Re: OT: Intel gets virtualization clue?
On Fri, Oct 10, 2003 at 12:11:32PM -0400, Paul Hanrahan wrote: Jan, [...] Have you tried running Hercules ? Yes, I think that Jan may have some experience in that area. ;-) -- - mdz
Re: OT: Intel gets virtualization clue?
Vol.13, No.3 (1974), has articles on OS/VS1 concepts and philosophies and OS/VS2 system integrity. The former starts: Dynamic address translation equipment of System/370 central processing units, and dynamic relocation is key to the design . . . Bob Matthews, University of Geneva - Original Message - From: Henry Schaffer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, October 10, 2003 9:23 PM Subject: Re: OT: Intel gets virtualization clue? Paul, You ask: I'm doing an article on the history of virtualization. I've picked up a number of pieces off the internet. Anyone have any favorite sources on the emergence of virtualization in computing? There were a series articles, IIRC, in the IBM Systems Journal (a small format journal - pages about 5x7) by Hope Seagrave (Seagrove?) and others from the Cambridge, MA center which might help. --henry schaffer
Re: OT: Intel gets virtualization clue?
Bob, Thanks for the tip. Paul H. -Original Message- From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Robert Matthews Sent: Monday, October 13, 2003 3:39 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: OT: Intel gets virtualization clue? Vol.13, No.3 (1974), has articles on OS/VS1 concepts and philosophies and OS/VS2 system integrity. The former starts: Dynamic address translation equipment of System/370 central processing units, and dynamic relocation is key to the design . . . Bob Matthews, University of Geneva - Original Message - From: Henry Schaffer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, October 10, 2003 9:23 PM Subject: Re: OT: Intel gets virtualization clue? Paul, You ask: I'm doing an article on the history of virtualization. I've picked up a number of pieces off the internet. Anyone have any favorite sources on the emergence of virtualization in computing? There were a series articles, IIRC, in the IBM Systems Journal (a small format journal - pages about 5x7) by Hope Seagrave (Seagrove?) and others from the Cambridge, MA center which might help. --henry schaffer
Re: OT: Intel gets virtualization clue?
ref: - Message from Paul Hanrahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Sat, 11 Oct 2003 06:46:38 -0400 - Paul, Maybe you find some more input for your article on the history of virtualization.(details about the history of VM and S/370 / S/390 / zSeries) in Lynn Wheelers notes: http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/ Regards, Loek (AWM) Sluijter. EMEA North Region, Integrated Service Delivery Netherlands SSO Central Services, Server Application Management Mainframe Linux for zSeries, Global HONE and IBMLink VM system support IBM Nederland N.V., Johan Huizingalaan 765, 1066 VH Amsterdam (HDK- 6F) PO Box , 1006 CE Amsterdam. Phone: +31 (0)20-513 3628 Mobile: +31 (0) 6 2040 9257 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: OT: Intel gets virtualization clue?
Consider what MPG offered: Increased performance. Moving to a more powerful machine plus the ability to RESERVE or LOCK guest pages helps make up for the loss of MPG. Plus, the limit of 6 preferred guests makes it less interesting for server consolidation, IMHO. The limit of 6 preferred guests has always puzzled me -- it always seemed more a political decision (thou shalt not make LPAR look bad) than a technical decision. Was it that, or was there some serious technical problem that prohibited just marching on up through storage computing offsets until you run out of storage? Intellectually, from the purist's perspective, I'm sure the loss of MPG hurts, but the reality is that of those who run zLinux, the vast majority run in LPARs. So, the z990 changes nothing in this respect. Although it's probably useful to point out that that decision is driven more by use of IFLs forcing LPAR mode than any real necessity for LPARs. It's understandable why IFLs require LPAR mode, but it's not a particularly good reason to eliminate basic mode operation. I still don't understand the z990 channel system well enough to argue that point, but I do wonder whether it's substantially more complicated than dealing with the split channel system that the 3084 and it's ilk had. We seemed to deal with that well enough w/o losing basic mode. The psychological argument you mentioned can be continued to point out that creating a new virtual machine in a basic mode system is even less committment of resources than an LPAR requires, and with VM still trailing z/OS in some of the hardware management functions, shops running w/o z/OS really do much better operationally running in basic mode and not ever disturbing the machine configuration. -- db
Re: OT: Intel gets virtualization clue?
My guess that why the z990 only supports LPAR mode is that quite radical changes will be required to z/OS, z/VM, Linux for zSeries or any other operating system that is going to run in basic mode. By using a hypervisor one can actually emulate the current channel implementation, so these operating systems do not need to be rewritten to take advantage of multiple LSSes. I would guess that the z990 architecture with its multiple logical channel subsystems implements an SSID other then X'0001', so one would have for LSS0 subchannel numbers starting with X'0001', and for LSS1 subchannel number starting with X'0002' or something. A simple modification to SIE which will swap X'0001' to X'0002' for those LPARs which are attached to the 2nd LSS. This will keep everything to do with an additional LSS shielded from the guest operating systems, and as such they will not require any major modifications. Just guessing, but there are not that may other possibilities for this to work within the current architecture. Jan Jaeger. From: David Boyes [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Linux on 390 Port [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: OT: Intel gets virtualization clue? Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 09:40:25 -0400 The limit of 6 preferred guests has always puzzled me -- it always seemed more a political decision (thou shalt not make LPAR look bad) than a technical decision. Was it that, or was there some serious technical problem that prohibited just marching on up through storage computing offsets until you run out of storage? Although it's probably useful to point out that that decision is driven more by use of IFLs forcing LPAR mode than any real necessity for LPARs. It's understandable why IFLs require LPAR mode, but it's not a particularly good reason to eliminate basic mode operation. I still don't understand the z990 channel system well enough to argue that point, but I do wonder whether it's substantially more complicated than dealing with the split channel system that the 3084 and it's ilk had. We seemed to deal with that well enough w/o losing basic mode. The psychological argument you mentioned can be continued to point out that creating a new virtual machine in a basic mode system is even less committment of resources than an LPAR requires, and with VM still trailing z/OS in some of the hardware management functions, shops running w/o z/OS really do much better operationally running in basic mode and not ever disturbing the machine configuration. -- db _ Hotmail en Messenger on the move http://www.msn.nl/communicatie/smsdiensten/hotmailsmsv2/
Re: OT: Intel gets virtualization clue?
Phil, Looked quickly at the article. Valuable. My first experience with virtualization was the dynamic address translation done on IBM machines. The Atlas machine appears to pre-date IBM's DAT facility. If you REALLY want a quick braincheck, compare the late 1960s GEORGE III Filestore with IBM's 'somewhat later' SMS. z/OS is still not there, even now. But who could take an operating system called GEORGE (GEneral ORGanisation Environment) seriously, when IBM was already delivering a tenth of the functiuonality at twice the price? -- Phil Payne http://www.isham-research.com +44 7785 302 803
Re: OT: Intel gets virtualization clue?
I'm doing an article on the history of virtualization. I've picked up a number of pieces off the internet. Anyone have any favorite sources on the emergence of virtualization in computing? http://hoc.co.umist.ac.uk/storylines/compdev/commercialisation/atlas.html -- Phil Payne http://www.isham-research.com +44 7785 302 803
Re: OT: Intel gets virtualization clue?
Phil, Looked quickly at the article. Valuable. My first experience with virtualization was the dynamic address translation done on IBM machines. The Atlas machine appears to pre-date IBM's DAT facility. Paul Hanrahan -Original Message- From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Phil Payne Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2003 3:29 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: OT: Intel gets virtualization clue? I'm doing an article on the history of virtualization. I've picked up a number of pieces off the internet. Anyone have any favorite sources on the emergence of virtualization in computing? http://hoc.co.umist.ac.uk/storylines/compdev/commercialisation/atlas.html -- Phil Payne http://www.isham-research.com +44 7785 302 803
Re: OT: Intel gets virtualization clue?
Alan, I'll start looking for a copy of the article on VM/370. Multiple virtual processors on a second level machine was a significant step forward with ESA. ESA's address space and access register useage is interesting but I don't want too explore things in the article that might not appeal to a broad audience of programmers interested in operating systems concepts. Thanks for the reference and if you think of any on second level parallel processing let me know. I'm going to look for material on the Java VM and unicode related material. Paul -Original Message- From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Alan Altmark Sent: Friday, October 10, 2003 3:45 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: OT: Intel gets virtualization clue? On Friday, 10/10/2003 at 03:23 AST, Henry Schaffer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Paul, You ask: I'm doing an article on the history of virtualization. I've picked up a number of pieces off the internet. Anyone have any favorite sources on the emergence of virtualization in computing? There were a series articles, IIRC, in the IBM Systems Journal (a small format journal - pages about 5x7) by Hope Seagrave (Seagrove?) and others from the Cambridge, MA center which might help. I think you are referring to L.H. Seawright and R.A. MacKennon's article VM/370 - A study of multiplicity and usefulness in the IBM Systems Journal, vol 18 no 1, 1979. The whole journal is devoted to VM/370. Alan Altmark Sr. Software Engineer IBM z/VM Development
Re: OT: Intel gets virtualization clue?
I'll start looking for a copy of the article on VM/370. IBM Systems Journals are available online at http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/ In this case, just click Search/Index on the left at the above URL and enter VM/370. You will find all the Volume 18 Issue 1 articles. Jim
Re: OT: Intel gets virtualization clue?
Jan, Shows you out of date I am on SIE. I still have bad dreams about HCPRUN and how to handle intercepts vs. interrupts and the complications it causes. I did extensive work on something called HCPVINOP. You must like looking at that nasty old source code sometimes. Have you tried running Hercules ? Paul Hanrahan -Original Message- From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jan Jaeger Sent: Friday, October 10, 2003 1:33 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: OT: Intel gets virtualization clue? I did not say anything about the removal of SIE, just the SIE assists (which require OCO). SIE itself is documented in SA22-7095 and invoked from HCPRUN, that's not OCO. Jan Jaeger. From: Alan Altmark [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Linux on 390 Port [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: OT: Intel gets virtualization clue? Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 13:25:21 -0400 On Thursday, 10/09/2003 at 04:53 GMT, Jan Jaeger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Rick, see this from the positive side, once SIE assist code etc has been removed, there will no longer be an argument for OCO ;-) No one said anything about the removal of SIE; there continues to be support for two levels of SIE in the hardware. The I/O assists were the main attraction of V=F (IMO). Looking down the road, the DMA aspects of QDIO (for SCSI and network devices) reduce the benefit of I/O assists anyway. Alan Altmark Sr. Software Engineer IBM z/VM Development _ Chatten met je online vrienden via MSN Messenger. http://messenger.msn.nl/
Re: OT: Intel gets virtualization clue?
On Fri, 2003-10-10 at 11:11, Paul Hanrahan wrote: Jan, Have you tried running Hercules ? I think it's safe to assume that Jan is, ah, intimately familiar with Hercules internals. (Much of the z/Arch support, for instance, is his code). Adam
Re: OT: Intel gets virtualization clue?
Hi, Wow! Jan's a Hercules coder. I'm terrible with names. Probably saw Jan's name on the documentation somewhere and didn't recall it. I got a real kick out of booting VM/370 release 6 on my pc. Brought back old memories. I'm doing an article on the history of virtualization. I've picked up a number of pieces off the internet. Anyone have any favorite sources on the emergence of virtualization in computing? Paul Hanrahan -Original Message- From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Adam Thornton Sent: Friday, October 10, 2003 1:28 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: OT: Intel gets virtualization clue? On Fri, 2003-10-10 at 11:11, Paul Hanrahan wrote: Jan, Have you tried running Hercules ? I think it's safe to assume that Jan is, ah, intimately familiar with Hercules internals. (Much of the z/Arch support, for instance, is his code). Adam
Re: OT: Intel gets virtualization clue?
Melinda Varian's papers at the Princeton website are terrific. (sorry, don't have the URL any more) Bob -Original Message- From: Paul Hanrahan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, October 10, 2003 1:53 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:Re: OT: Intel gets virtualization clue? Hi, Wow! Jan's a Hercules coder. I'm terrible with names. Probably saw Jan's name on the documentation somewhere and didn't recall it. I got a real kick out of booting VM/370 release 6 on my pc. Brought back old memories. I'm doing an article on the history of virtualization. I've picked up a number of pieces off the internet. Anyone have any favorite sources on the emergence of virtualization in computing? * The information transmitted is intended solely for the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of or taking action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this email in error please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. *
Re: OT: Intel gets virtualization clue?
Paul, You ask: I'm doing an article on the history of virtualization. I've picked up a number of pieces off the internet. Anyone have any favorite sources on the emergence of virtualization in computing? There were a series articles, IIRC, in the IBM Systems Journal (a small format journal - pages about 5x7) by Hope Seagrave (Seagrove?) and others from the Cambridge, MA center which might help. --henry schaffer
Re: OT: Intel gets virtualization clue?
It is: http://pucc.princeton.edu/~melinda/ Steve Gentry Richards.Bob [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: Linux on 390 Port [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/10/2003 02:18 PM Please respond to Linux on 390 Port To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject:Re: OT: Intel gets virtualization clue? Melinda Varian's papers at the Princeton website are terrific. (sorry, don't have the URL any more) Bob -Original Message- From: Paul Hanrahan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, October 10, 2003 1:53 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:Re: OT: Intel gets virtualization clue? Hi, Wow! Jan's a Hercules coder. I'm terrible with names. Probably saw Jan's name on the documentation somewhere and didn't recall it. I got a real kick out of booting VM/370 release 6 on my pc. Brought back old memories. I'm doing an article on the history of virtualization. I've picked up a number of pieces off the internet. Anyone have any favorite sources on the emergence of virtualization in computing? * The information transmitted is intended solely for the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of or taking action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this email in error please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. *
Re: OT: Intel gets virtualization clue?
Hi, I'll print a copy off. Thank you. Paul Hanrahan -Original Message- From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Gentry Sent: Friday, October 10, 2003 3:23 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: OT: Intel gets virtualization clue? It is: http://pucc.princeton.edu/~melinda/ Steve Gentry Richards.Bob [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: Linux on 390 Port [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/10/2003 02:18 PM Please respond to Linux on 390 Port To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject:Re: OT: Intel gets virtualization clue? Melinda Varian's papers at the Princeton website are terrific. (sorry, don't have the URL any more) Bob -Original Message- From: Paul Hanrahan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, October 10, 2003 1:53 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:Re: OT: Intel gets virtualization clue? Hi, Wow! Jan's a Hercules coder. I'm terrible with names. Probably saw Jan's name on the documentation somewhere and didn't recall it. I got a real kick out of booting VM/370 release 6 on my pc. Brought back old memories. I'm doing an article on the history of virtualization. I've picked up a number of pieces off the internet. Anyone have any favorite sources on the emergence of virtualization in computing? * The information transmitted is intended solely for the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of or taking action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this email in error please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. *
Re: OT: Intel gets virtualization clue?
Hi, I'd heard urban myths about Cambridge and the firmentation of VM but couldn't find a written source. Thank you for the reference. Paul Hanrahan -Original Message- From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Henry Schaffer Sent: Friday, October 10, 2003 3:23 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: OT: Intel gets virtualization clue? Paul, You ask: I'm doing an article on the history of virtualization. I've picked up a number of pieces off the internet. Anyone have any favorite sources on the emergence of virtualization in computing? There were a series articles, IIRC, in the IBM Systems Journal (a small format journal - pages about 5x7) by Hope Seagrave (Seagrove?) and others from the Cambridge, MA center which might help. --henry schaffer
Re: OT: Intel gets virtualization clue?
Steve, Thanks! I think I'll visit it again myself! Been a couple of years since I last read the links there. Bob -Original Message- From: Steve Gentry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent:Friday, October 10, 2003 3:23 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: OT: Intel gets virtualization clue? It is: http://pucc.princeton.edu/~melinda/ Steve Gentry * The information transmitted is intended solely for the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of or taking action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this email in error please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. *
Re: OT: Intel gets virtualization clue?
On Friday, 10/10/2003 at 03:23 AST, Henry Schaffer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Paul, You ask: I'm doing an article on the history of virtualization. I've picked up a number of pieces off the internet. Anyone have any favorite sources on the emergence of virtualization in computing? There were a series articles, IIRC, in the IBM Systems Journal (a small format journal - pages about 5x7) by Hope Seagrave (Seagrove?) and others from the Cambridge, MA center which might help. I think you are referring to L.H. Seawright and R.A. MacKennon's article VM/370 - A study of multiplicity and usefulness in the IBM Systems Journal, vol 18 no 1, 1979. The whole journal is devoted to VM/370. Alan Altmark Sr. Software Engineer IBM z/VM Development
Re: OT: Intel gets virtualization clue?
On Thursday, 10/09/2003 at 12:38 EST, Richard Troth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jim ... I don't like where this is going. But then, I'm a purist: I see what VM offers and find little value in VM in the hardware other than to sell to those customers who either have the rare real problem with VM support or the stereotypical allergy to it. (Can't make people LIKE something.) Consider what MPG offered: Increased performance. Moving to a more powerful machine plus the ability to RESERVE or LOCK guest pages helps make up for the loss of MPG. Plus, the limit of 6 preferred guests makes it less interesting for server consolidation, IMHO. I have been bothered by lack of basic mode for the past couple years. Maybe this is not a problem, since I hear few customers complaining. But then perhaps there just are not enough customers who have been hit by the issue like Jan has. Intellectually, from the purist's perspective, I'm sure the loss of MPG hurts, but the reality is that of those who run zLinux, the vast majority run in LPARs. So, the z990 changes nothing in this respect. 30 LPARs is great, and probably serves a great number of customers. But 30 LPARs lose a whole shipload of other value that VM offers, that I don't need to enumerate, preaching to the choir this is. I don't think 30 LPARs cost VM anything. I think it makes using LPARs less painful for those times when you need one. Psychologically, 1/30th of the machine is less impact than 1/15th. That means getting an LPAR when you need one is easier. With HiperSockets, IEEE VLAN, and the z/VM 4.4 virtual switch, the management of the images in those LPARs is much easier. You can still clone and manage content from within VM. Whether you IPL in a virtual machine or in an LPAR is a choice based on performance requirements. Alan Altmark Sr. Software Engineer IBM z/VM Development
Re: OT: Intel gets virtualization clue?
Hi, I'd think there'd be a desire to do proof of concept of multiple zLinux on VM before going to LPARS if a cutomer wasn't quite sure of the benefits. The purist looks to use native VM facilities to enhance and improve what's offered to clients rather than simply manage the imaged. However, sysprog provided enhancements should server a business purpose and if the LPAR's serve from a business perspective than why not. The real issue is customer satisfaction from the perspective of those providing a service or product through use of VM. Linux on VM appears to offer many advantages in terms of a large variety of options in the area of programming communications facilities or programs that have to use a variety of databases. Paul Hanrahan -Original Message- From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Alan Altmark Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2003 8:58 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: OT: Intel gets virtualization clue? On Thursday, 10/09/2003 at 12:38 EST, Richard Troth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jim ... I don't like where this is going. But then, I'm a purist: I see what VM offers and find little value in VM in the hardware other than to sell to those customers who either have the rare real problem with VM support or the stereotypical allergy to it. (Can't make people LIKE something.) Consider what MPG offered: Increased performance. Moving to a more powerful machine plus the ability to RESERVE or LOCK guest pages helps make up for the loss of MPG. Plus, the limit of 6 preferred guests makes it less interesting for server consolidation, IMHO. I have been bothered by lack of basic mode for the past couple years. Maybe this is not a problem, since I hear few customers complaining. But then perhaps there just are not enough customers who have been hit by the issue like Jan has. Intellectually, from the purist's perspective, I'm sure the loss of MPG hurts, but the reality is that of those who run zLinux, the vast majority run in LPARs. So, the z990 changes nothing in this respect. 30 LPARs is great, and probably serves a great number of customers. But 30 LPARs lose a whole shipload of other value that VM offers, that I don't need to enumerate, preaching to the choir this is. I don't think 30 LPARs cost VM anything. I think it makes using LPARs less painful for those times when you need one. Psychologically, 1/30th of the machine is less impact than 1/15th. That means getting an LPAR when you need one is easier. With HiperSockets, IEEE VLAN, and the z/VM 4.4 virtual switch, the management of the images in those LPARs is much easier. You can still clone and manage content from within VM. Whether you IPL in a virtual machine or in an LPAR is a choice based on performance requirements. Alan Altmark Sr. Software Engineer IBM z/VM Development
Re: OT: Intel gets virtualization clue?
I have been bothered by lack of basic mode for the past couple years. Maybe this is not a problem, since I hear few customers complaining. Rick: Most customers running z900s are already running in LPAR mode. Don't forget that if you have IFLs or ICFs on z900s or z800s you are forced into LPAR mode. For most customers running serious Linux workload (on IFLs) they are already running in LPAR mode. There is an impact to customers running in basic mode today so they can have V=F guests (most commonly for VSE/ESA), but they can continue to utilize z800s and z900s. I strongly believe that the best way to run most Linux on zSeries environments is under z/VM. I don't see people running Linux in preferred guests as the best cost model for this is on IFLs (which means LPARs) due to the cost savings. Don't forget that IFLs are always $125K (US) whether they are on Multiprise 3000 or a z990. Contrast that wit the cost of a standard engine which increases based on capacity (i.e. mips) and is a LOT more than $125K on a z990. Jim
Re: OT: Intel gets virtualization clue?
On Thursday, 10/09/2003 at 09:12 EST, James Melin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There seems to be a prejudice here that every shop that is doing z/Linux is also a vm shop, and this is patently false. One of the appealing things about a z-990 for OUR situation would be the 30 LPAR capability, as we do not have 40,000 per engine plus maintenance there after for VM. (or whatever the astronomical figure is), and many shops don' t have that financial capacity either. Never let money get in the way of a good business relationship, I always say. :-) The MSRP of z/VM V4 is $45K per CPU (one-time charge), plus $11K per CPU per year for maintenence. RACF, DirMaint, and the Performance Toolkit are extra. If you want to run z/VM on IFLs, count only IFLs. If you want to run on standard engines, count only standard engines. If you want to run on both, count all of them. Hardly astronomical. (The use of IFLs will add Linux and/or z/VM capacity without increasing your z/OS costs, btw.) Like cars, the MSRP is a starting point. If you think z/VM could provide value to your efforts, go talk to your friendly IBM rep or business partner. You will find them very receptive to your needs. Remember that running in LPARs does have a cost structure associated with it, too. But if you're content with the balance of function and cost of LPARs, then it's a business decision to not use z/VM and I can respect that. Just make sure you don't assume things about z/VM costs. Alan Altmark Sr. Software Engineer IBM z/VM Development
Re: OT: Intel gets virtualization clue?
Rick, see this from the positive side, once SIE assist code etc has been removed, there will no longer be an argument for OCO ;-) Jan Jaeger. (How about z/VM V5 all source again?) From: Alan Altmark [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Linux on 390 Port [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: OT: Intel gets virtualization clue? Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 08:58:22 -0400 On Thursday, 10/09/2003 at 12:38 EST, Richard Troth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jim ... I don't like where this is going. But then, I'm a purist: I see what VM offers and find little value in VM in the hardware other than to sell to those customers who either have the rare real problem with VM support or the stereotypical allergy to it. (Can't make people LIKE something.) Consider what MPG offered: Increased performance. Moving to a more powerful machine plus the ability to RESERVE or LOCK guest pages helps make up for the loss of MPG. Plus, the limit of 6 preferred guests makes it less interesting for server consolidation, IMHO. I have been bothered by lack of basic mode for the past couple years. Maybe this is not a problem, since I hear few customers complaining. But then perhaps there just are not enough customers who have been hit by the issue like Jan has. Intellectually, from the purist's perspective, I'm sure the loss of MPG hurts, but the reality is that of those who run zLinux, the vast majority run in LPARs. So, the z990 changes nothing in this respect. 30 LPARs is great, and probably serves a great number of customers. But 30 LPARs lose a whole shipload of other value that VM offers, that I don't need to enumerate, preaching to the choir this is. I don't think 30 LPARs cost VM anything. I think it makes using LPARs less painful for those times when you need one. Psychologically, 1/30th of the machine is less impact than 1/15th. That means getting an LPAR when you need one is easier. With HiperSockets, IEEE VLAN, and the z/VM 4.4 virtual switch, the management of the images in those LPARs is much easier. You can still clone and manage content from within VM. Whether you IPL in a virtual machine or in an LPAR is a choice based on performance requirements. Alan Altmark Sr. Software Engineer IBM z/VM Development _ Chatten met je online vrienden via MSN Messenger. http://messenger.msn.nl/
Re: OT: Intel gets virtualization clue?
They still have Start Interpretive Execution? As a former OCO coordinator for VM development I'm surprised. Alas, it was a thankless job that made no one happy. Paul Hanrahan -Original Message- From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jan Jaeger Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2003 12:53 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: OT: Intel gets virtualization clue? Rick, see this from the positive side, once SIE assist code etc has been removed, there will no longer be an argument for OCO ;-) Jan Jaeger. (How about z/VM V5 all source again?) From: Alan Altmark [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Linux on 390 Port [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: OT: Intel gets virtualization clue? Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 08:58:22 -0400 On Thursday, 10/09/2003 at 12:38 EST, Richard Troth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jim ... I don't like where this is going. But then, I'm a purist: I see what VM offers and find little value in VM in the hardware other than to sell to those customers who either have the rare real problem with VM support or the stereotypical allergy to it. (Can't make people LIKE something.) Consider what MPG offered: Increased performance. Moving to a more powerful machine plus the ability to RESERVE or LOCK guest pages helps make up for the loss of MPG. Plus, the limit of 6 preferred guests makes it less interesting for server consolidation, IMHO. I have been bothered by lack of basic mode for the past couple years. Maybe this is not a problem, since I hear few customers complaining. But then perhaps there just are not enough customers who have been hit by the issue like Jan has. Intellectually, from the purist's perspective, I'm sure the loss of MPG hurts, but the reality is that of those who run zLinux, the vast majority run in LPARs. So, the z990 changes nothing in this respect. 30 LPARs is great, and probably serves a great number of customers. But 30 LPARs lose a whole shipload of other value that VM offers, that I don't need to enumerate, preaching to the choir this is. I don't think 30 LPARs cost VM anything. I think it makes using LPARs less painful for those times when you need one. Psychologically, 1/30th of the machine is less impact than 1/15th. That means getting an LPAR when you need one is easier. With HiperSockets, IEEE VLAN, and the z/VM 4.4 virtual switch, the management of the images in those LPARs is much easier. You can still clone and manage content from within VM. Whether you IPL in a virtual machine or in an LPAR is a choice based on performance requirements. Alan Altmark Sr. Software Engineer IBM z/VM Development _ Chatten met je online vrienden via MSN Messenger. http://messenger.msn.nl/
Re: OT: Intel gets virtualization clue?
I did not say anything about the removal of SIE, just the SIE assists (which require OCO). SIE itself is documented in SA22-7095 and invoked from HCPRUN, that's not OCO. Jan Jaeger. From: Alan Altmark [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Linux on 390 Port [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: OT: Intel gets virtualization clue? Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 13:25:21 -0400 On Thursday, 10/09/2003 at 04:53 GMT, Jan Jaeger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Rick, see this from the positive side, once SIE assist code etc has been removed, there will no longer be an argument for OCO ;-) No one said anything about the removal of SIE; there continues to be support for two levels of SIE in the hardware. The I/O assists were the main attraction of V=F (IMO). Looking down the road, the DMA aspects of QDIO (for SCSI and network devices) reduce the benefit of I/O assists anyway. Alan Altmark Sr. Software Engineer IBM z/VM Development _ Chatten met je online vrienden via MSN Messenger. http://messenger.msn.nl/
Re: OT: Intel gets virtualization clue?
What is the status of multiple preferred guests on z990 machines? iirc the z990 cannot run in basic mode, which was always a prereq for multiple preferred guests. When running under PR/SM the MHPGF would be taken by PR/SM. Running multiple preferred guests will require something like 2nd level zones, unless PR/SM has changed such that it no longer uses the MHPGF. Jan Jaeger. From: Jim Elliott [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Linux on 390 Port [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: OT: Intel gets virtualization clue? Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2003 20:57:26 EDT This was further enhanced in announcements on June 11, 1987 with the VM/XA System Product and the Multiple High Performance Guest Support facility (MHPGS) and February 15, 1988 as the Processor Resource/Systems Manager (PR/SM) which provides the Logical Partitioning facility (the first ever reference to Logical Partitions to my knowledge). True. Before that they were called domains and you could only get them from Amdahl. The PR/SM announcement remains one of the very few to offer pronunciation guidelines. The Amdahl Multiple Domain Feature (MDF) was a different implementation from that in the 3090, with somewhat the same goals. The big difference with PR/SM is that it could be used by z/VM to provide preferred guests or LPAR to provide Logical Partitions. In any case, the Intel Vanderpool architecture is much closer to SIE than to MDF or PR/SM. The current VM product, z/VM, makes extensive use of this function to provide support for running a great many guests (in some environments 100s) and the current LPAR support provides for 60 Logical Partitions on the z990 mainframe. According to the preview PDF for today's announcements that I received late yesterday, 60 LPARs is still a Statement of Direction. Correct, a typo on my part. With today's announcement 30 LPARs are available on the z990 with the SoD being 60 LPARs. Regards, Jim _ Chatten met je online vrienden via MSN Messenger. http://messenger.msn.nl/
Re: OT: Intel gets virtualization clue?
What is the status of multiple preferred guests on z990 machines? iirc the z990 cannot run in basic mode, which was always a prereq for multiple preferred guests. When running under PR/SM the MHPGF would be taken by PR/SM. Running multiple preferred guests will require something like 2nd level zones, unless PR/SM has changed such that it no longer uses the MHPGF. Jan: Unfortunately, you loose support for V=F guests on the z990. With the complexity of the I/O subsystem (two logical channel sets, 512 channels) LPAR mode became mandatory to manage the environment. If you have images that really require the level of performance provided by V=R/V=F support, you should probably run those directly in an LPAR. With 30 LPARs, you have support for more native systems than before. Jim
Re: OT: Intel gets virtualization clue?
Unfortunately, you loose support for V=F guests on the z990. With the complexity of the I/O subsystem (two logical channel sets, 512 channels) LPAR mode became mandatory to manage the environment. If you have images that really require the level of performance provided by V=R/V=F support, you should probably run those directly in an LPAR. With 30 LPARs, you have support for more native systems than before. Jim ... I don't like where this is going. But then, I'm a purist: I see what VM offers and find little value in VM in the hardware other than to sell to those customers who either have the rare real problem with VM support or the stereotypical allergy to it. (Can't make people LIKE something.) I have been bothered by lack of basic mode for the past couple years. Maybe this is not a problem, since I hear few customers complaining. But then perhaps there just are not enough customers who have been hit by the issue like Jan has. 30 LPARs is great, and probably serves a great number of customers. But 30 LPARs lose a whole shipload of other value that VM offers, that I don't need to enumerate, preaching to the choir this is. Bring Back Basic (mode, not prog lang) Lose LPAR ... Purge us of PR/SM. -- R;
Re: OT: Intel gets virtualization clue?
This was further enhanced in announcements on June 11, 1987 with the VM/XA System Product and the Multiple High Performance Guest Support facility (MHPGS) and February 15, 1988 as the Processor Resource/Systems Manager (PR/SM) which provides the Logical Partitioning facility (the first ever reference to Logical Partitions to my knowledge). True. Before that they were called domains and you could only get them from Amdahl. The PR/SM announcement remains one of the very few to offer pronunciation guidelines. The current VM product, z/VM, makes extensive use of this function to provide support for running a great many guests (in some environments 100s) and the current LPAR support provides for 60 Logical Partitions on the z990 mainframe. According to the preview PDF for today's announcements that I received late yesterday, 60 LPARs is still a Statement of Direction. -- Phil Payne http://www.isham-research.com +44 7785 302 803
Re: OT: Intel gets virtualization clue?
Hi Jim, sarcasm Aaaah, but you forget - all of the scientific achievements realized on those mainframes during the past 30 years is unimportant, uncool, proprietary and insignificant. It's *only* important when those same achievements are repeated on Pee Cee's - THEN they become significant breakthroughs in computer technology(!). Running multiple images of a mainframe OS on a single piece of hardware may be interesting, but being able to run Doom under Windoze AND Linux simultaneously on the same Pee Cee - now THAT's cool, dude! /sarcasm Michael Coffin, VM Systems Programmer Internal Revenue Service - Room 6030 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20224 Voice: (202) 927-4188 FAX: (202) 622-6726 [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Jim Elliott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 6:47 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: OT: Intel gets virtualization clue? Having read the article, while interesting (and important), Intel's Vanderpool is scarcely the one of the decade's most significant breakthroughs in computer technology. IBM mainframes since 1981 have had a function known as Interpretive Execution which is used the same way. On October 21, 1981 IBM announced VM/XA Migration Aid and the SIE instruction (which provides the Interpretive Execution function) for the 3084 mainframe. This was further enhanced in announcements on June 11, 1987 with the VM/XA System Product and the Multiple High Performance Guest Support facility (MHPGS) and February 15, 1988 as the Processor Resource/Systems Manager (PR/SM) which provides the Logical Partitioning facility (the first ever reference to Logical Partitions to my knowledge). The current VM product, z/VM, makes extensive use of this function to provide support for running a great many guests (in some environments 100s) and the current LPAR support provides for 60 Logical Partitions on the z990 mainframe. The IBM Systems Journal published an article on SIE in 1991 at http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/sj/301/ibmsj3001E.pdf Regards, Jim
Re: OT: Intel gets virtualization clue?
This was further enhanced in announcements on June 11, 1987 with the VM/XA System Product and the Multiple High Performance Guest Support facility (MHPGS) and February 15, 1988 as the Processor Resource/Systems Manager (PR/SM) which provides the Logical Partitioning facility (the first ever reference to Logical Partitions to my knowledge). True. Before that they were called domains and you could only get them from Amdahl. The PR/SM announcement remains one of the very few to offer pronunciation guidelines. The Amdahl Multiple Domain Feature (MDF) was a different implementation from that in the 3090, with somewhat the same goals. The big difference with PR/SM is that it could be used by z/VM to provide preferred guests or LPAR to provide Logical Partitions. In any case, the Intel Vanderpool architecture is much closer to SIE than to MDF or PR/SM. The current VM product, z/VM, makes extensive use of this function to provide support for running a great many guests (in some environments 100s) and the current LPAR support provides for 60 Logical Partitions on the z990 mainframe. According to the preview PDF for today's announcements that I received late yesterday, 60 LPARs is still a Statement of Direction. Correct, a typo on my part. With today's announcement 30 LPARs are available on the z990 with the SoD being 60 LPARs. Regards, Jim
Re: OT: Intel gets virtualization clue?
Hmmm, now Intel is figuring out that virtualization can be made easier with hardware. When was the SIE paper in RD Journal, 1991? http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns4215 Volume 30 Issue 1 of the IBM Systems Journal (1991) ESA/390 interpretive-execution architecture, foundation for VM/ESA http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/sj/301/ibmsj3001E.pdf Jim
