Re: Max # 3390s
Wow... what a amazing high number of dasds... Makes me crazy... Some time ago I've seen a box with 400GB storage in 3390-3, and each dasd was divided in 3. Linux loaded them all, but take some 30 minutes to boot. But 8TB is a whole different figure... I guess your boot would take half a day... If fsck kicks in, half a month... In zVM you can have 64k addresses ( to ), and that would be more than enough for you. But as Linux uses 8-bit for device minor numbers, you will end up having at most 256 PV's in each VG, as Mark said. AND you can have at most 99 VGs. What about building a JBOD? Or a LVM JBOD? What about a RAID-0? What about Drivespace? Stacker? No, just kidding... Really, can't you find any way to reformat your storage to create mod 54's, and export/import the database? Messing with such a large pool of dasds may work, but may end up working as good as Gnome 2.2 runs on my ancient Pentium 166. Yeah, I have one and IT DOES run Gnome... 1200 dasds? Sounds crazy... Mauro http://mauro.limeiratem.com - registered Linux User: 294521 Scripture is both history, and a love letter from God. On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 10:45 PM, Lee Stewart < lstewart.dsgr...@attglobal.net> wrote: > Thanks to all > > That's enough to sway the sales guys...And alas, we only have mod 9s > to work with. If we had mod 54s, I'd consider it... But there is > the SAN space > > Thanks, > Lee > > > Marcy Cortes wrote: > >> First, give up on mod 9's and do 54's for that stuff :) >> >> Our biggest is about 5TB. It's about 110 mod 54's. It's divided into 6 >> file systems on 6 different volume groups. (Not a DB, but just files). >> >> We did adjust the boot time interval of fsck so that all 6 don't get >> fsck'd on the same startup. Takes about 10 minutes on a file system at boot >> time (and I don't know if that is because of the size or the number of >> files). >> >> I don't think 8TB would be a problem. I'm not sure I'd put it all in the >> same volume group though. There probably isn't much of a need to, though, >> with a DB. >> >> >> Marcy >> >> "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: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:linux-...@vm.marist.edu] On Behalf Of Lee >> Stewart >> Sent: Monday, January 25, 2010 2:54 PM >> To: LINUX-390@vm.marist.edu >> Subject: [LINUX-390] Max # 3390s >> >> Hi all... >> We're working with a customer that someone has suggested to them that as >> we move their Oracle d/b from brand x to Linux on z, that we also move >> the actual d/b from their old SAN box(es) to mainframe disk (3390 >> images). The catch is that the d/b is about 8TB, and to my rough math >> that seems like 1100-1200 3390 mod 9s. >> >> Does Linux even support that many DASD devices? Does LVM? >> >> And yes, we are trying to reverse that decision and put the Linux OSs >> and Oracle code and swap space on 3390s, but put the d/b and DBA work >> spaces on the SAN (where big things fit better) >> >> Lee >> -- >> >> Lee Stewart, Senior SE >> Sirius Computer Solutions >> Phone: (303) 996-7122 >> Email: lee.stew...@siriuscom.com >> Web: www.siriuscom.com >> >> -- For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@vm.marist.edu with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
Re: Max # 3390s
Thanks to all That's enough to sway the sales guys...And alas, we only have mod 9s to work with. If we had mod 54s, I'd consider it... But there is the SAN space Thanks, Lee Marcy Cortes wrote: First, give up on mod 9's and do 54's for that stuff :) Our biggest is about 5TB. It's about 110 mod 54's. It's divided into 6 file systems on 6 different volume groups. (Not a DB, but just files). We did adjust the boot time interval of fsck so that all 6 don't get fsck'd on the same startup. Takes about 10 minutes on a file system at boot time (and I don't know if that is because of the size or the number of files). I don't think 8TB would be a problem. I'm not sure I'd put it all in the same volume group though. There probably isn't much of a need to, though, with a DB. Marcy "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: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:linux-...@vm.marist.edu] On Behalf Of Lee Stewart Sent: Monday, January 25, 2010 2:54 PM To: LINUX-390@vm.marist.edu Subject: [LINUX-390] Max # 3390s Hi all... We're working with a customer that someone has suggested to them that as we move their Oracle d/b from brand x to Linux on z, that we also move the actual d/b from their old SAN box(es) to mainframe disk (3390 images). The catch is that the d/b is about 8TB, and to my rough math that seems like 1100-1200 3390 mod 9s. Does Linux even support that many DASD devices? Does LVM? And yes, we are trying to reverse that decision and put the Linux OSs and Oracle code and swap space on 3390s, but put the d/b and DBA work spaces on the SAN (where big things fit better) Lee -- Lee Stewart, Senior SE Sirius Computer Solutions Phone: (303) 996-7122 Email: lee.stew...@siriuscom.com Web: www.siriuscom.com -- For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@vm.marist.edu with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390 -- For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@vm.marist.edu with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390 -- Lee Stewart, Senior SE Sirius Computer Solutions Phone: (303) 996-7122 Email: lee.stew...@siriuscom.com Web: www.siriuscom.com -- For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@vm.marist.edu with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
Re: Max # 3390s
Wow. That's way too many :) Course 64K should be enough for anybody. I hope we have bigger disk sizes before we need 250,000. I'd think you'd have a 64K limit under z/VM. That's still too many :) Marcy "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: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:linux-...@vm.marist.edu] On Behalf Of Rich Smrcina Sent: Monday, January 25, 2010 3:15 PM To: LINUX-390@vm.marist.edu Subject: Re: [LINUX-390] Max # 3390s The device drivers manual tells all, but I think the number is somewhere north of 250,000 dasd devices. -- For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@vm.marist.edu with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
Re: 2010 IBM System z Technical Conferences, zExpo, Technical University
| Fixed typo. | Answers to some of the questions that were asked. | | Renaming: as I understand it, many of the conferences are renamed | to Technical University. | | Registration: z Boston TU is not open for enrollment yet so I don't | know the registration fee. Sorry. | - Note follows -- Subject: 2010 IBM System z Technical Conferences, zExpo, Technical University Hi everyone, Someone asked on IBM-MAIN about the tech conferences--sorry I should have posted this sooner. My boo-boo. Here are the dates for two upcoming IBM System z Technical Conferences (renamed to Technical University). Here's the link to the events calendar where you can find these conferences and many others events: http://www.vm.ibm.com/events/ IBM System z Technical University (formerly Technical Conference) May 17-21, 2010 Berlin, Germany - Hotel Berlin (Open for enrollments) http://www.ibm.com/training/conf/europe/systemz | IBM System z Technical University (fondly known as zExpo) October 4-8, 2009 Boston, MA - Boston Marriott Copely Place (enrollment/registration coming soon) http://www.ibm.com/training/us/conf/systemz Also, remember that you have tech ed opportunities at SHARE and WAVV SHARE - March 14-19, 2010 in Seattle http://www.share.org WAVV - April 9-13, 2010 Covington KY(near Cincinnati) (held over a weekend, minimizes time away from office) http://www.wavv.org SHARE -August 1-6, 2010 in Boston MA http://www.share.org Regards, Pam C -- For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@vm.marist.edu with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
Re: Max # 3390s
First, give up on mod 9's and do 54's for that stuff :) Our biggest is about 5TB. It's about 110 mod 54's. It's divided into 6 file systems on 6 different volume groups. (Not a DB, but just files). We did adjust the boot time interval of fsck so that all 6 don't get fsck'd on the same startup. Takes about 10 minutes on a file system at boot time (and I don't know if that is because of the size or the number of files). I don't think 8TB would be a problem. I'm not sure I'd put it all in the same volume group though. There probably isn't much of a need to, though, with a DB. Marcy "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: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:linux-...@vm.marist.edu] On Behalf Of Lee Stewart Sent: Monday, January 25, 2010 2:54 PM To: LINUX-390@vm.marist.edu Subject: [LINUX-390] Max # 3390s Hi all... We're working with a customer that someone has suggested to them that as we move their Oracle d/b from brand x to Linux on z, that we also move the actual d/b from their old SAN box(es) to mainframe disk (3390 images). The catch is that the d/b is about 8TB, and to my rough math that seems like 1100-1200 3390 mod 9s. Does Linux even support that many DASD devices? Does LVM? And yes, we are trying to reverse that decision and put the Linux OSs and Oracle code and swap space on 3390s, but put the d/b and DBA work spaces on the SAN (where big things fit better) Lee -- Lee Stewart, Senior SE Sirius Computer Solutions Phone: (303) 996-7122 Email: lee.stew...@siriuscom.com Web: www.siriuscom.com -- For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@vm.marist.edu with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390 -- For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@vm.marist.edu with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
Re: Max # 3390s
>>> On 1/25/2010 at 05:53 PM, Lee Stewart >>> wrote: > The catch is that the d/b is about 8TB, and to my rough math > that seems like 1100-1200 3390 mod 9s. > > Does Linux even support that many DASD devices? Does LVM? Now that I think about it some more, I'm pretty sure LVM has a limit of 256 PVs in a single VG. Mark Post -- For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@vm.marist.edu with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
Re: Max # 3390s
The device drivers manual tells all, but I think the number is somewhere north of 250,000 dasd devices. On 01/25/2010 04:53 PM, Lee Stewart wrote: Hi all... We're working with a customer that someone has suggested to them that as we move their Oracle d/b from brand x to Linux on z, that we also move the actual d/b from their old SAN box(es) to mainframe disk (3390 images). The catch is that the d/b is about 8TB, and to my rough math that seems like 1100-1200 3390 mod 9s. Does Linux even support that many DASD devices? Does LVM? And yes, we are trying to reverse that decision and put the Linux OSs and Oracle code and swap space on 3390s, but put the d/b and DBA work spaces on the SAN (where big things fit better) Lee -- -- Rich Smrcina Phone: 414-491-6001 http://www.linkedin.com/in/richsmrcina Catch the WAVV! http://www.wavv.org WAVV 2010 - Apr 9-13, 2010 Covington, KY -- For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@vm.marist.edu with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
Re: Max # 3390s
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 or about 150 mod 54s, if I calculate right. That's still a very large number, but much more manageable. That being said, it's possible that a direct SAN connection would be faster - at least test it and see for your application. Regarding the max # of volumes in linux, I seem to recall that the scsi driver imposed the first limit, by default 128 device. That could be easily raised by a boot time parameter, though. Does the dasd driver impose any max number of devices limitation? You might also find this article useful in planning large lvm logical volumes: http://www.walkernews.net/2007/07/02/maximum-size-of-a-logical-volume-in-lvm/ - -- Pat Lee Stewart wrote: > Hi all... > We're working with a customer that someone has suggested to them that as > we move their Oracle d/b from brand x to Linux on z, that we also move > the actual d/b from their old SAN box(es) to mainframe disk (3390 > images). The catch is that the d/b is about 8TB, and to my rough math > that seems like 1100-1200 3390 mod 9s. > > Does Linux even support that many DASD devices? Does LVM? > > And yes, we are trying to reverse that decision and put the Linux OSs > and Oracle code and swap space on 3390s, but put the d/b and DBA work > spaces on the SAN (where big things fit better) > > Lee > -- > > Lee Stewart, Senior SE > Sirius Computer Solutions > Phone: (303) 996-7122 > Email: lee.stew...@siriuscom.com > Web: www.siriuscom.com > > -- > For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to lists...@vm.marist.edu with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or > visit > http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkteJFsACgkQNObCqA8uBsz6ggCfTw1JtTh9wkth+LSoh8pMDVf4 bx0An07h1tXojqnYWSimsffR91hUzWAX =TnQ8 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@vm.marist.edu with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
Re: Max # 3390s
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 03:53:41PM -0700, Lee Stewart wrote: > Hi all... > We're working with a customer that someone has suggested to them that as > we move their Oracle d/b from brand x to Linux on z, that we also move > the actual d/b from their old SAN box(es) to mainframe disk (3390 > images). The catch is that the d/b is about 8TB, and to my rough math > that seems like 1100-1200 3390 mod 9s. > > Does Linux even support that many DASD devices? Does LVM? LVM does, but only for certain values of "does". By default it will be keeping copies of the LVM metadata on every volume, which means that onlining, offlining, and other LVM ops will take forever. -- Rodger Donaldsonrodg...@diaspora.gen.nz I just had this vision of a young boy cowering in terror, whispering: "I see dumb people" -- Steve VanDevender -- For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@vm.marist.edu with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
Re: Max # 3390s
>>> On 1/25/2010 at 05:53 PM, Lee Stewart >>> wrote: > The catch is that the d/b is about 8TB, and to my rough math > that seems like 1100-1200 3390 mod 9s. > > Does Linux even support that many DASD devices? Does LVM? I can't say for sure, but I can pretty much guarantee that system startup will _really_ stink, and then when LVM startup happens, it will get worse. Plus, any LVM query commands that are issued later will take forever. Just don't go there. Mark Post -- For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@vm.marist.edu with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
Max # 3390s
Hi all... We're working with a customer that someone has suggested to them that as we move their Oracle d/b from brand x to Linux on z, that we also move the actual d/b from their old SAN box(es) to mainframe disk (3390 images). The catch is that the d/b is about 8TB, and to my rough math that seems like 1100-1200 3390 mod 9s. Does Linux even support that many DASD devices? Does LVM? And yes, we are trying to reverse that decision and put the Linux OSs and Oracle code and swap space on 3390s, but put the d/b and DBA work spaces on the SAN (where big things fit better) Lee -- Lee Stewart, Senior SE Sirius Computer Solutions Phone: (303) 996-7122 Email: lee.stew...@siriuscom.com Web: www.siriuscom.com -- For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@vm.marist.edu with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
Re: "The Naked Mainframe" (Forbes Security Article)
On Monday 25 January 2010 11:25:30 Shockley, Gerard C wrote: > Here is an experiment. > > Go here http://cve.mitre.org/compatible/vulnerability_management.html > > Click search > > > Enter : s390x > > > You will receive a page asking you to check spelling. Try zlinux also. > > Then enter : windows > > Any questions > > ://Gerard From the CVE FAQ at the above page: A10. Does CVE contain all vulnerabilities and exposures? No. The intention of CVE is to be comprehensive with respect to all *publicly known* vulnerabilities and exposures. While CVE is designed to contain mature information, our primary focus is on identifying vulnerabilities and exposures that are detected by security tools and any new problems that become public, and then addressing any older security problems that require validation. (Emphasis is mine.) :-) Leslie -- For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@vm.marist.edu with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
2010 IBM System z Technical Conferences, zExpo, Technical University
Hi everyone, Someone asked on IBM-MAIN about the tech conferences--sorry I should have posted this sooner. My boo-boo. Here are the dates for two upcoming IBM System z Technical Conferences (renamed to Technical University). Here's the link to the events calendar where you can find these conferences and many others events: http://www.vm.ibm.com/events/ IBM System z Technical University (formerly Technical Conference) May 17-21, 2010 Berlin, Germany - Hotel Berlin (Open for enrollments) http://www.ibm.com/training/conf/europe/systemz IBM System z Technical Univeristy (fondly known as zExpo) October 4-8, 2009 Boston, MA - Boston Marriott Copely Place (enrollment/registration coming soon) http://www.ibm.com/training/us/conf/systemz Also, remember that you have tech ed opportunities at SHARE and WAVV SHARE - March 14-19, 2010 in Seattle http://www.share.org WAVV - April 9-13, 2010 Covington KY(near Cincinnati) (held over a weekend, minimizes time away from office) http://www.wavv.org SHARE -August 1-6, 2010 in Boston MA http://www.share.org Regards, Pam C -- For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@vm.marist.edu with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
Re: OOM-Killer shut down SSh
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 7:00 PM, Mark Post wrote: On 1/25/2010 at 12:53 PM, Robert Giordano wrote: > >> >> >> Can anyone provide any documentation or opinion on the use and management >> of the OOM-Killer process on SUSE Linux SLES 10 SP1? > > Not really. It's algorithms are hard-coded into the kernel. I'm not aware > of any way to influence it, other than adding virtual storage to the system, > either via paging space, or memory. I will provide an opinion on running > SLES10 SP1. Don't. It's been out of service quite a while now. I don't think there's a good reason for driving your Linux server at the edge. Folks with discrete servers get enough real memory that they don't need to swap. So whatever interesting rules of thumb they have for sizing that (unused) swap space does not really matter. When you squeeze the penguins so that they do swap, you must look at sizing. As long as you don't use the VDISK, there's hardly a cost for having it. When your server starts to use it, you investigate what changed and make your adjustments in a planned outage. The most common case for Linux running out of memory that I see with customers are configuration mistakes that made the server start without swap disk and failure to set up the performance monitor to detect that and issue alerts... When the application is allocating huge amounts of memory, there's little help possible. It will probably run out of swap space whether you define 1G or 2G. If you have services running that you don't mind to get kicked of for some reason, then maybe you should not run them in the first place ;-) When your infrastructure relies on some basic provisioning processes to even recover the server, then you'd probably want to have those killed last. But when running on z/VM you could have more robust methods to reboot the server. Rob -- Rob van der Heij Velocity Software http://www.velocitysoftware.com/ -- For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@vm.marist.edu with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
Re: OOM-Killer shut down SSh
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 11:14:34 -0700 David Kreuter wrote: > My experience is with the effects of the OOM killer. Perhaps with Linux > on a desktop it is ok as it may pick on non critical processes but in a > virtual machine server environment it represents a drastic out of > storage condition requiring immediate action. I have seen this a few > times on Oracle servers and some emergency relief in the form of > dynamically adding swap helped but eventually the servers needed to be > rebooted with storage adjustments to virtual machine size and Oracle > SGA. It was unpleasant, like stopping a broken dam with a stick of gum. Firstly: you can configure the machine to forbid overcommit. That was a much demanded feature Red Hat added a long time ago and contributed back. On PC servers with ram and disk being cheap that makes a lot of sense for such servers - then the process gets out of memory errors on allocation not OOM (but you'll need more swap 'just in case'). Not sure how it plays out on a mainframe. Secondly: on a modern kernel you can weight processes for killing. Ask your vendor for advice and how much of the stuff is in your system. Alan -- For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@vm.marist.edu with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
Re: OOM-Killer shut down SSh
My experience is with the effects of the OOM killer. Perhaps with Linux on a desktop it is ok as it may pick on non critical processes but in a virtual machine server environment it represents a drastic out of storage condition requiring immediate action. I have seen this a few times on Oracle servers and some emergency relief in the form of dynamically adding swap helped but eventually the servers needed to be rebooted with storage adjustments to virtual machine size and Oracle SGA. It was unpleasant, like stopping a broken dam with a stick of gum. Interestingly enough it has happened twice after applying Oracle patches! So beware of those patches! David Kreuter VM RESOURCES LTD Original Message Subject: OOM-Killer shut down SSh From: Robert Giordano Date: Mon, January 25, 2010 12:53 pm To: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU Can anyone provide any documentation or opinion on the use and management of the OOM-Killer process on SUSE Linux SLES 10 SP1? Regards Robert 930 Sylvan Ave Giordano System z IT Englewood Cliffs, Architect 07632-3301 IBM Sales & USA Distribution, Software Sales Phone: +1-201-607-8047 Mobile: +1-201-214-7466 e-mail: rgio...@us.ibm.com -- For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@vm.marist.edu with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390 -- For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@vm.marist.edu with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
Re: OOM-Killer shut down SSh
>>> On 1/25/2010 at 12:53 PM, Robert Giordano wrote: > > > Can anyone provide any documentation or opinion on the use and management > of the OOM-Killer process on SUSE Linux SLES 10 SP1? Not really. It's algorithms are hard-coded into the kernel. I'm not aware of any way to influence it, other than adding virtual storage to the system, either via paging space, or memory. I will provide an opinion on running SLES10 SP1. Don't. It's been out of service quite a while now. Mark Post -- For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@vm.marist.edu with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
OOM-Killer shut down SSh
Can anyone provide any documentation or opinion on the use and management of the OOM-Killer process on SUSE Linux SLES 10 SP1? Regards Robert 930 Sylvan Ave Giordano System z ITEnglewood Cliffs, Architect 07632-3301 IBM Sales &USA Distribution, Software Sales Phone:+1-201-607-8047 Mobile: +1-201-214-7466 e-mail: rgio...@us.ibm.com -- For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@vm.marist.edu with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390 <><>
Re: "The Naked Mainframe" (Forbes Security Article)
On 1/25/10 12:01 PM, "Patrick Spinler" wrote: > I fear that while you're right, in the end it may not make a large > difference. Specifically, in our world, free or low up front cost often > seems to trump most other considerations, including TCO over expected > system lifetime. No kidding. That's why I think the CERN ELFms project is so interesting. Those tools could be very attractive (and we have s390x binaries available to our support customers8-)). > As a result, I kind of expect to see linux/KVM hypervisor installations > on Z spreading in a few years. So do I, and that's not a bad thing. Harder than necessary, but not bad. What we have to do is assume that we need to solve the management problems and use the knowledge we have from z/VM to not reinvent the wheel. 40+ years is a long time and a lot of knowledge to toss because it's "old". > At least, if the idea of Z series > virtualization doesn't get prematurely killed by commodity intel > hardware virtualization first. :-( They got the same management problems, only worse because they didn't design for them. -- db -- For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@vm.marist.edu with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
Re: "The Naked Mainframe" (Forbes Security Article)
Here is an experiment. Go here http://cve.mitre.org/compatible/vulnerability_management.html Click search > Enter : s390x > You will receive a page asking you to check spelling. Try zlinux also. Then enter : windows Any questions ://Gerard -Original Message- From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:linux-...@vm.marist.edu] On Behalf Of Patrick Spinler Sent: Monday, January 25, 2010 12:01 PM To: LINUX-390@vm.marist.edu Subject: Re: "The Naked Mainframe" (Forbes Security Article) -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 David Boyes wrote: > > (Snip discussion of management tools, and large advantage existing > z/VM tools have v. non-existent or very poor linux / kvm ones) > I fear that while you're right, in the end it may not make a large difference. Specifically, in our world, free or low up front cost often seems to trump most other considerations, including TCO over expected system lifetime. As a result, I kind of expect to see linux/KVM hypervisor installations on Z spreading in a few years. At least, if the idea of Z series virtualization doesn't get prematurely killed by commodity intel hardware virtualization first. :-( - -- Pat -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD4DBQFLXc5mNObCqA8uBswRAilbAJ98F2L2m9kb62jM2rQu0Ovtw4GemgCY6i8I azPhvLf8ltWv9JNJBM5sMA== =iOIK -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@vm.marist.edu with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390 -- For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@vm.marist.edu with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
Re: "The Naked Mainframe" (Forbes Security Article)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 David Boyes wrote: > > (Snip discussion of management tools, and large advantage existing > z/VM tools have v. non-existent or very poor linux / kvm ones) > I fear that while you're right, in the end it may not make a large difference. Specifically, in our world, free or low up front cost often seems to trump most other considerations, including TCO over expected system lifetime. As a result, I kind of expect to see linux/KVM hypervisor installations on Z spreading in a few years. At least, if the idea of Z series virtualization doesn't get prematurely killed by commodity intel hardware virtualization first. :-( - -- Pat -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD4DBQFLXc5mNObCqA8uBswRAilbAJ98F2L2m9kb62jM2rQu0Ovtw4GemgCY6i8I azPhvLf8ltWv9JNJBM5sMA== =iOIK -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@vm.marist.edu with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
