On 7/27/06, Tom Cluster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
apparently some bug in the password passing routine.
From what I remember it does not use the CMS tokenizer but has its
own, and requires blanks around the opening parenthesis to ensure
parsing.
Rob
Title: Performance under z/VM 5.1
All:
One of our CPUs (z800 box) was recently set up with z/VM 5.1, not in LPAR mode. The trouble is that we run several 2nd-level VMs and the performance on that box has been miserable (some of the VSE machines had to be moved off, due to performance
Title: Message
Why
move devices? I hope you are using ESCON connections. Just use EMIF to define
all the devices to all LPARs. That's what I do here. We share all our disk and
tape devices. Some ESCON devices cannot be EMIF'ed such as 2074 controllers (we
use a Visara for our consoles and
And, yes, applications
get redesigned Just Because. If you're writing 3270 apps, you're,
like,
in Nowhereville, man. OTOH, if you've got mousable OK and CANCEL,
with a
pulldown and a radio button, you're totally rad.
Sounds like a mission for CUA2001...
Jim Bohnsack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On this posting, I am in total agreement with Mike. I think that I have
Doherty's paper in an old issue of the IBM Systems Journal somewhere. By
the way it was Ralph Doherty (and I'm not sure that Doherty is the correct
spelling).
No, *Walt* Doherty.
On Wednesday, 07/26/2006 at 06:14 MST, Ranga Nathan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I am told that to go from z/VM v5.1 to v5.2, one would have to get the
v5.2 and install from scratch. Is this so?
If this is the case, how would I preserve the user directory and other
files?
If you maintained your
Hi, David.
I have found that is such situations (VSE under VM under VM), having a
very good performance monitoring and analysis package can make your life
(and the performance of your external guest systems) much better.
DJ
Wakser, David wrote:
John:
The answer is very simple:
Title: SMTP using Reverse DNS lookup
I have a customer sending out more and more email notifications to their clients from our VM system, which does not have an entry in the Internet DNS system.
The user is currently using the SENDFILE command with the SMTP option.
The email is rejected
Title: RE: Performance under z/VM 5.1
Dave:
But we are dealing with z/VM 5.1 - which has removed the V=R capability!
David Wakser
-Original Message-
From: Dave Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, July 28, 2006 12:08 PM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re:
On Jul 28, 2006, at 7:30 AM, Phil Smith III wrote:
Did anyone ever manage to answer that MENUEXEC is part of XMENU,
which CA now owns, having bought it with Sterling, who bought it
from Relay, which was VM Systems Group, who bought it from Kolinar?
There was an old woman who swallowed a...
On Jul 28, 2006, at 8:35 AM, Davis, Larry wrote:
I have a customer sending out more and more email notifications to
their clients from our VM system, which does not have an entry in
the Internet DNS system.
The user is currently using the SENDFILE command with the SMTP option.
The email is
Title: RE: Performance under z/VM 5.1
Probably yes. Itll cost you all
kinds of annoyance and assorted PITAs from an operational standpoint, but for
your constraints, it probably will run better.
David Boyes
Sine Nomine Associates
:
Yes, I know the
problem started with z/VM
Yup, you've got a bad match between your h/w and your s/w levels.
DJ
Wakser, David wrote:
Dave:
But we are dealing with z/VM 5.1 - which has removed the V=R
capability!
David Wakser
-Original Message-
From: Dave Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 28, 2006
Title: RE: Performance under z/VM 5.1
Dave:
In spite of the bad match (which I warned them about), will moving the 2nd-level VM systems (and their 3rd-level VSE machines) to separate LPARs compensate? Or should we downlevel the VM if we cannot upgrade the CPU?
David Wakser
On Thu, 6 May 2004 10:19:11 -0400, Alan Altmark [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I need to point out that h/w assist for SIE is *never* lost, no matter h
ow
many levels deep you are. VSIE is one of the most fascinating parts of
CP. When an n-th level guest issues a SIE instruction, there is no
On Friday, 07/28/2006 at 01:32 EST, Brian Nielsen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1) SIE breaks are going to happen for dedicated devices because of the
loss of I/O assist (requiring the higher level CP to convert the virtual
addresses to real addresses).
A SIE break will occur for all Start
On Friday, 07/28/2006 at 11:47 AST, Wakser, David
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You have asked the correct question, since I am pretty certain that
the SIE
is the problem (older VMs had 3, and that was reduced). Any answers to
the
question: will replacing a single LPAR running z/VM (and 2nd
Title: RE: Performance under z/VM 5.1
Alan:
Thanks for your input, but in re-reading my post, I phrased it incorrectly; the question (which I think you really answered in the affirmative) was: will placing the present 2nd-level VMs (and their current 3rd-level guests) in a separate LPAR
On Fri, 28 Jul 2006, Dave Jones wrote:
According to IBM, both the z800 and the z900 will tun in basic as well
as LPAR mode. They are the last models of the zSeries to support both,
the z890, z990, and z9 run in LPAR mode only.
basic ... interesting concept.
Sounds like a neat idea. Must be
Well, I just did a test. Remember, we have no ESM. I logged on as a
user who does not have LNKNOPAS. I issued a LINK command to Maint's
191 with the wrong pw 5 times, and I got this message. But when I
gave it the correct password on the 6th try it worked.
I suppose one way to get around
If your channels are ESCON/FICON you simply share you DASD/TAPE amongst all
the LPARs. If you have any parallel channels, then you put each LPAR that
would need them in an Eligible list in the IOCP. Then you can
Reconfigure the channel from one LPAR to another. It's basically a
logical move of
21 matches
Mail list logo
