Re: Virtual network topology questions...
Adam wrote: Here's how: go get the virgin 2.4.19 kernel sources from kernel.org. Go get the s390-may2002, s390-1-may2002, and timer-1-may2002 patches from IBM Developerworks, and apply them in that order. Also get the qeth driver from there. Build a kernel. Build your modules. Copy the qeth driver somewhere under your modules directory. Run depmod -a. Edit zipl.conf to boot from your new kernel, and run zipl. ReIPL your Linux image--into CMS, if you can. Suppose another customer had a SuSE support contract. Could that customer email Robert the kernel patch rpm file without violating their support contract? That's all he would need to run guest LAN on his existing HW/SW. Marcy Cortes Wells Fargo Services Co
Re: Virtual network topology questions...
-Original Message- From: Marcy Cortes [mailto:marcy;WellsFargo.COM] Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 12:06 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Virtual network topology questions... Suppose another customer had a SuSE support contract. Could that customer email Robert the kernel patch rpm file without violating their support contract? That's all he would need to run guest LAN on his existing HW/SW. Marcy Cortes Wells Fargo Services Co I think that's a very interesting question. I cannot think of how, legally, SuSE can stop you from sending a RPM which contains free patches to another person. But whether it is morally correct to redistribute something for which you paid a fee and which is a source of livelihood for a company is another question. Or can a person or organization own a compilation copyright on the rpm itself, without having a copyright on any of the elements within the RPM. I do understand how SuSE, et al., can stop the redistribution of something like YaST. Discussion? -- John McKown Senior Technical Specialist UICI Insurance Center Applications Solutions Team +1.817.255.3225
Re: Virtual network topology questions...
Without having seen one of those contracts, I would not be able to comment on the particulars. Since the pieces under discussion in this scenario are all GPL, then any recipient has the right to redistribute it freely. Any attempt to restrict that right is in itself a violation of the GPL. Sharing such things as userids and passwords to restricted sites would be another matter entirely. Mark Post -Original Message- From: Marcy Cortes [mailto:marcy;WellsFargo.COM] Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 1:06 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Virtual network topology questions... Adam wrote: Here's how: go get the virgin 2.4.19 kernel sources from kernel.org. Go get the s390-may2002, s390-1-may2002, and timer-1-may2002 patches from IBM Developerworks, and apply them in that order. Also get the qeth driver from there. Build a kernel. Build your modules. Copy the qeth driver somewhere under your modules directory. Run depmod -a. Edit zipl.conf to boot from your new kernel, and run zipl. ReIPL your Linux image--into CMS, if you can. Suppose another customer had a SuSE support contract. Could that customer email Robert the kernel patch rpm file without violating their support contract? That's all he would need to run guest LAN on his existing HW/SW. Marcy Cortes Wells Fargo Services Co
Re: Virtual network topology questions...
On Mon, 11 Nov 2002, McKown, John wrote: -Original Message- From: Marcy Cortes [mailto:marcy;WellsFargo.COM] Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 12:06 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Virtual network topology questions... Suppose another customer had a SuSE support contract. Could that customer email Robert the kernel patch rpm file without violating their support contract? That's all he would need to run guest LAN on his existing HW/SW. Marcy Cortes Wells Fargo Services Co I think that's a very interesting question. I cannot think of how, legally, SuSE can stop you from sending a RPM which contains free patches to another person. But whether it is morally correct to redistribute something for which you paid a fee and which is a source of livelihood for a company is another question. Or can a person or organization own a compilation copyright on the rpm itself, without having a copyright on any of the elements within the RPM. I do understand how SuSE, et al., can stop the redistribution of something like YaST. Discussion? Compilation is a bit like a singer's performance. Several copyrights may apply: Composer of the music Writer of the words Arranger Singer and supporting musicians. Arguably, the performance is a derived work, as is the compilation. GPL requires derived works to be GPL. -- Cheers John. Please, no off-list mail. You will fall foul of my spam treatment. Join the Linux Support by Small Businesses list at http://mail.computerdatasafe.com.au/mailman/listinfo/lssb
Re: Virtual network topology questions...
On Mon, 2002-11-11 at 18:06, Marcy Cortes wrote: Adam wrote: Here's how: go get the virgin 2.4.19 kernel sources from kernel.org. Go get the s390-may2002, s390-1-may2002, and timer-1-may2002 patches from IBM Developerworks, and apply them in that order. Also get the qeth driver from there. Build a kernel. Build your modules. Copy the qeth driver somewhere under your modules directory. Run depmod -a. Edit zipl.conf to boot from your new kernel, and run zipl. ReIPL your Linux image--into CMS, if you can. Suppose another customer had a SuSE support contract. Could that customer email Robert the kernel patch rpm file without violating their support contract? That's all he would need to run guest LAN on his existing HW/SW. If its GPL licensed software then the SuSE customer can do that, they can put it on the net, make T-shirts of it too. The GPL prohibits additional restrictions, so if the support contract forbade doing that with GPL software then they would be violating the license.
Virtual network topology questions...
Given an IFL running zVM and several Linux/390 images, is it better to fan out to all the Linux images from zVM's TCPIP, or should TCPIP talk to a selection of images, with these images each handling several end machines, more like a tree structure? What would be the advantages and disadvantages of either method, and is there a break-even point below which you'd want to fan from TCPIP, but above which you'd want helper images? If two images have a need to talk to each other, is it better to connect them directly, or just allow them to converse through zVM's TCPIP? And lastly: When I install SuSE, it lists the IUCV driver as experimental. Is it experimental, but stable, and I should take a look at it, or is it experimental, and unstable, and I should stick to the vCTCA's I'm currently using? Thanks in advance for any and all opinions. Robert P. Nixinternet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mayo Clinic phone: 507-284-0844 200 1st St. SW page: 507-255-3450 Rochester, MN 55905 In theory, theory and practice are the same, but in practice, theory and practice are different.
Re: Virtual network topology questions...
On Fri, Nov 08, 2002 at 08:44:20AM -0600, Nix, Robert P. wrote: Given an IFL running zVM and several Linux/390 images, is it better to fan out to all the Linux images from zVM's TCPIP, or should TCPIP talk to a selection of images, with these images each handling several end machines, more like a tree structure? What would be the advantages and disadvantages of either method, and is there a break-even point below which you'd want to fan from TCPIP, but above which you'd want helper images? I'd say that the answer is none of the above. Which version of z/VM? If at all possible, use a guest LAN. It makes your life a *whole* lot simpler. If you can't, I'd say use about six downstream Linux images per upstream router; IUCV is theoretically faster, but I have found CTC somewhat easier to configure. Now, you're using SuSE, so that may be a stumbling block too. IIRC, the totally-free version (beer, not speech, for those of you keeping score at home) of SuSE doesn't do HiperSockets. But if you have either the $500 trial or a support contract then you have access to the service releases, which do let you use HiperSockets. And if you don't, then (IMHO) you shouldn't be using SuSE--if you're going to be your own support, you may as well be your own support with a less antiquated distribution. I'm going to surprise exactly no one by saying here, Debian. Largely because I haven't played with RH in a long time, and I know that Debian works just fine (albeit taintedly) with the qeth drivers and guest LANs. To wit: debian:~# uname -a Linux debian 2.4.19 #1 SMP Thu Nov 7 13:33:12 CST 2002 s390 unknown debian:~# ifconfig hsi0 hsi0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:00:00:00:00:00 inet addr:192.168.129.7 Mask:255.255.255.0 inet6 addr: fe80::200:ff:fe00:0/10 Scope:Link UP RUNNING NOARP MULTICAST MTU:8192 Metric:1 RX packets:228 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:143 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:100 RX bytes:20515 (20.0 KiB) TX bytes:22262 (21.7 KiB) Interrupt:15 debian:~# route -n Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric RefUse Iface 192.168.131.65 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 UH0 00 ctc0 192.168.129.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 00 hsi0 0.0.0.0 192.168.129.1 0.0.0.0 UG0 00 hsi0 debian:~# You'll notice that I'm routing through the HiperSockets connection, not the ctc. Adam
Re: Virtual network topology questions...
9672, so no hiper-sockets. In trial mode, so no money to buy a distribution or support, but with the potential to do so if / when it goes into production. Potentially running DB2 and WebSphere, so SuSE instead of RedHat, as IBM supports SuSE more so than RedHat, in our experience. I'd like to work within the confines I have. Robert P. Nixinternet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mayo Clinic phone: 507-284-0844 200 1st St. SW page: 507-255-3450 Rochester, MN 55905 In theory, theory and practice are the same, but in practice, theory and practice are different. -Original Message- From: Adam Thornton [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 9:59 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Virtual network topology questions... On Fri, Nov 08, 2002 at 08:44:20AM -0600, Nix, Robert P. wrote: Given an IFL running zVM and several Linux/390 images, is it better to fan out to all the Linux images from zVM's TCPIP, or should TCPIP talk to a selection of images, with these images each handling several end machines, more like a tree structure? What would be the advantages and disadvantages of either method, and is there a break-even point below which you'd want to fan from TCPIP, but above which you'd want helper images? I'd say that the answer is none of the above. Which version of z/VM? If at all possible, use a guest LAN. It makes your life a *whole* lot simpler. If you can't, I'd say use about six downstream Linux images per upstream router; IUCV is theoretically faster, but I have found CTC somewhat easier to configure. Now, you're using SuSE, so that may be a stumbling block too. IIRC, the totally-free version (beer, not speech, for those of you keeping score at home) of SuSE doesn't do HiperSockets. But if you have either the $500 trial or a support contract then you have access to the service releases, which do let you use HiperSockets. And if you don't, then (IMHO) you shouldn't be using SuSE--if you're going to be your own support, you may as well be your own support with a less antiquated distribution. I'm going to surprise exactly no one by saying here, Debian. Largely because I haven't played with RH in a long time, and I know that Debian works just fine (albeit taintedly) with the qeth drivers and guest LANs. To wit:
Re: Virtual network topology questions...
Given an IFL running zVM and several Linux/390 images, is it better to fan out to all the Linux images from zVM's TCPIP, or should TCPIP talk to a selection of images, with these images each handling several end machines, more like a tree structure? If you have a version of z/VM that supports guest LANs, you should be using guest LANs and eliminating the point-to-point links wherever possible, if nothing else to keep from going insane handling the addressing. This provides a third option: using VM TCP (or a Linux TCP stack) to control a physical adapter and connecting to multiple guest LANs acting as a router. Guests on the LAN talk directly to each other (just as the do on an external network) and only inter-segment traffic passes through the router. And lastly: When I install SuSE, it lists the IUCV driver as experimental. Is it experimental, but stable, and I should take a look at it, or is it experimental, and unstable, and I should stick to the vCTCA's I'm currently using? Get rid of the CTCs as fast as you can. If you don't have a guest LAN capable VM, then the IUCV stuff is about as stable as the CTC driver.
Re: Virtual network topology questions...
If at all possible, use the Guest LAN. It gets past all of this point to point stuff and for all the reasons that Adam mentioned. On Friday 08 November 2002 08:44 am, you wrote: Given an IFL running zVM and several Linux/390 images, is it better to fan out to all the Linux images from zVM's TCPIP, or should TCPIP talk to a selection of images, with these images each handling several end machines, more like a tree structure? What would be the advantages and disadvantages of either method, and is there a break-even point below which you'd want to fan from TCPIP, but above which you'd want helper images? If two images have a need to talk to each other, is it better to connect them directly, or just allow them to converse through zVM's TCPIP? And lastly: When I install SuSE, it lists the IUCV driver as experimental. Is it experimental, but stable, and I should take a look at it, or is it experimental, and unstable, and I should stick to the vCTCA's I'm currently using? Thanks in advance for any and all opinions. Robert P. Nixinternet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mayo Clinic phone: 507-284-0844 200 1st St. SW page: 507-255-3450 Rochester, MN 55905 In theory, theory and practice are the same, but in practice, theory and practice are different. -- Rich Smrcina Sytek Services, Inc. Milwaukee, WI [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Catch the WAVV! Stay for Requirements and the Free for All! Update your S/390 skills in 4 days for a very reasonable price. WAVV 2003 in Winston-Salem, NC. April 25-29, 2003 For details see http://www.wavv.org
Re: Virtual network topology questions...
No hardware hipersockets doesn't necessarily mean that you can't use the guest LAN. Are you using the evaluation version of SuSE 7.2 or are you using the old SuSE with the 2.2.16 kernel? If the former you can define a guest LAN and set up SuSE to use it. If the latter, then you are definitely stuck using point to point. On Friday 08 November 2002 09:12 am, you wrote: 9672, so no hiper-sockets. In trial mode, so no money to buy a distribution or support, but with the potential to do so if / when it goes into production. Potentially running DB2 and WebSphere, so SuSE instead of RedHat, as IBM supports SuSE more so than RedHat, in our experience. I'd like to work within the confines I have. Robert P. Nixinternet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mayo Clinic phone: 507-284-0844 200 1st St. SW page: 507-255-3450 Rochester, MN 55905 In theory, theory and practice are the same, but in practice, theory and practice are different. -Original Message- From: Adam Thornton [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 9:59 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Virtual network topology questions... On Fri, Nov 08, 2002 at 08:44:20AM -0600, Nix, Robert P. wrote: Given an IFL running zVM and several Linux/390 images, is it better to fan out to all the Linux images from zVM's TCPIP, or should TCPIP talk to a selection of images, with these images each handling several end machines, more like a tree structure? What would be the advantages and disadvantages of either method, and is there a break-even point below which you'd want to fan from TCPIP, but above which you'd want helper images? I'd say that the answer is none of the above. Which version of z/VM? If at all possible, use a guest LAN. It makes your life a *whole* lot simpler. If you can't, I'd say use about six downstream Linux images per upstream router; IUCV is theoretically faster, but I have found CTC somewhat easier to configure. Now, you're using SuSE, so that may be a stumbling block too. IIRC, the totally-free version (beer, not speech, for those of you keeping score at home) of SuSE doesn't do HiperSockets. But if you have either the $500 trial or a support contract then you have access to the service releases, which do let you use HiperSockets. And if you don't, then (IMHO) you shouldn't be using SuSE--if you're going to be your own support, you may as well be your own support with a less antiquated distribution. I'm going to surprise exactly no one by saying here, Debian. Largely because I haven't played with RH in a long time, and I know that Debian works just fine (albeit taintedly) with the qeth drivers and guest LANs. To wit: -- Rich Smrcina Sytek Services, Inc. Milwaukee, WI [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Catch the WAVV! Stay for Requirements and the Free for All! Update your S/390 skills in 4 days for a very reasonable price. WAVV 2003 in Winston-Salem, NC. April 25-29, 2003 For details see http://www.wavv.org
Re: Virtual network topology questions...
9672, so no hiper-sockets. In trial mode, so no money to buy a distribution or support, but with the potential to do so if / when it goes into production. Potentially running DB2 and WebSphere, so SuSE instead of RedHat, as IBM supports SuSE more so than RedHat, in our experience. Guest LANs do not require hardware hipersockets. They use the same driver, but do not require the hardware. I'd like to work within the confines I have. If x/VM 4.2 or higher runs on your box, you have the support you need. -- db
Re: Virtual network topology questions...
Nix, Robert P. writes: 9672, so no hiper-sockets. In trial mode, so no money to buy a distribution or support, but with the potential to do so if / when it goes into production. Potentially running DB2 and WebSphere, so SuSE instead of RedHat, as IBM supports SuSE more so than RedHat, in our experience. I'd like to work within the confines I have. You don't need physical hiper-sockets hardware for the GuestLAN and virtual hipersockets provided by z/VM 4.3. GuestLAN (or virtual hsi) simplifies many things. Unless there's absolutely no way for you to use z/VM 4.3, you're good to go. Part 2 of the ...zSeries... Large Scale Linux Deployment redbook (SG246824) covers these sorts of issues and includes chapters on Hipersockets and z/VM GuestLAN, TCP/IP direct connection and TCP/IP routing. --Malcolm -- Malcolm Beattie [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux Technical Consultant IBM EMEA Enterprise Server Group... ...from home, speaking only for myself
Re: Virtual network topology questions...
I think that as long as your distribution of Linux supports QDIO (which 2.2.16 does) you can define a qdio (instead of a hipers one) guest lan under zVM 4.3 and use qdio/qeth. (I think! haven't tried it) Carlos :-) Saying goes: Great minds think alike - I say: Great minds think for themselves! Carlos A. Ordonez IBM Corporation Server Consolidation |-+--- | | Rich Smrcina| | | [EMAIL PROTECTED]| | | com| | | Sent by: Linux | | | on 390 Port | | | [EMAIL PROTECTED]| | | RIST.EDU | | | | | | | | | 11/08/2002 10:23| | | AM | | | Please respond | | | to Linux on 390 | | | Port| | | | |-+--- ---| | | |To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | |cc: | | From: | | Subject: Re: Virtual network topology questions... | | | ---| No hardware hipersockets doesn't necessarily mean that you can't use the guest LAN. Are you using the evaluation version of SuSE 7.2 or are you using the old SuSE with the 2.2.16 kernel? If the former you can define a guest LAN and set up SuSE to use it. If the latter, then you are definitely stuck using point to point. On Friday 08 November 2002 09:12 am, you wrote: 9672, so no hiper-sockets. In trial mode, so no money to buy a distribution or support, but with the potential to do so if / when it goes into production. Potentially running DB2 and WebSphere, so SuSE instead of RedHat, as IBM supports SuSE more so than RedHat, in our experience. I'd like to work within the confines I have. Robert P. Nixinternet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mayo Clinic phone: 507-284-0844 200 1st St. SW page: 507-255-3450 Rochester, MN 55905 In theory, theory and practice are the same, but in practice, theory and practice are different. -Original Message- From: Adam Thornton [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 9:59 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Virtual network topology questions... On Fri, Nov 08, 2002 at 08:44:20AM -0600, Nix, Robert P. wrote: Given an IFL running zVM and several Linux/390 images, is it better to fan out to all the Linux images from zVM's TCPIP, or should TCPIP talk to a selection of images, with these images each handling several end machines, more like a tree structure? What would be the advantages and disadvantages of either method, and is there a break-even point below which you'd want to fan from TCPIP, but above which you'd want helper images? I'd say that the answer is none of the above. Which version of z/VM? If at all possible, use a guest LAN. It makes your life a *whole* lot simpler. If you can't, I'd say use about six downstream Linux images per upstream router; IUCV is theoretically faster, but I have found CTC somewhat easier to configure. Now, you're using SuSE, so that may be a stumbling block too. IIRC, the totally-free version (beer, not speech, for those of you keeping score at home) of SuSE doesn't do HiperSockets. But if you have either the $500 trial or a support contract then you have access to the service releases, which do let you use HiperSockets. And if you don't, then (IMHO) you shouldn't be using SuSE--if you're going to be your own support, you may as well be your own support with a less antiquated distribution. I'm going to surprise exactly no one by saying here, Debian. Largely because I haven't played with RH in a long time, and I know that Debian works just fine (albeit taintedly) with the qeth drivers and guest LANs. To wit: -- Rich Smrcina Sytek Services, Inc. Milwaukee, WI [EMAIL
Re: Virtual network topology questions...
So according to the statements below...I CAN use SUSE SLES7 to play the guest lan game, using QDIO instead of virtual hipersockets? Am I correct in this assumption? Any testimony from someone who has setup guest lans with SUSE SLES7? Tia Dave Myers Adam said... Now, you're using SuSE, so that may be a stumbling block too. IIRC, the totally-free version (beer, not speech, for those of you keeping score at home) of SuSE doesn't do HiperSockets. But if you have either the $500 trial or a support contract then you have access to the service releases, which do let you use HiperSockets. And if you don't, then (IMHO) you shouldn't be using SuSE--if you're going to be your own support, you may as well be your own support with a less antiquated Rober said... No hardware hipersockets doesn't necessarily mean that you can't use the guest LAN. Are you using the evaluation version of SuSE 7.2 or are you using the old SuSE with the 2.2.16 kernel? If the former you can define a guest LAN and set up SuSE to use it. If the latter, then you are definitely stuck using point to point. Carlos said: I think that as long as your distribution of Linux supports QDIO (which 2.2.16 does) you can define a qdio (instead of a hipers one) guest lan under zVM 4.3 and use qdio/qeth. (I think! haven't tried it) Carlos :-)
Re: Virtual network topology questions...
On Fri, Nov 08, 2002 at 10:57:41AM -0500, Dave Myers wrote: So according to the statements below...I CAN use SUSE SLES7 to play the guest lan game, using QDIO instead of virtual hipersockets? Am I correct in this assumption? Any testimony from someone who has setup guest lans with SUSE SLES7? Tia Dave Myers Yeah, as long as you're running one of the more recent patches that fixes virtual qeth support, it works fine. On a virtual LAN, the only difference is whether you specify it as type QDIO or leave it unset (in the VM LAN definition statment). Then if it's a qdio LAN, you define your virtual NIC to the guest as TYPE QDIO (which really means OSA, since both HiperSockets and OSA are QDIO devices). Virtual OSAs support broadcast (under z/VM 4.3). HiperSockets don't. That's pretty much the difference between them. They use the same driver, but OSA is aliased to interface ethX and HiperSockets to hsiX. Here's something from an SLES-based guest... r2:~ # ifconfig eth2 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:00:00:00:00:00 inet addr:192.168.130.67 Mask:255.255.255.192 inet6 addr: fe80::200:ff:fe00:0/10 Scope:Link UP RUNNING NOARP MULTICAST MTU:1492 Metric:1 RX packets:473155 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:553105 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:100 RX bytes:45294696 (43.1 Mb) TX bytes:161088571 (153.6 Mb) Interrupt:17 eth2:0Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:00:00:00:00:00 inet addr:192.168.130.68 Mask:255.255.255.192 UP RUNNING NOARP MULTICAST MTU:1492 Metric:1 Interrupt:17 hsi0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:00:00:00:00:00 inet addr:192.168.129.4 Mask:255.255.255.0 inet6 addr: fe80::200:ff:fe00:0/10 Scope:Link UP RUNNING NOARP MULTICAST MTU:8192 Metric:1 RX packets:2517010 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:1719082 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:100 RX bytes:1009596522 (962.8 Mb) TX bytes:276571455 (263.7 Mb) Interrupt:11 hsi0:0Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:00:00:00:00:00 inet addr:192.168.129.5 Mask:255.255.255.0 UP RUNNING NOARP MULTICAST MTU:8192 Metric:1 Interrupt:11 hsi1 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:00:00:00:00:00 inet addr:192.168.130.2 Mask:255.255.255.192 inet6 addr: fe80::200:ff:fe00:0/10 Scope:Link UP RUNNING NOARP MULTICAST MTU:8192 Metric:1 RX packets:1660330 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:2378314 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:100 RX bytes:211072990 (201.2 Mb) TX bytes:977121122 (931.8 Mb) Interrupt:14 hsi1:0Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:00:00:00:00:00 inet addr:192.168.130.4 Mask:255.255.255.192 UP RUNNING NOARP MULTICAST MTU:8192 Metric:1 Interrupt:14 loLink encap:Local Loopback inet addr:127.0.0.1 Mask:255.0.0.0 inet6 addr: ::1/128 Scope:Host UP LOOPBACK RUNNING MTU:16436 Metric:1 RX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:0 RX bytes:0 (0.0 b) TX bytes:0 (0.0 b) Notice that I have one eth device and two hsi devices. These are all virtual; this router lives on two HiperSockets and one OSA segment. Also note the dummy addresses (XXXN:0): this is VRT in action; r1 contains the other side of the pair, but r2 is currently holding the virtual addresses. Here's the routing table... r2:~ # route -n Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric RefUse Iface 192.168.131.0 192.168.130.10 255.255.255.192 UG0 00 hsi1 192.168.131.64 192.168.130.10 255.255.255.192 UG0 00 hsi1 192.168.130.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.192 U 0 00 hsi1 192.168.130.64 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.192 U 0 00 eth2 192.168.129.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 00 hsi0 0.0.0.0 192.168.129.1 0.0.0.0 UG0 00 hsi0 Adam
Re: Virtual network topology questions...
This has gone completely off track, and in no way resembles or answers my original questions. We're running zVM 4.2, not 4.2. We're on a 9672, not a z-series, we have a single OSA interface, shared with a zOS image, and no option for adding hardware interfaces, and we don't have any money budgeted for the trial, not even the $500 for the true trial from SuSE. Answers that involve any of the things we don't have don't help. Sorry to be blunt, but I was really looking for which way I should be going, within the walls I have around me. The answers have been fairly much the same as Put out your resume, and find a job at a company with a different system... Robert P. Nixinternet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mayo Clinic phone: 507-284-0844 200 1st St. SW page: 507-255-3450 Rochester, MN 55905 In theory, theory and practice are the same, but in practice, theory and practice are different. -Original Message- From: Adam Thornton [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 11:38 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Virtual network topology questions... On Fri, Nov 08, 2002 at 10:57:41AM -0500, Dave Myers wrote: So according to the statements below...I CAN use SUSE SLES7 to play the guest lan game, using QDIO instead of virtual hipersockets? Am I correct in this assumption? Any testimony from someone who has setup guest lans with SUSE SLES7? Tia Dave Myers Yeah, as long as you're running one of the more recent patches that fixes virtual qeth support, it works fine. On a virtual LAN, the only difference is whether you specify it as type QDIO or leave it unset (in the VM LAN definition statment). Then if it's a qdio LAN, you define your virtual NIC to the guest as TYPE QDIO (which really means OSA, since both HiperSockets and OSA are QDIO devices). Virtual OSAs support broadcast (under z/VM 4.3). HiperSockets don't. That's pretty much the difference between them. They use the same driver, but OSA is aliased to interface ethX and HiperSockets to hsiX. Here's something from an SLES-based guest... r2:~ # ifconfig eth2 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:00:00:00:00:00 inet addr:192.168.130.67 Mask:255.255.255.192 inet6 addr: fe80::200:ff:fe00:0/10 Scope:Link UP RUNNING NOARP MULTICAST MTU:1492 Metric:1 RX packets:473155 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:553105 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:100 RX bytes:45294696 (43.1 Mb) TX bytes:161088571 (153.6 Mb) Interrupt:17 eth2:0Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:00:00:00:00:00 inet addr:192.168.130.68 Mask:255.255.255.192 UP RUNNING NOARP MULTICAST MTU:1492 Metric:1 Interrupt:17 hsi0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:00:00:00:00:00 inet addr:192.168.129.4 Mask:255.255.255.0 inet6 addr: fe80::200:ff:fe00:0/10 Scope:Link UP RUNNING NOARP MULTICAST MTU:8192 Metric:1 RX packets:2517010 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:1719082 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:100 RX bytes:1009596522 (962.8 Mb) TX bytes:276571455 (263.7 Mb) Interrupt:11 hsi0:0Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:00:00:00:00:00 inet addr:192.168.129.5 Mask:255.255.255.0 UP RUNNING NOARP MULTICAST MTU:8192 Metric:1 Interrupt:11 hsi1 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:00:00:00:00:00 inet addr:192.168.130.2 Mask:255.255.255.192 inet6 addr: fe80::200:ff:fe00:0/10 Scope:Link UP RUNNING NOARP MULTICAST MTU:8192 Metric:1 RX packets:1660330 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:2378314 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:100 RX bytes:211072990 (201.2 Mb) TX bytes:977121122 (931.8 Mb) Interrupt:14 hsi1:0Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:00:00:00:00:00 inet addr:192.168.130.4 Mask:255.255.255.192 UP RUNNING NOARP MULTICAST MTU:8192 Metric:1 Interrupt:14 loLink encap:Local Loopback inet addr:127.0.0.1 Mask:255.0.0.0 inet6 addr: ::1/128 Scope:Host UP LOOPBACK RUNNING MTU:16436 Metric:1 RX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:0 RX bytes:0 (0.0 b) TX bytes:0 (0.0 b) Notice that I have one eth device and two hsi devices. These are all virtual; this router lives on two HiperSockets and one OSA segment. Also note the dummy addresses (XXXN:0): this is VRT in action; r1 contains the other side of the pair, but r2 is currently holding the virtual addresses. Here's
Re: Virtual network topology questions...
In a message dated 11/8/2002 10:14:42 AM Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The answers have been fairly much the same as Put out your resume, and find a job at a company with a different system... h...then you either haven't been reading them carefully...or you don't understand the technology concepts yet?? these answers seem very helpful for your situation Dave
Re: Virtual network topology questions...
Robert, About the only thing you can't get out of this thread is broadcast support on your Guest LAN. Everything else should be available to you as you sit now with z/VM 4.2 and a 9672. No new hardware, etc. Further, there is another option from SuSE. For free, they will send you CDs with their GA code on them. You just don't get any support during the trial. That meets your $0 budget constraints as well, if you want to go that route. But, even if you don't, you should be able to succeed in implementing a Guest LAN. Mark Post -Original Message- From: Nix, Robert P. [mailto:Nix.Robert;mayo.edu] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 12:09 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Virtual network topology questions... This has gone completely off track, and in no way resembles or answers my original questions. We're running zVM 4.2, not 4.2. We're on a 9672, not a z-series, we have a single OSA interface, shared with a zOS image, and no option for adding hardware interfaces, and we don't have any money budgeted for the trial, not even the $500 for the true trial from SuSE. Answers that involve any of the things we don't have don't help. Sorry to be blunt, but I was really looking for which way I should be going, within the walls I have around me. The answers have been fairly much the same as Put out your resume, and find a job at a company with a different system... Robert P. Nixinternet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mayo Clinic phone: 507-284-0844 200 1st St. SW page: 507-255-3450 Rochester, MN 55905 In theory, theory and practice are the same, but in practice, theory and practice are different. -Original Message- From: Adam Thornton [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 11:38 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Virtual network topology questions... On Fri, Nov 08, 2002 at 10:57:41AM -0500, Dave Myers wrote: So according to the statements below...I CAN use SUSE SLES7 to play the guest lan game, using QDIO instead of virtual hipersockets? Am I correct in this assumption? Any testimony from someone who has setup guest lans with SUSE SLES7? Tia Dave Myers Yeah, as long as you're running one of the more recent patches that fixes virtual qeth support, it works fine. On a virtual LAN, the only difference is whether you specify it as type QDIO or leave it unset (in the VM LAN definition statment). Then if it's a qdio LAN, you define your virtual NIC to the guest as TYPE QDIO (which really means OSA, since both HiperSockets and OSA are QDIO devices). Virtual OSAs support broadcast (under z/VM 4.3). HiperSockets don't. That's pretty much the difference between them. They use the same driver, but OSA is aliased to interface ethX and HiperSockets to hsiX. Here's something from an SLES-based guest... r2:~ # ifconfig eth2 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:00:00:00:00:00 inet addr:192.168.130.67 Mask:255.255.255.192 inet6 addr: fe80::200:ff:fe00:0/10 Scope:Link UP RUNNING NOARP MULTICAST MTU:1492 Metric:1 RX packets:473155 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:553105 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:100 RX bytes:45294696 (43.1 Mb) TX bytes:161088571 (153.6 Mb) Interrupt:17 eth2:0Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:00:00:00:00:00 inet addr:192.168.130.68 Mask:255.255.255.192 UP RUNNING NOARP MULTICAST MTU:1492 Metric:1 Interrupt:17 hsi0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:00:00:00:00:00 inet addr:192.168.129.4 Mask:255.255.255.0 inet6 addr: fe80::200:ff:fe00:0/10 Scope:Link UP RUNNING NOARP MULTICAST MTU:8192 Metric:1 RX packets:2517010 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:1719082 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:100 RX bytes:1009596522 (962.8 Mb) TX bytes:276571455 (263.7 Mb) Interrupt:11 hsi0:0Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:00:00:00:00:00 inet addr:192.168.129.5 Mask:255.255.255.0 UP RUNNING NOARP MULTICAST MTU:8192 Metric:1 Interrupt:11 hsi1 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:00:00:00:00:00 inet addr:192.168.130.2 Mask:255.255.255.192 inet6 addr: fe80::200:ff:fe00:0/10 Scope:Link UP RUNNING NOARP MULTICAST MTU:8192 Metric:1 RX packets:1660330 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:2378314 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:100 RX bytes:211072990 (201.2 Mb) TX bytes:977121122 (931.8 Mb) Interrupt:14 hsi1:0Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:00:00:00:00:00 inet addr:192.168.130.4 Mask:255.255.255.192 UP RUNNING NOARP MULTICAST MTU:8192 Metric
Re: Virtual network topology questions...
In a message dated 11/8/2002 10:37:37 AM Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Further, there is another option from SuSE. For free, they will send you CDs with their GA code on them. You just don't get any support during the trial. There is? I thought sles7 was all i can get for free? What's this option. Dave
Re: Virtual network topology questions...
This has gone completely off track, and in no way resembles or answers my original questions. Huh? We're running zVM 4.2, not 4.2. OK, you have guest LAN support, just no broadcast support. We're on a 9672, not a z-series, Guest LANs work fine on 9672s. we have a single OSA interface, shared with a zOS image, and no option for adding hardware interfaces, You don't need to add interfaces. and we don't have any money budgeted for the trial, not even the $500 for the true trial from SuSE. Considering that there are other fixes you need to make the rest of your trial viable, then you are unlikely to be able to succeed with your goals if you can't get even the limited support. What part of that is non helpful? Sorry to be blunt, but I was really looking for which way I should be going, within the walls I have around me. The answers have been fairly much the same as Put out your resume, and find a job at a company with a different system... Please look at the responses again. The responses you got are that you are making this unnecessarily difficult for youself when you have other alternatives that are vastly simpler than the one you are using. The support issue is one you're going to have to solve if you want to use any of the commercial products you mentioned in earlier postings; most simply don't work correctly without patches. Sorry if it's not what you wanted to hear, but that's the way it is.
Re: Virtual network topology questions...
http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvtype?LINUX-VM.23045 http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvtype?LINUX-VM.24840 http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvtype?LINUX-VM.25835 Mark Post -Original Message- From: Dave Myers [mailto:dave.myers;twcable.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 12:47 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Virtual network topology questions... In a message dated 11/8/2002 10:37:37 AM Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Further, there is another option from SuSE. For free, they will send you CDs with their GA code on them. You just don't get any support during the trial. There is? I thought sles7 was all i can get for free? What's this option. Dave
Re: Virtual network topology questions...
On Fri, Nov 08, 2002 at 11:09:02AM -0600, Nix, Robert P. wrote: This has gone completely off track, and in no way resembles or answers my original questions. We're running zVM 4.2, not 4.2. We're on a 9672, not a z-series, we have a single OSA interface, shared with a zOS image, and no option for adding hardware interfaces, and we don't have any money budgeted for the trial, not even the $500 for the true trial from SuSE. Answers that involve any of the things we don't have don't help. Then I would suggest you haven't been reading very carefully. Point the First: You do not need any additional hardware or a newer release of VM. You can do guest LANs just fine. Point the Second: If you cannot get anything newer from SuSE, then you will have to build your own kernel. SuSE will not support this kernel, but since SuSE isn't supporting you *anyway*, it doesn't matter. When you get a support contract, then you can get a SuSE-supported kernel that will support HiperSockets. *VIRTUAL* HiperSockets. For which you *DO NOT NEED ANY MORE PHYSICAL HARDWARE THAN WHAT YOU ALREADY HAVE*. Here's how: go get the virgin 2.4.19 kernel sources from kernel.org. Go get the s390-may2002, s390-1-may2002, and timer-1-may2002 patches from IBM Developerworks, and apply them in that order. Also get the qeth driver from there. Build a kernel. Build your modules. Copy the qeth driver somewhere under your modules directory. Run depmod -a. Edit zipl.conf to boot from your new kernel, and run zipl. ReIPL your Linux image--into CMS, if you can. Add a guest LAN to VM. Add a VIRTUAL HiperSocket NIC to your Linux image. Couple B to A. IPL Linux on your guest. Screw around with /etc/chandev.conf until your new virtual OSA works. Clone this image. Change IP address and hostname for each clone. Couple it to the same LAN. You're all done. It didn't cost you a penny. You don't need to fool with a point-to-point routing structure. Adam
