Title: Message
We IPL
after 03:00.
-Original Message-From: The IBM z/VM
Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kreiter,
ChuckSent: Monday, March 27, 2006 3:55 PMTo:
IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDUSubject: Time Change
Being new to z/VM, I was wondering what
What other vendor software?
-Original Message-
From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Schuh, Richard
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2006 4:22 PM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: Update on z/VM 5.2.0 problem
Then this is strictly a DIAG 10 problem? If
Actually,
the timestamp I have is a 12 character value, not a 9-char one - I may be
incredibly thick but how am I going to convert it using a 9-char converte
r,
please?
Thanks.
Aurora
snip
individually. We have a wide variety
of z/OS, Linux and CMS based apps and
only a couple of ancient ones have an issue (PROP gets cranky).
Springing
/snip
Why would PROP get cranky? PROP
doesn't wake up on timed events, but on messages. If there is any
problem with PROP, it would probably
I would like extract a USER report every two minutes Im not familiar with the
VM performance toolkit but from my reading I created the SETTINGS file below. I
have a MONWRITE disk file that spans multiple days. I'm using the PERFKIT BATCH
command. Is there a better way of getting the 2 minute
Title: Message
I have
a note from 1996 that reads:
You
should also recycle any service machines that aretime dependent that were
logged on during the change,specifically the VM:Schedule service machine and
anyRSCS machine running the event manager (RSCS 3.1.0).All Shared File
System SVMs
Hello Everyone,
I have been following this thread with great interest.
We are currently on z/VM 4.3
We are (like most everyone else) 24/7 and can not afford any
known problems/errors that could/may happen.
Is this Z/VM 5.2.0 problem associated with a particular
That's very interesting Alan. Reading the PVM doc gave me the impression
that PVM used distributed IUCV as the method for actually sending the
message data
DJ
Alan Altmark wrote:
On Thursday, 03/23/2006 at 08:07 CST, Dave Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
It's my understanding that all
On Tuesday, 03/28/2006 at 10:25 CST, Dave Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
That's very interesting Alan. Reading the PVM doc gave me the impression
that PVM used distributed IUCV as the method for actually sending the
message data
You can use IUCV with PVM and construct your IUCV messages
On Tuesday, 03/28/2006 at 11:29 EST, Edward M. Martin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am leaning toward the 5.1 upgrade. With the 5.2 at second
level.
Now comes the MP3000 to z/xxx box as they have not told me which one
yet.
We are getting prices on everything.
The hospital area is an
Hello David, Alan, and others,
The overall problem is getting from z/4.3 on the MP3000 to
At Z/800/890/900/990 with out any user interruption.
Ok I have 20 minutes at midnight.
I am thinking do z/VM 4.3 to z/VM 4.4 upgrade. Now I should be
able to run on whatever box
On Tuesday, 03/28/2006 at 12:06 EST, Edward M. Martin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But I could upgrade to z/VM 4.4 on the MP3000, get over to the
z/xxx box and then upgrade to z/VM 5.1. Right?
Or z/VM 5.2.
Right. A lot depends on exactly which box you get. z/VM 4.3 supports
z800/z900. z/VM
We are consolidating two data centers. Both data centers run ZVM and
VSE/ESA. I happen to be at the home data center with the hardware and
the host zvm system.
The data center being relocated is keeping its network infrastructure,
its operator staff, a few tape drives, and its users where they
So you will end up with 3rd level VSE under 2nd level zvm under 1st
level zvm? And the 3rd level is considered production? Although there
have been improvements in this area you may want to carefully look at
the 3rd level production VSE performance. What zvm version? What type of
box? You
Jim,
The best answer I can give is, It depends. We have two test z/VM
systems running under our 1st level z/VM which is running in an LPAR and
the response on them is as good as on the 1st level system. However,
these are lightly loaded and neither 1st nor 2nd level have paging
constraints.
Maybe not on the right path. There may always be better paths. But it
is one that has been travelled.
Tom Duerbusch
THD Consulting
(BTW, watch for the pot hole on your right, just after the big tree)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 3/28/2006 12:42 PM
Hello Tom,
Sound like the basic plan I have
I used spxtape DUMP tape from a z/VM 3.1 system. During my testing I found out
even files dumped from spxtape z/VM 5.2 caused the same problem. IBM ask me to
test a fix which resolved the problem. An official fix should be out soon.
Hans
On 3/22/06, Mike Walter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I think I heard at the SHARE session on Safe Software's relatively cheapSafe DR product that they had to modify DDR to play nicely at all.
If you don't want to pay the higher price for all the capabilities of:CA's VM:Backup(
We are going to be upgrading from a z800 to a z890. We are
running z/VM 4.4 and I understand that this is the minimum
level of VM supported on the z890. So we are good there. My
question is more for the version of SAPL. I believe it is
several releases behind our 4.4 system. Is there an issue
with
Because of the growing pains with 5.2, is support for z/VM 4.4 going
to be extended beyond 9/06?
Thanks,
Alyce
-Original Message-
From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Jim Vincent
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 11:00 AM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
I can't/won't speak for IBM but I doubt it. If you can upgrade and are
thinking of V5, V5.1 is very stable and has done us well since we had it.
z/VM 5.2 is really good and especially useful for the 2G storage relief.
Chances are you will be okay with V5.2 - you just have to keep in mind it
is
On Tuesday, 03/28/2006 at 11:05 PST, Austin, Alyce (CIV)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Because of the growing pains with 5.2, is support for z/VM 4.4 going
to be extended beyond 9/06?
Alyce, what you aren't hearing about are all the sites that have z/VM 5.2
running with *no* problems; as stable as
Yes, there are a *few* sites that are having
stability problems,
Uh huh. And they're the whiney
sites. That's right -- you know who you are!! :-)
Mike (having a Chuckie moment)
Walter
Hewitt Associates
The opinions expressed herein are mine
alone, not my employer's.
The IBM z/VM Operating
We've only had 1 problem to date on our very busy (overloaded :) z9-109
2 engine, 80 linux machine and we've had 5.2.0 there since 1/21.
We had MPROUTE hang last week. It was due to *something* in our network
which caused our MTU to change and MPROUTE to hang. Workaround fix
(before PK20644
I've learned to never be afraid to admit ignorance and ask questions of
those who are better informed, so here goes...
I'm trying to get RPCGEN to build the necessary hooks for the System
Management API on z/VM 5.1. Both before and after applying the 5104
RSU, things fail mid-way through the
On Tuesday, 03/28/2006 at 04:05 CST, Mike Walter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Yes, there are a *few* sites that are having stability problems,
Uh huh. And they're the whiney sites. That's right -- you know who
you are!!
:-)
I wondered where the ol' Chuckster has been. Now I know.
We have to
be whiney demanding. Having too many
fall back events hurts our job stability, which is infinitely more critical
than the stability of the system.
Regards,
Richard Schuh
-Original
Message-
From: The IBM z/VM Operating
System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On
Behalf Of
On Tuesday, 03/28/2006 at 04:16 CST, Daniel P. Martin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm trying to get RPCGEN to build the necessary hooks for the System
Management API on z/VM 5.1. Both before and after applying the 5104
RSU, things fail mid-way through the process. If I'm missing something
Light bulb... Now there's an idea...
OK, maybe this is a better question: I didn't find any obvious
indication as to required LE levels and/or required loadlib / txtlib
settings for rpcgen. I can't be the only person to have tried this ;-)
and the system in question is a plain, vanilla,
Geeezztake a day off and the discussion gets completely out of control!
First, no one was whining as far as I can tell. We all have pretty high
expectations of VM now, and more often than not, it meets them.
I'm not complaining about z/VM 5.2.0 in any way. We signed up for the early
30 matches
Mail list logo
