename not specified.
Subject:

Error! Filename not specified.
Re: z/VM ISFC links

Error! Filename not specified.
Sent by:

Error! Filename not specified.
The IBM z/VM Operating System 






Real CTC link are working between LPARs.
I have a 2nd level VM that I dedicated a CTC address to that is also
talking to the other LPAR.

Now I'm trying to figure out how to define a virtual CTC between CP and
the 2nd level VM.
CP DEFINE CTC is for a virtual machine.
VMA = LPAR
VMB = 2nd level VMA guest
VMC = LPAR


VMA  VMC
   ctc| 
 ?| 
VMB --+
ctc

On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 10:14 AM, Mark Wheeler mailto:mwheele...@hotmail.com> > wrote: 

In the Better Late (for John) Than Never department, the Redbook "FICON
CTC Implementation" was published in 2001. Find it at
http://www.redbooks.ibm.com/redpapers/pdfs/redp0158.pdf
<http://www.redbooks.ibm.com/redpapers/pdfs/redp0158.pdf> 

 
Mark Wheeler
UnitedHealth Group 

--
 
"Excellence. Always. If Not Excellence, What? If Not Excellence Now,
When?" 
Tom Peters, author of "The Little BIG Things"




 
> Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 19:25:24 +0200
> From: jphartm...@gmail.com <mailto:jphartm...@gmail.com> 

> Subject: Re: z/VM ISFC links
> To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU <mailto:IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU> 
> 
> When I set up something similar in a 6-lpar VM system almost 10 years
> ago, it took me quite some time to get the CTC defined correctly in
> the IOCP so that I had n-to-n connectivity. Of course this was in the
> days of stand-alone IOCP. I hope you have better tools.
> 
> j.
> 
> On 30 September 2010 19:00, Mark Pace mailto:pacemainl...@gmail.com> > wrote:
> > I see that now.
> > 1st criteria for this test is to share SFS across LPARs.
> > 2nd was to start learning about what will be involved with SSI.
> > So I guess I'm sticking to ISFC.
> > Glad I have extra ESCON and FICON CHPIDs.  Guess I'll start with
ESCON as I
> > also have extra cables, no extra FICON cables.
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 12:49 PM, Rob van der Heij
mailto:rvdh...@gmail.com> >
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 6:21 PM, Mark Pace mailto:pacemainl...@gmail.com> > wrote:
> >>
> >> > I think I'll also look into IPGATE.
> >>
> >> But that does not do ISFC ...
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Mark D Pace
> > Senior Systems Engineer
> > Mainline Information Systems
> >
> >
> >
> >




-- 
Mark D Pace 
Senior Systems Engineer 
Mainline Information Systems 









-- 

Mark D Pace 

Senior Systems Engineer 

Mainline Information Systems 

 

 

 

 

Re: z/VM ISFC links

[Davis, Larry (National VM/VSE Capability)]

No this actually requires a real CTC, if you have a test system, and have a 
spare CTC device address Then you are OK, but connecting 1st Level to 2nd 
Level, I believe, for ISFC is not supported.

Larry Davis

From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf 
Of Mark Pace
Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2010 12:57 PM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: z/VM ISFC links

Hi, Clovis -
Thanks, but I knew how to do that.  I've used VCTC between guests for years.  
What I needed, but apparently is not supported is a VCTC, connecting CP to a 
virtual machine for ISFC links.
On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 12:40 PM, 
mailto:gclo...@br.ibm.com>> wrote:
> Now I'm trying to figure out how to define a virtual CTC between CP and the 
> 2nd level VM.
Mark, it is easy.

On first level, define one Virtual CTC (FCTC, SCTC) into TCPIP (or another 
capable machine) to connect to second level VM.

On second level VM, define and couple the Virtual CTC to first level TCPIP 
before his IPL (COMMAND into Directory is a good place to set it).
After the IPL, DEDICATE the CTC (the second level thinks it is a REAL CTC) to 
his TCPIP machine.
Done, you have the two TCPIPs connected by CTCs...

Work fine also for VTAM machines, RSCS, PVM, zOS and so long...

__
Clovis Pereira


Error! Filename not specified.Mark Pace ---04/10/2010 10:06:05---Real CTC link 
are working between LPARs. I have a 2nd level VM that I dedicated a CTC address 
to tha
Error! Filename not specified.
From:

Error! Filename not specified.
Mark Pace mailto:pacemainl...@gmail.com>>

Error! Filename not specified.
To:

Error! Filename not specified.
IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU<mailto:IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU>

Error! Filename not specified.
Date:

Error! Filename not specified.
04/10/2010 10:06

Error! Filename not specified.
Subject:

Error! Filename not specified.
Re: z/VM ISFC links

Error! Filename not specified.
Sent by:

Error! Filename not specified.
The IBM z/VM Operating System 
mailto:IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU>>





Real CTC link are working between LPARs.
I have a 2nd level VM that I dedicated a CTC address to that is also talking to 
the other LPAR.

Now I'm trying to figure out how to define a virtual CTC between CP and the 2nd 
level VM.
CP DEFINE CTC is for a virtual machine.
VMA = LPAR
VMB = 2nd level VMA guest
VMC = LPAR


VMA  VMC
   ctc|
 ?|
VMB --+
ctc

On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 10:14 AM, Mark Wheeler 
mailto:mwheele...@hotmail.com>> wrote:
In the Better Late (for John) Than Never department, the Redbook "FICON CTC 
Implementation" was published in 2001. Find it at 
http://www.redbooks.ibm.com/redpapers/pdfs/redp0158.pdf


Mark Wheeler
UnitedHealth Group

--

"Excellence. Always. If Not Excellence, What? If Not Excellence Now, When?"
Tom Peters, author of "The Little BIG Things"





> Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 19:25:24 +0200
> From: jphartm...@gmail.com<mailto:jphartm...@gmail.com>

> Subject: Re: z/VM ISFC links
> To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU<mailto:IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU>
>
> When I set up something similar in a 6-lpar VM system almost 10 years
> ago, it took me quite some time to get the CTC defined correctly in
> the IOCP so that I had n-to-n connectivity. Of course this was in the
> days of stand-alone IOCP. I hope you have better tools.
>
> j.
>
> On 30 September 2010 19:00, Mark Pace 
> mailto:pacemainl...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> > I see that now.
> > 1st criteria for this test is to share SFS across LPARs.
> > 2nd was to start learning about what will be involved with SSI.
> > So I guess I'm sticking to ISFC.
> > Glad I have extra ESCON and FICON CHPIDs.  Guess I'll start with ESCON as I
> > also have extra cables, no extra FICON cables.
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 12:49 PM, Rob van der Heij 
> > mailto:rvdh...@gmail.com>>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 6:21 PM, Mark Pace 
> >> mailto:pacemainl...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >>
> >> > I think I'll also look into IPGATE.
> >>
> >> But that does not do ISFC ...
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Mark D Pace
> > Senior Systems Engineer
> > Mainline Information Systems
> >
> >
> >
> >



--
Mark D Pace
Senior Systems Engineer
Mainline Information Systems







--
Mark D Pace
Senior Systems Engineer
Mainline Information Systems

Re: z/VM ISFC links

[Mark Pace]

Hi, Clovis -
Thanks, but I knew how to do that.  I've used VCTC between guests for years.
 What I needed, but apparently is not supported is a VCTC, connecting CP to
a virtual machine for ISFC links.

On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 12:40 PM,  wrote:

> > Now I'm trying to figure out how to define a virtual CTC between CP and
> the 2nd level VM.
>
> Mark, it is easy.
>
> On first level, define one Virtual CTC (FCTC, SCTC) into TCPIP (or another
> capable machine) to connect to second level VM.
>
> On second level VM, *define* and *couple* the Virtual CTC to first level
> TCPIP *before* his IPL (COMMAND into Directory is a good place to set it).
> After the IPL, DEDICATE the CTC (the second level thinks it is a REAL CTC)
> to his TCPIP machine.
> Done, you have the two TCPIPs connected by CTCs...
>
> Work fine also for VTAM machines, RSCS, PVM, zOS and so long...
>
> __
> Clovis Pereira
>
>
> [image: Inactive hide details for Mark Pace ---04/10/2010 10:06:05---Real
> CTC link are working between LPARs. I have a 2nd level VM tha]Mark Pace
> ---04/10/2010 10:06:05---Real CTC link are working between LPARs. I have a
> 2nd level VM that I dedicated a CTC address to tha
>
>
> From:
> Mark Pace 
> To:
> IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
> Date:
> 04/10/2010 10:06
> Subject:
> Re: z/VM ISFC links
> Sent by:
> The IBM z/VM Operating System 
> --
>
>
>
> Real CTC link are working between LPARs.
> I have a 2nd level VM that I dedicated a CTC address to that is also
> talking to the other LPAR.
>
> Now I'm trying to figure out how to define a virtual CTC between CP and the
> 2nd level VM.
> CP DEFINE CTC is for a virtual machine.
> VMA = LPAR
> VMB = 2nd level VMA guest
> VMC = LPAR
>
>
> VMA  VMC
>ctc|
>  ?|
> VMB --+
> ctc
>
> On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 10:14 AM, Mark Wheeler 
> <*mwheele...@hotmail.com*>
> wrote:
>
>In the Better Late (for John) Than Never department, the Redbook "FICON
>   CTC Implementation" was published in 2001. Find it at *
>   
> http://www.redbooks.ibm.com/redpapers/pdfs/redp0158.pdf*<http://www.redbooks.ibm.com/redpapers/pdfs/redp0158.pdf>
>
>
>   Mark Wheeler
>   UnitedHealth Group
>
>   --
>
>   "Excellence. Always. If Not Excellence, What? If Not Excellence Now,
>   When?"
>   Tom Peters, author of "The Little BIG Things"
>
>
>
>
>
>   > Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 19:25:24 +0200
>   > From: *jphartm...@gmail.com* 
>
>   > Subject: Re: z/VM ISFC links
>   > To: *ib...@listserv.uark.edu* 
>   >
>   > When I set up something similar in a 6-lpar VM system almost 10
>   years
>   > ago, it took me quite some time to get the CTC defined correctly
>   in
>   > the IOCP so that I had n-to-n connectivity. Of course this was in
>   the
>   > days of stand-alone IOCP. I hope you have better tools.
>   >
>   > j.
>   >
>   > On 30 September 2010 19:00, Mark Pace 
> <*pacemainl...@gmail.com*>
>   wrote:
>   > > I see that now.
>   > > 1st criteria for this test is to share SFS across LPARs.
>   > > 2nd was to start learning about what will be involved with SSI.
>   > > So I guess I'm sticking to ISFC.
>   > > Glad I have extra ESCON and FICON CHPIDs.  Guess I'll start with
>   ESCON as I
>   > > also have extra cables, no extra FICON cables.
>   > >
>   > > On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 12:49 PM, Rob van der Heij <*
>   rvdh...@gmail.com* >
>   > > wrote:
>   > >>
>   > >> On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 6:21 PM, Mark Pace <*
>   pacemainl...@gmail.com* > wrote:
>   > >>
>   > >> > I think I'll also look into IPGATE.
>   > >>
>   > >> But that does not do ISFC ...
>   > >
>   > >
>   > >
>   > > --
>   > > Mark D Pace
>   > > Senior Systems Engineer
>   > > Mainline Information Systems
>   > >
>   > >
>   > >
>   > >
>
>
>
>
> --
> Mark D Pace
> Senior Systems Engineer
> Mainline Information Systems
>
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
Mark D Pace
Senior Systems Engineer
Mainline Information Systems

Re: z/VM ISFC links

[gclovis]

> Now I'm trying to figure out how to define a virtual CTC between CP and
the 2nd level VM.

Mark, it is easy.

On first level, define one Virtual CTC (FCTC, SCTC) into TCPIP (or another
capable machine) to connect to second level VM.

On second level VM, define and couple the Virtual CTC to first level TCPIP
before his IPL (COMMAND into Directory is a good place to set it).
After the IPL, DEDICATE the CTC (the second level thinks it is a REAL CTC)
to his TCPIP machine.
Done, you have the two TCPIPs connected by CTCs...

Work fine also  for VTAM machines, RSCS, PVM, zOS and so long...

__
Clovis Pereira




  
  From:   Mark Pace 
  

  
  To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU   
  

  
  Date:   04/10/2010 10:06  
  

  
  Subject:    Re: z/VM ISFC links   
  

  
  Sent by:The IBM z/VM Operating System
  

  





Real CTC link are working between LPARs.
I have a 2nd level VM that I dedicated a CTC address to that is also
talking to the other LPAR.

Now I'm trying to figure out how to define a virtual CTC between CP and the
2nd level VM.
CP DEFINE CTC is for a virtual machine.
VMA = LPAR
VMB = 2nd level VMA guest
VMC = LPAR


VMA  VMC
       ctc    |
 ?            |
VMB --+
        ctc

On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 10:14 AM, Mark Wheeler 
wrote:
  In the Better Late (for John) Than Never department, the Redbook
  "FICON CTC Implementation" was published in 2001. Find it at
  http://www.redbooks.ibm.com/redpapers/pdfs/redp0158.pdf


  Mark Wheeler
  UnitedHealth Group

  --

  "Excellence. Always. If Not Excellence, What? If Not Excellence Now,
  When?"
  Tom Peters, author of "The Little BIG Things"





  > Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 19:25:24 +0200
  > From: jphartm...@gmail.com

  > Subject: Re: z/VM ISFC links
  > To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
  >
  > When I set up something similar in a 6-lpar VM system almost 10
  years
  > ago, it took me quite some time to get the CTC defined correctly in
  > the IOCP so that I had n-to-n connectivity. Of course this was in
  the
  > days of stand-alone IOCP. I hope you have better tools.
  >
  > j.
  >
  > On 30 September 2010 19:00, Mark Pace 
  wrote:
  > > I see that now.
  > > 1st criteria for this test is to share SFS across LPARs.
  > > 2nd was to start learning about what will be involved with SSI.
  > > So I guess I'm sticking to ISFC.
  > > Glad I have extra ESCON and FICON CHPIDs.  Guess I'll start with
  ESCON as I
  > > also have extra cables, no extra FICON cables.
  > >
  > > On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 12:49 PM, Rob van der Heij <
  rvdh...@gmail.com>
  > > wrote:
  > >>
  > >> On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 6:21 PM, Mark Pace <
  pacemainl...@gmail.com> wrote:
  > >>
  > >> > I think I'll also look into IPGATE.
  > >>
  > >> But that does not do ISFC ...
  > >
  > >
  > >
  > > --
  > > Mark D Pace
  > > Senior Systems Engineer
  > > Mainline Information Systems
  > >
  > >
  > >
  > >



--
Mark D Pace
Senior Systems Engineer
Mainline Information Systems

Re: z/VM ISFC links

[Rob van der Heij]

On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 4:02 PM, Mark Pace  wrote:
> I wonder how much I lose, or overhead gained, by having the other LPAR being
> a "gateway" for the 2nd level to the first level resources.

Most obvious one is in availability. When the other LPAR has an
outage, your ISFC link to 2nd level goes too.
I've never measured the cost of transfer, but might be relevant with
very high data volumes. I would expect the 2nd level guest being the
biggest cost factor.

| Rob

Re: z/VM ISFC links

[Mark Pace]

I wonder how much I lose, or overhead gained, by having the other LPAR being
a "gateway" for the 2nd level to the first level resources.

On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 9:36 AM, Rob van der Heij  wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 3:24 PM, John P. Hartmann 
> wrote:
> > It has to be a real CTC where one end is attached to the virtual
> > machine and the other end is activated to CP.
>
> Right. Experience shows that a lot of experts will insist that this is
> "invalid" in the IOCP configuration. It isn't, but rather shows their
> MVS sysplex background where you don't do this (and maybe their IOGEN
> / HCD flags them as suspicious). But it does not make you go blind nor
> does it grow hair on your hands... ;-)
>
> When you have them between systems / LPARs then it's a moot point
> because you invested in the two CHPIDs already. But for shops with
> just one z/VM image and a guest, it's a pity CP does not connect to
> virtual CTCs.
>
> | Rob
>



-- 
Mark D Pace
Senior Systems Engineer
Mainline Information Systems

Re: z/VM ISFC links

[Rob van der Heij]

On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 3:24 PM, John P. Hartmann  wrote:
> It has to be a real CTC where one end is attached to the virtual
> machine and the other end is activated to CP.

Right. Experience shows that a lot of experts will insist that this is
"invalid" in the IOCP configuration. It isn't, but rather shows their
MVS sysplex background where you don't do this (and maybe their IOGEN
/ HCD flags them as suspicious). But it does not make you go blind nor
does it grow hair on your hands... ;-)

When you have them between systems / LPARs then it's a moot point
because you invested in the two CHPIDs already. But for shops with
just one z/VM image and a guest, it's a pity CP does not connect to
virtual CTCs.

| Rob

Re: z/VM ISFC links

[Mark Pace]

Real CTC link are working between LPARs.
I have a 2nd level VM that I dedicated a CTC address to that is also talking
to the other LPAR.

Now I'm trying to figure out how to define a virtual CTC between CP and the
2nd level VM.
CP DEFINE CTC is for a virtual machine.
VMA = LPAR
VMB = 2nd level VMA guest
VMC = LPAR


VMA  VMC
   ctc|
 ?|
VMB --+
ctc

On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 10:14 AM, Mark Wheeler wrote:

>  In the Better Late (for John) Than Never department, the Redbook "FICON
> CTC Implementation" was published in 2001. Find it at
> http://www.redbooks.ibm.com/redpapers/pdfs/redp0158.pdf
>
>
> Mark Wheeler
> UnitedHealth Group
>
> --
>
> "Excellence. Always. If Not Excellence, What? If Not Excellence Now,
> When?"
> Tom Peters, author of "The Little BIG Things"
>
>
>
>
>
> > Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 19:25:24 +0200
> > From: jphartm...@gmail.com
>
> > Subject: Re: z/VM ISFC links
> > To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
> >
> > When I set up something similar in a 6-lpar VM system almost 10 years
> > ago, it took me quite some time to get the CTC defined correctly in
> > the IOCP so that I had n-to-n connectivity. Of course this was in the
> > days of stand-alone IOCP. I hope you have better tools.
> >
> > j.
> >
> > On 30 September 2010 19:00, Mark Pace  wrote:
> > > I see that now.
> > > 1st criteria for this test is to share SFS across LPARs.
> > > 2nd was to start learning about what will be involved with SSI.
> > > So I guess I'm sticking to ISFC.
> > > Glad I have extra ESCON and FICON CHPIDs.  Guess I'll start with ESCON
> as I
> > > also have extra cables, no extra FICON cables.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 12:49 PM, Rob van der Heij 
> > > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 6:21 PM, Mark Pace 
> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > I think I'll also look into IPGATE.
> > >>
> > >> But that does not do ISFC ...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Mark D Pace
> > > Senior Systems Engineer
> > > Mainline Information Systems
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
>



-- 
Mark D Pace
Senior Systems Engineer
Mainline Information Systems

Re: z/VM ISFC links

[John P. Hartmann]

It has to be a real CTC where one end is attached to the virtual
machine and the other end is activated to CP.

On 4 October 2010 15:13, Mark Pace  wrote:
> Real CTC link are working between LPARs.
> I have a 2nd level VM that I dedicated a CTC address to that is also talking
> to the other LPAR.
> Now I'm trying to figure out how to define a virtual CTC between CP and the
> 2nd level VM.
> CP DEFINE CTC is for a virtual machine.
> VMA = LPAR
> VMB = 2nd level VMA guest
> VMC = LPAR
>
> VMA  VMC
>        ctc    |
>  ?            |
> VMB --+
>         ctc
>
> On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 10:14 AM, Mark Wheeler 
> wrote:
>>
>> In the Better Late (for John) Than Never department, the Redbook "FICON
>> CTC Implementation" was published in 2001. Find it at
>> http://www.redbooks.ibm.com/redpapers/pdfs/redp0158.pdf
>>
>> Mark Wheeler
>> UnitedHealth Group
>>
>> --
>>
>> "Excellence. Always. If Not Excellence, What? If Not Excellence Now,
>> When?"
>> Tom Peters, author of "The Little BIG Things"
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 19:25:24 +0200
>> > From: jphartm...@gmail.com
>> > Subject: Re: z/VM ISFC links
>> > To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
>> >
>> > When I set up something similar in a 6-lpar VM system almost 10 years
>> > ago, it took me quite some time to get the CTC defined correctly in
>> > the IOCP so that I had n-to-n connectivity. Of course this was in the
>> > days of stand-alone IOCP. I hope you have better tools.
>> >
>> > j.
>> >
>> > On 30 September 2010 19:00, Mark Pace  wrote:
>> > > I see that now.
>> > > 1st criteria for this test is to share SFS across LPARs.
>> > > 2nd was to start learning about what will be involved with SSI.
>> > > So I guess I'm sticking to ISFC.
>> > > Glad I have extra ESCON and FICON CHPIDs.  Guess I'll start with ESCON
>> > > as I
>> > > also have extra cables, no extra FICON cables.
>> > >
>> > > On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 12:49 PM, Rob van der Heij 
>> > > wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 6:21 PM, Mark Pace 
>> > >> wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> > I think I'll also look into IPGATE.
>> > >>
>> > >> But that does not do ISFC ...
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > Mark D Pace
>> > > Senior Systems Engineer
>> > > Mainline Information Systems
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>
>
>
> --
> Mark D Pace
> Senior Systems Engineer
> Mainline Information Systems
>
>
>
>

Re: z/VM ISFC links

[Alan Altmark]

On Saturday, 10/02/2010 at 03:52 EDT, Mike Walter  
wrote:
> Ah, obviously you have not seen the also-secret IBM charged-photon 
patent!  ;-)
> 
> It's way past Friday in Chicago's northern suburbs.

Charged photons can only be held 72 hours.  They have rights, too, you 
know!

-- Chuckie
(and I don't really care what day of the week it is)

Re: z/VM ISFC links

[Mike Walter]

Ah, obviously you have not seen the also-secret IBM charged-photon patent!  ;-)

It's way past Friday in Chicago's northern suburbs.

Mike Walter
Aon Hewitt
(Insert the usual disclaimer here)

(Sent from the wee keyboard of a Blackberry.)


- Original Message -
From: "Alan Ackerman" [alan.acker...@bankofamerica.com]
Sent: 10/02/2010 01:53 AM EST
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: z/VM ISFC links



Photons don't carry a charge, Mike. (It's still Friday here for 7 more minutes.)

Alan Ackerman

On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 16:16:13 -0500, Mike Walter  wrote:

>TCP/IP is old technology?  What about the bits and bytes it relies on -
>why can't IBM replace those with negatively and positively charged
>photons?  They'd be a lot faster!  Gee, I hope I'm hinting at some secret
>announcement  letter pending for the z/NT, which would naturally be
>followed by the z/XP, and then (skipping some more nightmares) eventually
>the z/7, right!?  %-}~
>
>But then.. light does go wy back to the very beginning.  ;-)
>
>Mike Walter
>Hewitt Associates
>The opinions expressed herein are mine alone, not my employer's.
>




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: z/VM ISFC links

[Alan Ackerman]

Photons don't carry a charge, Mike. (It's still Friday here for 7 more mi
nutes.)

Alan Ackerman

On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 16:16:13 -0500, Mike Walter  
wrote:

>TCP/IP is old technology?  What about the bits and bytes it relies on -
>why can't IBM replace those with negatively and positively charged
>photons?  They'd be a lot faster!  Gee, I hope I'm hinting at some secre
t
>announcement  letter pending for the z/NT, which would naturally be
>followed by the z/XP, and then (skipping some more nightmares) eventuall
y
>the z/7, right!?  %-}~
>
>But then.. light does go wy back to the very beginning.  ;-)
>
>Mike Walter
>Hewitt Associates
>The opinions expressed herein are mine alone, not my employer's.
>

Re: z/VM ISFC links

[Mark Wheeler]

In the Better Late (for John) Than Never department, the Redbook "FICON CTC 
Implementation" was published in 2001. Find it at 
http://www.redbooks.ibm.com/redpapers/pdfs/redp0158.pdf
 
Mark Wheeler
UnitedHealth Group 

--
 
"Excellence. Always. If Not Excellence, What? If Not Excellence Now, When?" 
Tom Peters, author of "The Little BIG Things"




 
> Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 19:25:24 +0200
> From: jphartm...@gmail.com
> Subject: Re: z/VM ISFC links
> To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
> 
> When I set up something similar in a 6-lpar VM system almost 10 years
> ago, it took me quite some time to get the CTC defined correctly in
> the IOCP so that I had n-to-n connectivity. Of course this was in the
> days of stand-alone IOCP. I hope you have better tools.
> 
> j.
> 
> On 30 September 2010 19:00, Mark Pace  wrote:
> > I see that now.
> > 1st criteria for this test is to share SFS across LPARs.
> > 2nd was to start learning about what will be involved with SSI.
> > So I guess I'm sticking to ISFC.
> > Glad I have extra ESCON and FICON CHPIDs.  Guess I'll start with ESCON as I
> > also have extra cables, no extra FICON cables.
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 12:49 PM, Rob van der Heij 
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 6:21 PM, Mark Pace  wrote:
> >>
> >> > I think I'll also look into IPGATE.
> >>
> >> But that does not do ISFC ...
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Mark D Pace
> > Senior Systems Engineer
> > Mainline Information Systems
> >
> >
> >
> >
  

Re: z/VM ISFC links

[Shimon Lebowitz]

Hi John,
I also had a hard time setting up n-to-n CTC connections, 
but I tried to document how it is done for others, here:
http://www.sinenomine.net/node/265

>From its blurb on SineNomine:
"This document describes a cookbook example of how to
configure ESCON CTC connections between LPARs on a single
zSeries system. It demonstrates how to plan and code the
necessary IOCP statements to interconnect multiple LPARs"

Once again, I thank SineNomine for hosting it.

Shimon

 Original message 
>Date:   Thu, 30 Sep 2010 19:25:24 +0200
>From:   "John P. Hartmann"   
>Subject:   Re: z/VM ISFC links  
>To:   IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
>
>When I set up something similar in a 6-lpar VM system almost
10 years
>ago, it took me quite some time to get the CTC defined
correctly in
>the IOCP so that I had n-to-n connectivity.  Of course this
was in the
>days of stand-alone IOCP.  I hope you have better tools.
>
>   j.
>
>On 30 September 2010 19:00, Mark Pace
 wrote:
>> I see that now.
>> 1st criteria for this test is to share SFS across LPARs.
>> 2nd was to start learning about what will be involved with SSI.
>> So I guess I'm sticking to ISFC.
>> Glad I have extra ESCON and FICON CHPIDs.  Guess I'll start
with ESCON as I
>> also have extra cables, no extra FICON cables.
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 12:49 PM, Rob van der Heij

>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 6:21 PM, Mark Pace
 wrote:
>>>
>>> > I think I'll also look into IPGATE.
>>>
>>> But that does not do ISFC ...
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Mark D Pace
>> Senior Systems Engineer
>> Mainline Information Systems
>>
>>
>>
>>

Re: z/VM ISFC links

[George Henke/NYLIC]

On 9/30/10 5:55 PM, "George Henke/NYLIC"  
wrote:

> Unfortunately that was day 1, but its source did not appear until day 4. 


David Boyes wrote:

>Well, the tech support load for that day 1 thing was pretty heavy. We 
took a couple days off after the launch party. 8-) 


No, that was day 7, after everything was done.




David Boyes  
Sent by: The IBM z/VM Operating System 
09/30/2010 11:18 PM
Please respond to
The IBM z/VM Operating System 


To
IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
cc

Subject
Re: z/VM ISFC links







On 9/30/10 5:55 PM, "George Henke/NYLIC"  
wrote:

> Unfortunately that was day 1, but its source did not appear until day 4. 


Well, the tech support load for that day 1 thing was pretty heavy. We took 
a couple days off after the launch party. 8-) 

Re: z/VM ISFC links

[David Boyes]

On 9/30/10 5:55 PM, "George Henke/NYLIC"  wrote:

> Unfortunately that was day 1, but its source did not appear until day 4.

Well, the tech support load for that day 1 thing was pretty heavy. We took a 
couple days off after the launch party. 8-)

Re: z/VM ISFC links

[George Henke/NYLIC]

David Boyes wrote:

>Well, this "light" thing worked out OK in the labs, so we kicked it
>upstairs to the Big Guy for product announcement. The customer tests
>with the "Let There Be Light" campaign seemed positive, so we told him
>to run with it...

Unfortunately that was day 1, but its source did not appear until day 4.

So there was a timing difference here and either the Big Guy upstairs was 
missing a few PTFs or "that Light" was from a different source and I 
prefer the latter.





Mike Walter  
Sent by: The IBM z/VM Operating System 
09/30/2010 05:16 PM
Please respond to
The IBM z/VM Operating System 


To
IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
cc

Subject
Re: z/VM ISFC links






TCP/IP is old technology?  What about the bits and bytes it relies on - 
why can't IBM replace those with negatively and positively charged 
photons?  They'd be a lot faster!  Gee, I hope I'm hinting at some secret 
announcement  letter pending for the z/NT, which would naturally be 
followed by the z/XP, and then (skipping some more nightmares) eventually 
the z/7, right!?  %-}~

But then.. light does go wy back to the very beginning.  ;-)

Mike Walter
Hewitt Associates
The opinions expressed herein are mine alone, not my employer's.

And before we trod too far down this "old technology" path, thereby 
invoking the inestimable wrath of our 
intrepid moderator, I believe that David Boyes has already won the contest 

hands down with the post:
--
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 13:58:16 -0400
From: David Boyes 
Subject:  Re: programmer biographies (was a long time ago: Immediate
  instructions )

> Alan
> Altmark  wrote:
> -snip-
> > I'm sure *someone* will speak up and say, "Well *I* worked on a
> Babbage's
> > first difference engine.  Knew the man well.  He was a geek's geek."
> > Whoever speaks up, my hat's off to you.  You win!
> 
> It's more likely someone will have claimed to helped build Stonehenge,
or
> aligned the pyramids, or

Well, this "light" thing worked out OK in the labs, so we kicked it
upstairs to the Big Guy for product announcement. The customer tests
with the "Let There Be Light" campaign seemed positive, so we told him
to run with it...

8-)
--




"Michael MacIsaac"  

Sent by: "The IBM z/VM Operating System" 
09/30/2010 01:07 PM
Please respond to
"The IBM z/VM Operating System" 



To
IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
cc

Subject
Re: z/VM ISFC links







> still stuck with 30 year old technology (CTC) 
Yeah, and we're still stuck with that 30 year old TCP/IP technology :)) 

"Mike MacIsaac"(845) 433-7061




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: z/VM ISFC links

[Edward M Martin]

Hello Mike,

Wasn't that covered in the z/Universe announcement?

Ed Martin
Aultman Health Foundation
330-363-5050
ext 35050

-Original Message-
From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On
Behalf Of Mike Walter
Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2010 5:16 PM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: z/VM ISFC links

TCP/IP is old technology?  What about the bits and bytes it relies on - 
why can't IBM replace those with negatively and positively charged 
photons?  They'd be a lot faster!  Gee, I hope I'm hinting at some
secret 
announcement  letter pending for the z/NT, which would naturally be 
followed by the z/XP, and then (skipping some more nightmares)
eventually 
the z/7, right!?  %-}~

But then.. light does go wy back to the very beginning.  ;-)

Mike Walter
Hewitt Associates
The opinions expressed herein are mine alone, not my employer's.

And before we trod too far down this "old technology" path, thereby 
invoking the inestimable wrath of our 
intrepid moderator, I believe that David Boyes has already won the
contest 
hands down with the post:
--
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 13:58:16 -0400
From: David Boyes 
Subject:  Re: programmer biographies (was a long time ago: Immediate
  instructions )

> Alan
> Altmark  wrote:
> -snip-
> > I'm sure *someone* will speak up and say, "Well *I* worked on a
> Babbage's
> > first difference engine.  Knew the man well.  He was a geek's geek."
> > Whoever speaks up, my hat's off to you.  You win!
> 
> It's more likely someone will have claimed to helped build Stonehenge,
or
> aligned the pyramids, or

Well, this "light" thing worked out OK in the labs, so we kicked it
upstairs to the Big Guy for product announcement. The customer tests
with the "Let There Be Light" campaign seemed positive, so we told him
to run with it...

8-)
--




"Michael MacIsaac"  

Sent by: "The IBM z/VM Operating System" 
09/30/2010 01:07 PM
Please respond to
"The IBM z/VM Operating System" 



To
IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
cc

Subject
Re: z/VM ISFC links







> still stuck with 30 year old technology (CTC) 
Yeah, and we're still stuck with that 30 year old TCP/IP technology :)) 

"Mike MacIsaac"(845) 433-7061




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: z/VM ISFC links

[Mike Walter]

TCP/IP is old technology?  What about the bits and bytes it relies on - 
why can't IBM replace those with negatively and positively charged 
photons?  They'd be a lot faster!  Gee, I hope I'm hinting at some secret 
announcement  letter pending for the z/NT, which would naturally be 
followed by the z/XP, and then (skipping some more nightmares) eventually 
the z/7, right!?  %-}~

But then.. light does go wy back to the very beginning.  ;-)

Mike Walter
Hewitt Associates
The opinions expressed herein are mine alone, not my employer's.

And before we trod too far down this "old technology" path, thereby 
invoking the inestimable wrath of our 
intrepid moderator, I believe that David Boyes has already won the contest 
hands down with the post:
--
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 13:58:16 -0400
From: David Boyes 
Subject:  Re: programmer biographies (was a long time ago: Immediate
  instructions )

> Alan
> Altmark  wrote:
> -snip-
> > I'm sure *someone* will speak up and say, "Well *I* worked on a
> Babbage's
> > first difference engine.  Knew the man well.  He was a geek's geek."
> > Whoever speaks up, my hat's off to you.  You win!
> 
> It's more likely someone will have claimed to helped build Stonehenge,
or
> aligned the pyramids, or

Well, this "light" thing worked out OK in the labs, so we kicked it
upstairs to the Big Guy for product announcement. The customer tests
with the "Let There Be Light" campaign seemed positive, so we told him
to run with it...

8-)
--




"Michael MacIsaac"  

Sent by: "The IBM z/VM Operating System" 
09/30/2010 01:07 PM
Please respond to
"The IBM z/VM Operating System" 



To
IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
cc

Subject
Re: z/VM ISFC links







> still stuck with 30 year old technology (CTC) 
Yeah, and we're still stuck with that 30 year old TCP/IP technology :)) 

"Mike MacIsaac"(845) 433-7061




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: z/VM ISFC links

[Barton Robinson]

My internal network doesn't need encryption, and i should be able use 
hypersockets between LPARs.  it would be better if you insist on having 
ctcs that the ctc are connected to tcpip as another interface.  you 
simplify our options, tcpip will always be there, less complexity for 
those of us that like simple, and probably less money for those that care.


Alan Altmark wrote:
On Thursday, 09/30/2010 at 02:00 EDT, Barton Robinson 
 wrote:

Isn't it absolutely unbelievably amazing that in the current environment
with "everything internet enabled", that z/vm is still stuck with 30
year old technology (CTC) to perform simple network functions? With no
change anywhere in the future? *&$# unbelievable


No change anywhere in the future?  Who said that?  And, btw, IBM has 
actually given some thought to the problem.


If you want to go over ethernets, then you're going to be dealing with IP 
connectivity *and encryption*, and all that entails.  I don't think the VM 
IP stack is up to the challenge of pushing that data, so alternatives are 
needed.  Personally, I think I'd rather have FICON for now. 

Ethernet was invented in the early 70s, so the 30-year-old tech argument 
applies to both.


Alan Altmark

z/VM and Linux on System z Consultant
IBM System Lab Services and Training 
ibm.com/systems/services/labservices 
office: 607.429.3323

alan_altm...@us.ibm.com
IBM Endicott

Re: z/VM ISFC links

[Alan Altmark]

On Thursday, 09/30/2010 at 02:00 EDT, Barton Robinson 
 wrote:
> Isn't it absolutely unbelievably amazing that in the current environment
> with "everything internet enabled", that z/vm is still stuck with 30
> year old technology (CTC) to perform simple network functions? With no
> change anywhere in the future? *&$# unbelievable

No change anywhere in the future?  Who said that?  And, btw, IBM has 
actually given some thought to the problem.

If you want to go over ethernets, then you're going to be dealing with IP 
connectivity *and encryption*, and all that entails.  I don't think the VM 
IP stack is up to the challenge of pushing that data, so alternatives are 
needed.  Personally, I think I'd rather have FICON for now. 

Ethernet was invented in the early 70s, so the 30-year-old tech argument 
applies to both.

Alan Altmark

z/VM and Linux on System z Consultant
IBM System Lab Services and Training 
ibm.com/systems/services/labservices 
office: 607.429.3323
alan_altm...@us.ibm.com
IBM Endicott

Re: z/VM ISFC links

[Mark Pace]

HCD in z/OS.
I've done a lot of CTC setup in the past. So this was easy.
The connection part was painless.
Define the CTCs, vary online and do an  ACTIVATE ISLINK ccuu
So now the difficult part most be defining the resources.


On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 1:25 PM, John P. Hartmann wrote:

> When I set up something similar in a 6-lpar VM system almost 10 years
> ago, it took me quite some time to get the CTC defined correctly in
> the IOCP so that I had n-to-n connectivity.  Of course this was in the
> days of stand-alone IOCP.*  I hope you have better tools.*
>
>   j.
>
> On 30 September 2010 19:00, Mark Pace  wrote:
> > I see that now.
> > 1st criteria for this test is to share SFS across LPARs.
> > 2nd was to start learning about what will be involved with SSI.
> > So I guess I'm sticking to ISFC.
> > Glad I have extra ESCON and FICON CHPIDs.  Guess I'll start with ESCON as
> I
> > also have extra cables, no extra FICON cables.
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 12:49 PM, Rob van der Heij 
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 6:21 PM, Mark Pace 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> > I think I'll also look into IPGATE.
> >>
> >> But that does not do ISFC ...
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Mark D Pace
> > Senior Systems Engineer
> > Mainline Information Systems
> >
> >
> >
> >
>



-- 
Mark D Pace
Senior Systems Engineer
Mainline Information Systems

Re: z/VM ISFC links

[David Boyes]

> To tell the truth I'm not sure if the resident stack for VM can handle
> that area, but the one for Linux certainly can. A Service Machine
> running Linux and simply forwarding things between the two would work.

It's not that easy, especially with SSL and encryption requirements -- you have 
to deal with hard philosophical questions like what the actual endpoint of a 
socket really is and which certificate is valid in that case. There are also 
lots and lots of nasty problems wrt to maintaining state with v4/v6 connections 
-- for example, if the connection initiates from the v4 side, how do you 
specify the network prefix to get the other half of the v6 address to the 
remote side? You end up with a bunch of really icky NAT6 translation tables. 
It's messy as hell. 

The VM TCP stack does have basic IPv6 support, but none of the shipped apps 
except TELNET and PING have IPv6 support, and there are no plans (that I'm 
aware of) to fix that. And yes, requirements have been submitted. I have 
replacements for most of them ready, but  

Re: z/VM ISFC links

[David Boyes]

Not for much longer. The last blocks ofIPv4 addresses will be allocated to 
registrars in the next 4 months. The last available IPv4 addresses will be 
assigned within the next 2 years.
If you don't have a IPv6 transition plan, you might want to start looking into 
it.

Still, we still have SNALINK shipped with the TCPIP stack (if unsupported), and 
IPGATE still isn't supported code. That is kinda lame.


-- db


From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf 
Of Michael MacIsaac
Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2010 2:08 PM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: z/VM ISFC links


> still stuck with 30 year old technology (CTC)
Yeah, and we're still stuck with that 30 year old TCP/IP technology :))

"Mike MacIsaac"(845) 433-7061

Re: z/VM ISFC links

[Gregg Levine]

On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 2:07 PM, Michael MacIsaac  wrote:
>
>> still stuck with 30 year old technology (CTC)
> Yeah, and we're still stuck with that 30 year old TCP/IP technology :))
>
> "Mike MacIsaac"    (845) 433-7061

Hello!
I haven't commented on this thread, but here goes: We are running out
of IPv4 spaces finally. It is expected according to those experts that
the conversion to IPv6 ones will not be an easy one, but will be a
necessary one.

To tell the truth I'm not sure if the resident stack for VM can handle
that area, but the one for Linux certainly can. A Service Machine
running Linux and simply forwarding things between the two would work.

As for your problem Mark, I'm not sure.


-
Gregg C Levine gregg.drw...@gmail.com
"This signature fought the Time Wars, time and again."

Re: z/VM ISFC links

[Michael MacIsaac]

> still stuck with 30 year old technology (CTC)
Yeah, and we're still stuck with that 30 year old TCP/IP technology :))

"Mike MacIsaac"(845) 433-7061

Re: z/VM ISFC links

[Barton Robinson]

Isn't it absolutely unbelievably amazing that in the current environment 
with "everything internet enabled", that z/vm is still stuck with 30 
year old technology (CTC) to perform simple network functions? With no 
change anywhere in the future? *&$# unbelievable


Mark Pace wrote:
I see that now.  
1st criteria for this test is to share SFS across LPARs.

2nd was to start learning about what will be involved with SSI.
So I guess I'm sticking to ISFC.

Glad I have extra ESCON and FICON CHPIDs.  Guess I'll start with ESCON 
as I also have extra cables, no extra FICON cables.


On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 12:49 PM, Rob van der Heij > wrote:


On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 6:21 PM, Mark Pace mailto:pacemainl...@gmail.com>> wrote:

 > I think I'll also look into IPGATE.

But that does not do ISFC ...




--
Mark D Pace 
Senior Systems Engineer 
Mainline Information Systems 

Re: z/VM ISFC links

[John P. Hartmann]

When I set up something similar in a 6-lpar VM system almost 10 years
ago, it took me quite some time to get the CTC defined correctly in
the IOCP so that I had n-to-n connectivity.  Of course this was in the
days of stand-alone IOCP.  I hope you have better tools.

   j.

On 30 September 2010 19:00, Mark Pace  wrote:
> I see that now.
> 1st criteria for this test is to share SFS across LPARs.
> 2nd was to start learning about what will be involved with SSI.
> So I guess I'm sticking to ISFC.
> Glad I have extra ESCON and FICON CHPIDs.  Guess I'll start with ESCON as I
> also have extra cables, no extra FICON cables.
>
> On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 12:49 PM, Rob van der Heij 
> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 6:21 PM, Mark Pace  wrote:
>>
>> > I think I'll also look into IPGATE.
>>
>> But that does not do ISFC ...
>
>
>
> --
> Mark D Pace
> Senior Systems Engineer
> Mainline Information Systems
>
>
>
>

Re: z/VM ISFC links

[Mark Pace]

I tossed VTAM to the curb many years ago.  I don't want to go back.

On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 1:11 PM, Mark Wheeler wrote:

>  Mark,
>
> You could also (shudder) use AVS to access SFS on remote systems, assuming
> you have VTAM. Nowhere near as easy to set up as ISFC, not to mention
> performance (if that's a concern).
>
> Set up a CS Collection with ISFC. You won't regret it.
>
> Mark Wheeler
> UnitedHealth Group
>
> --
>
> "Excellence. Always. If Not Excellence, What? If Not Excellence Now,
> When?"
> Tom Peters, author of "The Little BIG Things"
>
>
>
>
>
> ------
> Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 13:00:48 -0400
> From: pacemainl...@gmail.com
> Subject: Re: z/VM ISFC links
>
> To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
>
> I see that now.
> 1st criteria for this test is to share SFS across LPARs.
> 2nd was to start learning about what will be involved with SSI.
> So I guess I'm sticking to ISFC.
>
> Glad I have extra ESCON and FICON CHPIDs.  Guess I'll start with ESCON as I
> also have extra cables, no extra FICON cables.
>
> On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 12:49 PM, Rob van der Heij wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 6:21 PM, Mark Pace  wrote:
>
> > I think I'll also look into IPGATE.
>
> But that does not do ISFC ...
>
>
>
>
> --
> Mark D Pace
> Senior Systems Engineer
> Mainline Information Systems
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
Mark D Pace
Senior Systems Engineer
Mainline Information Systems

Re: z/VM ISFC links

[Mark Wheeler]

Mark,
 
You could also (shudder) use AVS to access SFS on remote systems, assuming you 
have VTAM. Nowhere near as easy to set up as ISFC, not to mention performance 
(if that's a concern).
 
Set up a CS Collection with ISFC. You won't regret it.
 
Mark Wheeler
UnitedHealth Group  

--
 
"Excellence. Always. If Not Excellence, What? If Not Excellence Now, When?" 
Tom Peters, author of "The Little BIG Things"




 


Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 13:00:48 -0400
From: pacemainl...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: z/VM ISFC links
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU

I see that now.  
1st criteria for this test is to share SFS across LPARs.
2nd was to start learning about what will be involved with SSI.
So I guess I'm sticking to ISFC.


Glad I have extra ESCON and FICON CHPIDs.  Guess I'll start with ESCON as I 
also have extra cables, no extra FICON cables.


On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 12:49 PM, Rob van der Heij  wrote:


On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 6:21 PM, Mark Pace  wrote:

> I think I'll also look into IPGATE.

But that does not do ISFC ...


-- 

Mark D Pace 
Senior Systems Engineer 
Mainline Information Systems 






  

Re: z/VM ISFC links

[Mark Pace]

I see that now.
1st criteria for this test is to share SFS across LPARs.
2nd was to start learning about what will be involved with SSI.
So I guess I'm sticking to ISFC.

Glad I have extra ESCON and FICON CHPIDs.  Guess I'll start with ESCON as I
also have extra cables, no extra FICON cables.

On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 12:49 PM, Rob van der Heij wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 6:21 PM, Mark Pace  wrote:
>
> > I think I'll also look into IPGATE.
>
> But that does not do ISFC ...
>



-- 
Mark D Pace
Senior Systems Engineer
Mainline Information Systems

Re: z/VM ISFC links

[Rob van der Heij]

On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 6:21 PM, Mark Pace  wrote:

> I think I'll also look into IPGATE.

But that does not do ISFC ...

Re: z/VM ISFC links

[Mark Pace]

Ah!  Us single CEC guys always forget about that!

I think I'll also look into IPGATE.

On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 11:47 AM, Alan Altmark wrote:

> On Thursday, 09/30/2010 at 11:23 EDT, Mark Pace 
> wrote:
> > From the connectivity manual -
> > VM domain controllers must use channel-to-channel (CTC) links to be
> attached to
> > other VM domain controllers in the CS collection. The VM domain
> controllers may
> > be running ISFC or VM PWSCF to participate in the CS collection.
> >
> > Are these links ESCON CTC or FICON CTC - or does it matter?
>
> It doesn't mater.
>
> > Why doesn't ISFC take advantage of Hipersockets? You've got this high
> speed
> > "network" built in to System Z, seems odd that I have to use "old
> fashioned"
> > hardware connections.
>
> Because that wouldn't let you connect two CECs, and you already have
> FICON/ESCON infrastructure.
>
> Alan Altmark
>
> z/VM and Linux on System z Consultant
> IBM System Lab Services and Training
> ibm.com/systems/services/labservices
> office: 607.429.3323
> alan_altm...@us.ibm.com
> IBM Endicott
>



-- 
Mark D Pace
Senior Systems Engineer
Mainline Information Systems

Re: z/VM ISFC links

[Alan Altmark]

On Thursday, 09/30/2010 at 11:23 EDT, Mark Pace  
wrote:
> From the connectivity manual -
> VM domain controllers must use channel-to-channel (CTC) links to be 
attached to
> other VM domain controllers in the CS collection. The VM domain 
controllers may
> be running ISFC or VM PWSCF to participate in the CS collection.
> 
> Are these links ESCON CTC or FICON CTC - or does it matter?

It doesn't mater.

> Why doesn't ISFC take advantage of Hipersockets? You've got this high 
speed 
> "network" built in to System Z, seems odd that I have to use "old 
fashioned" 
> hardware connections. 

Because that wouldn't let you connect two CECs, and you already have 
FICON/ESCON infrastructure.

Alan Altmark

z/VM and Linux on System z Consultant
IBM System Lab Services and Training 
ibm.com/systems/services/labservices 
office: 607.429.3323
alan_altm...@us.ibm.com
IBM Endicott

Re: z/VM ISFC links

[O'Brien, Dennis L]

Mark,

ISFC links can be ESCON CTC or FICON CTC.  I don't know why Hipersockets
aren't supported, but they're not.  If you really want to share SFS
filepools between LPAR's on the same CEC without using a CTC, you could
set up IPGATE using TCP/IP over a Hipersocket.  Note that IPGATE is not
officially supported.  It's a sample program.

 

 
Dennis

 

"Decision" is not a verb.

 

From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On
Behalf Of Mark Pace
Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2010 08:24
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: [IBMVM] z/VM ISFC links

 

>From the connectivity manual -

VM domain controllers must use channel-to-channel (CTC) links to be
attached to

other VM domain controllers in the CS collection. The VM domain
controllers may

be running ISFC or VM PWSCF to participate in the CS collection.

 

Are these links ESCON CTC or FICON CTC - or does it matter?

 

Why doesn't ISFC take advantage of Hipersockets? You've got this high
speed "network" built in to System Z, seems odd that I have to use "old
fashioned" hardware connections. 

 


-- 

Mark D Pace 

Senior Systems Engineer 

Mainline Information Systems 

 

 

 

 

z/VM ISFC links

[Mark Pace]

>From the connectivity manual -
*VM domain controllers must use channel-to-channel (CTC) links to be
attached to*
*other VM domain controllers in the CS collection. The VM domain controllers
may*
*be running ISFC or VM PWSCF to participate in the CS collection.*

Are these links ESCON CTC or FICON CTC - or does it matter?

Why doesn't ISFC take advantage of Hipersockets? You've got this high speed
"network" built in to System Z, seems odd that I have to use "old fashioned"
hardware connections.


-- 
Mark D Pace
Senior Systems Engineer
Mainline Information Systems