Re: Mach in user direct
Ok, I finally managed to trip over the email that I had stopped looking for. :P The person having the problem was one of my co-workers in South America. He had moved a Linux/390 system from being in an LPAR, to being a z/VM guest. When he tried to IPL the guest, he was getting this: HCPGIR450W CP entered; disabled wait PSW 000A 0102 He told me that when he changed the CP directory entry from a machine type of XA to ESA, the problem went away. I never saw the CP directory definitions, so I took his word for it all. Mark Post -Original Message- From: Romney White [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 2:48 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Mach in user direct Mark: Maybe it was incorrectly defined as an XC-mode guest. Romney On Thu, 2 Oct 2003 13:38:37 -0400 Post, Mark K said: Something about this rings a bell. Someone recently had a problem, and the fix was to define the Linux guest as a machine type of ESA, not XA. I can't remember if that came up on this list, or in a private email. I'll do some poking around and see if I can find the note. Mark Post -Original Message- From: Rich Smrcina [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 11:11 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Mach in user direct According to z/VM 4.3 CP Planning and Administration under the MACHINE statement of the user directory: XA designates an XA virtual machine, which is functionally equivalent to an ESA virtual machine. On Thu, 2003-10-02 at 07:34, Daniel Jarboe wrote: We are running linux images with 31 bit addressing under z/VM. The machine arch for our linux images has been defined by our VM sysprog as XA. Is there any disadvantage/advantage of this vs. ESA or some other architecture as far as the linux images are concerned? My initial thought was that the compiler/assembler may choose different instructions for increased effeciency depending on the architecture it's building for, but I don't know if there's any truth to that thought or if there'd even be any differences. Is there any reason to change the architecture, and if so, could the change have any adverse impact? Thanks, ~ Daniel --- This message is the property of Time Inc. or its affiliates. It may be legally privileged and/or confidential and is intended only for the use of the addressee(s). No addressee should forward, print, copy, or otherwise reproduce this message in any manner that would allow it to be viewed by any individual not originally listed as a recipient. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any unauthorized disclosure, dissemination, distribution, copying or the taking of any action in reliance on the information herein is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender and delete this message. Thank you. -- Rich Smrcina Sr. Systems Engineer Sytek Services - A Division of DSG Milwaukee, WI rsmrcina at wi.rr.com rsmrcina at dsgroup.com Catch the WAVV! Stay for requirements and the free-for-all. Update your zSeries skills in 4 days for a very reasonable price. WAVV 2004 in Chattanooga, TN April 30-May 4, 2004 For details see http://www.wavv.org
Re: Mach in user direct
Nix, Robert P. wrote: Except for the CP QUERY SET command which will return machine XA or machine ESA. And because some program product only could cope with either 370 or XA in there, running CMS in ESA rather than XA machine was/is unsupported. Rob
Re: Mach in user direct
Something about this rings a bell. Someone recently had a problem, and the fix was to define the Linux guest as a machine type of ESA, not XA. I can't remember if that came up on this list, or in a private email. I'll do some poking around and see if I can find the note. Mark Post -Original Message- From: Rich Smrcina [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 11:11 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Mach in user direct According to z/VM 4.3 CP Planning and Administration under the MACHINE statement of the user directory: XA designates an XA virtual machine, which is functionally equivalent to an ESA virtual machine. On Thu, 2003-10-02 at 07:34, Daniel Jarboe wrote: We are running linux images with 31 bit addressing under z/VM. The machine arch for our linux images has been defined by our VM sysprog as XA. Is there any disadvantage/advantage of this vs. ESA or some other architecture as far as the linux images are concerned? My initial thought was that the compiler/assembler may choose different instructions for increased effeciency depending on the architecture it's building for, but I don't know if there's any truth to that thought or if there'd even be any differences. Is there any reason to change the architecture, and if so, could the change have any adverse impact? Thanks, ~ Daniel --- This message is the property of Time Inc. or its affiliates. It may be legally privileged and/or confidential and is intended only for the use of the addressee(s). No addressee should forward, print, copy, or otherwise reproduce this message in any manner that would allow it to be viewed by any individual not originally listed as a recipient. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any unauthorized disclosure, dissemination, distribution, copying or the taking of any action in reliance on the information herein is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender and delete this message. Thank you. -- Rich Smrcina Sr. Systems Engineer Sytek Services - A Division of DSG Milwaukee, WI rsmrcina at wi.rr.com rsmrcina at dsgroup.com Catch the WAVV! Stay for requirements and the free-for-all. Update your zSeries skills in 4 days for a very reasonable price. WAVV 2004 in Chattanooga, TN April 30-May 4, 2004 For details see http://www.wavv.org
Re: Mach in user direct
For what it's worth all of the Linux machines that I install/manage are MACHINE ESA. On Thu, 2003-10-02 at 12:38, Post, Mark K wrote: Something about this rings a bell. Someone recently had a problem, and the fix was to define the Linux guest as a machine type of ESA, not XA. I can't remember if that came up on this list, or in a private email. I'll do some poking around and see if I can find the note. Mark Post -Original Message- From: Rich Smrcina [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 11:11 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Mach in user direct According to z/VM 4.3 CP Planning and Administration under the MACHINE statement of the user directory: XA designates an XA virtual machine, which is functionally equivalent to an ESA virtual machine. On Thu, 2003-10-02 at 07:34, Daniel Jarboe wrote: We are running linux images with 31 bit addressing under z/VM. The machine arch for our linux images has been defined by our VM sysprog as XA. Is there any disadvantage/advantage of this vs. ESA or some other architecture as far as the linux images are concerned? My initial thought was that the compiler/assembler may choose different instructions for increased effeciency depending on the architecture it's building for, but I don't know if there's any truth to that thought or if there'd even be any differences. Is there any reason to change the architecture, and if so, could the change have any adverse impact? Thanks, ~ Daniel --- This message is the property of Time Inc. or its affiliates. It may be legally privileged and/or confidential and is intended only for the use of the addressee(s). No addressee should forward, print, copy, or otherwise reproduce this message in any manner that would allow it to be viewed by any individual not originally listed as a recipient. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any unauthorized disclosure, dissemination, distribution, copying or the taking of any action in reliance on the information herein is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender and delete this message. Thank you. -- Rich Smrcina Sr. Systems Engineer Sytek Services - A Division of DSG Milwaukee, WI rsmrcina at wi.rr.com rsmrcina at dsgroup.com Catch the WAVV! Stay for requirements and the free-for-all. Update your zSeries skills in 4 days for a very reasonable price. WAVV 2004 in Chattanooga, TN April 30-May 4, 2004 For details see http://www.wavv.org -- Rich Smrcina Sr. Systems Engineer Sytek Services - A Division of DSG Milwaukee, WI rsmrcina at wi.rr.com rsmrcina at dsgroup.com Catch the WAVV! Stay for requirements and the free-for-all. Update your zSeries skills in 4 days for a very reasonable price. WAVV 2004 in Chattanooga, TN April 30-May 4, 2004 For details see http://www.wavv.org
Re: Mach in user direct
Mark: Maybe it was incorrectly defined as an XC-mode guest. Romney On Thu, 2 Oct 2003 13:38:37 -0400 Post, Mark K said: Something about this rings a bell. Someone recently had a problem, and the fix was to define the Linux guest as a machine type of ESA, not XA. I can't remember if that came up on this list, or in a private email. I'll do some poking around and see if I can find the note. Mark Post -Original Message- From: Rich Smrcina [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 11:11 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Mach in user direct According to z/VM 4.3 CP Planning and Administration under the MACHINE statement of the user directory: XA designates an XA virtual machine, which is functionally equivalent to an ESA virtual machine. On Thu, 2003-10-02 at 07:34, Daniel Jarboe wrote: We are running linux images with 31 bit addressing under z/VM. The machine arch for our linux images has been defined by our VM sysprog as XA. Is there any disadvantage/advantage of this vs. ESA or some other architecture as far as the linux images are concerned? My initial thought was that the compiler/assembler may choose different instructions for increased effeciency depending on the architecture it's building for, but I don't know if there's any truth to that thought or if there'd even be any differences. Is there any reason to change the architecture, and if so, could the change have any adverse impact? Thanks, ~ Daniel --- This message is the property of Time Inc. or its affiliates. It may be legally privileged and/or confidential and is intended only for the use of the addressee(s). No addressee should forward, print, copy, or otherwise reproduce this message in any manner that would allow it to be viewed by any individual not originally listed as a recipient. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any unauthorized disclosure, dissemination, distribution, copying or the taking of any action in reliance on the information herein is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender and delete this message. Thank you. -- Rich Smrcina Sr. Systems Engineer Sytek Services - A Division of DSG Milwaukee, WI rsmrcina at wi.rr.com rsmrcina at dsgroup.com Catch the WAVV! Stay for requirements and the free-for-all. Update your zSeries skills in 4 days for a very reasonable price. WAVV 2004 in Chattanooga, TN April 30-May 4, 2004 For details see http://www.wavv.org
Re: Mach in user direct
Unfortunately, now I can't find the email, so I can't say for sure what the problem was. The XC doesn't ring any bells, either. So, never mind. If I can't track it down, and there's only been one instance in 3 years, I can't call it a problem. Mark Post -Original Message- From: Romney White [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 2:48 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Mach in user direct Mark: Maybe it was incorrectly defined as an XC-mode guest. Romney On Thu, 2 Oct 2003 13:38:37 -0400 Post, Mark K said: Something about this rings a bell. Someone recently had a problem, and the fix was to define the Linux guest as a machine type of ESA, not XA. I can't remember if that came up on this list, or in a private email. I'll do some poking around and see if I can find the note. Mark Post
