Thanks Alan.
Hans
-Original Message-
From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Alan Altmark
Sent: May 1, 2007 4:21 PM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: Renewing SSL certificate on z/VM 5.2
On Tuesday, 05/01/2007 at 02:27 AST, Hans Rempel <[EMAIL PRO
>This has always puzzled me, as it puts an inherent limit on CPU
capability. I won't take very many "50% capacity improvements" to get to
zero...
I never claimed to be a math whiz, but wouldn't ie be impossible to reach zero
my dividing any number repeately by 50%? Granted, you can end up with
I think that shows up in a different number.
David
-Original Message-
From: The IBM z/VM Operating System on behalf of Rich Greenberg
Sent: Tue 5/1/2007 7:38 PM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: [IBMVM] Storage
On: Tue, May 01, 2007 at 03:45:11PM -0400,David Kreuter Wrote:
} why
On: Tue, May 01, 2007 at 03:45:11PM -0400,David Kreuter Wrote:
} why would a CMS NSS page be locked for I/O? CMS I/O is private to the virtual
machine
Because its being paged in at that moment.
--
Rich Greenberg N Ft Myers, FL, USA richgr atsign panix.com + 1 239 543 1353
Eastern time. N6LR
Since there aren't much details in your problem description ( how big
are these files? how many CMS users generating them? how many CMS
users going to read them? is write access needed beyond the initial
creation of the file?) I can offer one other tried and still in use
method from my installatio
HI Ian,
Before SFS came along ( which we promptly switched to),
we achieved what you appear to want by ( somewhat clumisily) linking
MR ( not MW)to the common disk ( and then accessing it, of course) just
before writing our cms file to it. I we failed to get Write access we
had to sleep for sa
That was my original thought but the message was leading me in the wrong
direction. I suspect that the last time the lpar's were setup, the one
I was on was hard capped at 5%. That isn't very much when there is
already a 2nd level MVS machine sitting there waiting to talk to me. I
was able,
GCS is an NSS
David Kreuter wrote:
why would a CMS NSS page be locked for I/O? CMS I/O is private to the virtual
machine
David
-Original Message-
From: The IBM z/VM Operating System on behalf of barton
Sent: Tue 5/1/2007 4:35 PM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: [IBMVM] Stor
On Tuesday, 05/01/2007 at 03:03 EST, Brian Nielsen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The z/Architecture Principles of Operations describes the information
> returned by the STSI instruction from which the above values are
> obtained. In particular it states (pg 10-117) that "a lower value
> indicates
On Tuesday, 05/01/2007 at 04:02 AST, Jim Bohnsack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Yesterday, for a Q&D D/R test, I was bringing up a 2nd level copy of
> our VM Production system in a VM Test lpar which is pretty seriously
> capped. The system came up but I got the following errors from RACF:
>
> RP
On Tuesday, 05/01/2007 at 02:27 AST, Hans Rempel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> I'm in the process of renewing my SSL certificate on z/VM 5.2 using Sine
Nomine
> SSL product.. Thanks Sine Nomine.
>
> I had the network folks get me a new certificate but when I tried to
store it I
> get "DTCSSL40
On a z/890 I'm running z/VM 5.2 in an LPAR with 2 dedicated IFL's. There
are also 2 CP's (capacity setting 260) running multiple z/OS LPARs.
From z/VM:
q capability
CAPABILITY: PRIMARY 4224 SECONDARY 2416
Ready; T=0.01/0.01 13:20:03
The z/Architecture Principles of Operations describes th
Yesterday, for a Q&D D/R test, I was bringing up a 2nd level copy of
our VM Production system in a VM Test lpar which is pretty seriously
capped. The system came up but I got the following errors from RACF:
RPIMGR012E hh:mm:ss IUCV ERROR WITH CP: REPLY CC=1, RC=9
The RACF msgs manual, which
why would a CMS NSS page be locked for I/O? CMS I/O is private to the virtual
machine
David
-Original Message-
From: The IBM z/VM Operating System on behalf of barton
Sent: Tue 5/1/2007 4:35 PM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: [IBMVM] Storage
Locked is in this case by the syste
Locked is in this case by the system, pages must be locked if I/O is expecting to use them
for data. there has never been an option to manually lock dcss/nss pages. (zmon is
1200/yr, are you sure you can't aford it? it shows all this stuff too)
James M wrote:
I know we won't be buying but
Yes, really!! :-)
And it appears that way on a z/VM 4.3 system as well. I suspect that the
locked information might have gone away as part of the major CP storage
management rewrite done to better support the new 64 bit architecture.
That's just a supposition on my part, though.
DJ
Mike Wa
Really?
q cplevel
z/VM Version 5 Release 1.0, service level 0501 (64-bit)
Generated at 09/26/06 15:26:02 CDT
IPL at 04/29/07 21:14:59 CDT
ind nss all
Filename=GCS Filetype=NSS Class=R Spoolid=0013
Time loaded=1 16:54 Size=14M
Pages: Main=797 Xstore=6 Dasd=2565 Locked=609
Pa
Hi, James.
According to the on line help for the CP INDICATE command:
Locked=---
is included for compatibility only. It is always displayed as dashes.
There may have been a time when NSS pages could be locked somehow, but
that functionality is no longer in z/VM.
DJ
James M wrote:
I
I know we won't be buying but thanks for the info.
Regarding the ind nss all command I'm wondering what the locked means if
locking is not possible?
-James
On 5/1/07, Dave Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi, James.
No, z/VM does not provide a set of native CP/CMS commands that will show
you
I'm in the process of renewing my SSL certificate on z/VM 5.2 using Sine Nomine
SSL product.. Thanks Sine Nomine.
I had the network folks get me a new certificate but when I tried to store it I
get "DTCSSL403E NO certificate request is found for the certificate".
I was reviewing the VM list an
Hi, James.
No, z/VM does not provide a set of native CP/CMS commands that will show
you what you are looking for. You need to invest in a good z/VM monitor,
such as the one Velocity Software offers. If you are doing any serios
z/VM work at all, you'll need it sooner or later..
No, you ca
Hi, Ian.
As far as I know, there is no technical reason why CMS files that are
stored on a real CMS minidisk and being accessed by normal CMS file
system i/o routines, can not be migrated to reside inside the SFS. The
disks themselves might not be suitable to be given over to the SFS
server,
You probably want our ESASTR1 report that shows storage by group: User, DCSS/NSS, VDISK,
System execution, AddressSpace, MDC. and of course it shows the capture ratio, typically
99%, which means we know exactly where storage whent. other reports break down user
storage, dcss/nss storage, vdisk
I'm told I can't have it for these (whole pack) volumes. I'm not sure of the
reasons. (WAG: Are there old technology disks that can't be converted to
SFS?)
I not happy sending via the reader either: the system here is configured to
only support 100 reader files. If the service machine died, or
z/VM 5.2
Is there a way to see how storage is being used?
i.e. at any point in time who is using how much storage?
I can see this for each individual user via ind user.
I can see total via q stor
I can see trace via q traceframes
but I don't see one command that "puts it all together"
How do
On Tuesday, 05/01/2007 at 06:00 CET, "Ian S. Worthington"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That's interesting, but conflicts with what some other folks have said
here
> earlier.
>
> We are under CMS, and I don't want to do simultaneous update to a single
file,
> just allow several service machine t
Actually, we solved this problem - many users wanting to write CMS
files to the same disk - a long time ago by switching to a process
that sent the files to the reader of a service machine that does
nothing but disk load (yes it was that long ago) - or receive - the
files onto the mindisk, which o
Yes, the software that uses such a file must protect against collisions.
That is apparently the job of the ISPF service machine in this
environment. Your environment is quite the opposite. The writing of new
files will indeed not work with MW disks.
Why can you not use SFS?
Regards,
Richard Schu
Because of the structure of the CMS file system, what you want to do is
almost guaranteed to corrupt the disk and result in unreadable files. Why
don't you have the machines write the files locally, then send them to a
service machine that owns the common disk and writes the files to it? No
need
Thanks to all who responded -- looks like V/Seg-Plus should be the first thing
we investigate.
i
That's interesting, but conflicts with what some other folks have said here
earlier.
We are under CMS, and I don't want to do simultaneous update to a single file,
just allow several service machine to write their output files to single
location, which requires a mw-tolerant directory.
Apparently
There is a very big one at this shop that is mode 6, and has been shared
for the 9+ years that I have been here and, I think, about 6 years
before that. With mode 6, you can update in place so long as you do not
change the record length of an existing record. We have a source control
system that us
> Mode 6 files can be shared so long as the software takes
> care not to have record collisions. ISPF handles sharing
> its fake MACLIBs that way under CMS.
I don't think this is the case. None of our ISPF MACLIB's
are file mode 6.
I was under the impression that ISPF handles sharing by forcing
Mode 6 files can be shared so long as the software takes care not to
have record collisions. ISPF handles sharing its fake MACLIBs that way
under CMS.
TPF in what is known as a Loosely Coupled configuration handles MW
minidisks quite well.
Regards,
Richard Schuh
-Original Message-
Fro
Here is the actual page.
http://www-03.ibm.com/servers/eserver/zseries/zvse/products/utilities.html#v
samvm
But you don't have to track it down, by clicking 'more info' at the bottom
of the page we go to another page that tells us how great VSE/VM/VSAM is
along with a BIG note saying it has been w
On Tuesday, 05/01/2007 at 08:39 EST, "Huegel, Thomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> It does seem odd though. z/VSE 4.1 went GA on March 16, 2007.
> Is IBM making available an unsupported product(feature) from the get go?
> Or are the VSE folks supporting it?
> Or do the VSE and VM folks NOT tal
It does seem odd though. z/VSE 4.1 went GA on March 16, 2007.
Is IBM making available an unsupported product(feature) from the get go?
Or are the VSE folks supporting it?
Or do the VSE and VM folks NOT talk with each other?
Still confused.
-Original Message-
From: The IBM z/VM Operating S
On Tuesday, 05/01/2007 at 08:12 EST, "Huegel, Thomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> I am getting confused (not excatally a news flash) but, here is an
extract from
> Z/VSE 4.1 documentation.
>
> VSE/VSAM for VM Version 6 Release 1 is extracted from VSE/ESA Central
Functions
> Version 6 Releas
I am getting confused (not excatally a news flash) but, here is an extract
from Z/VSE 4.1 documentation.
VSE/VSAM for VM Version 6 Release 1 is extracted from VSE/ESA Central
Functions Version 6 Release 1, which is a base program of VSE/ESA Version 2
Release 1. Therefore, a customer who has licens
XSF is a facility that can provide any authorized CMS user with a
full-screen list of the files in any z/VM reader, print, or punch queue.
>From this display, the user can examine, purge, or show the tag of a file
simply by pressing a PF key. Even open files can be viewed, enabling the
review of ac
Ian,
Again ... as both Phil and Shimon have indicated in more detail ... you
should be able to do what you want with V/Seg-Plus.
And, again, because you license CA's VM:Spool you also have a license
for CA's V/Seg-Plus which is a "feature" of CA's VM:Spool.
JR (Steven) Imler
CA
Senior Software
Ian,
If you license CA's VM:Spool ... you also get CA's V/SegPlus the "free
feature" of VM:Spool. It has a much more user friendly adaptable
interface for browsing spool files, either open or closed. As you
suggest, if you choose to write your own interface, it has routines that
can be called fr
There was a session discussion of this at Share Baltimore but I'm not sure
of the status. From that session I understood that a wiki was going to be
implemented.
Mary Anne
On 5/1/07, Shimon Lebowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This subject (the VM Community Redbook) has not
been mentioned here f
This subject (the VM Community Redbook) has not
been mentioned here for several months, but it was
suddenly brought to my mind when I visited the IBM
Redbook site yesterday.
They have a WIKI project!
The thought that popped into my head was:
wouldn't a wiki be great for the VM community
docume
On 1 May 2007 at 5:34, Phil Smith III wrote:
> "Ian S. Worthington" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
=== snip ===
> >?Also we'd rather like to be able to have a programming interface
> >which can read the spool files, which is another thing vm:spool
> >doesn't seem able to do.
>
> >Is anyone aware of a
"Ian S. Worthington" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>CA's VM:Spool product allows us to "peek" spool files in the readers of
>other virtual machines.
>Unfortunately its display seems bound to traditional screen sizes:
>anything else gives partial screens, which is a problem we'd like to fix.
>?Also
On 5/1/07, Alan Altmark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If you want to share files in CMS, use the Shared File System.
Or you could serve the mini disk through NFS and access it via the NFS
client for CMS. I think that's a neat approach to have multiple
writers on a mini disk.
Rob
My apologies for omitting info from the description.
As I wrote, and Alan answered, last month:
> > Our VM system is still connected to the LAN
> > via an ESCON attached 2216.
> >
Correction: the external IP of the 2216 is 10.0.0.9,
not as previously stated.
> > ++
> > || 10.0.0.9
48 matches
Mail list logo
