On Friday, 08/24/2007 at 06:21 EDT, Rob van der Heij [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
My major concern is auditing. While I trust that the implementation
will take care of auditing in the ESM, it makes it much harder to see
who has been messing with it. Normally when a user tells his server
On Friday, 08/24/2007 at 03:01 EDT, O'Brien, Dennis L
Dennis.L.O'[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Unless things have changed, each OSA triplet has to start on an even
real
address, but the real addresses don't have to be consecutive.
Things changed quite a while ago. The address can start on even
On 8/26/07, Alan Altmark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Things changed quite a while ago. The address can start on even or odd.
Device drivers on older systems may still reflect the original
start-with-even requirement.
And I recall at one point the driver would tolerate any order, but
expected an
On 8/26/07, Alan Altmark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Command auditing is already provided by ESMs. Nothing would change in
that respect.
It's different type of auditing, with different audience. When I would
be paged in the middle of the night, I could search the operator
console for smoking
Of course, the problem is independent of the operating system you want
to install. The problem is not the standard label written on the tape
but barcode label on the cartridge. The library does not check the
written magnetic SL on the tape when importing it. In my case the
customer has opened
Bundle RACF??? That might be a blow to the users of VM:Secure and
other
ESMs.
Is it? Let's think about that:
1) The major difference between RACF and the alternatives is that all of
the alternatives are easier to use, administer, operate and understand.
How does bundling RACF change that?
Then you can start on command operand authorization...8-)
Oh no... you gave Chucky a new idea. We'll blame you for all that
comes out of this.
Oh, we've been chatting about this one for a long, long time...he's long
since corrupted. The problem is finding a way to juggle priorities to
let him
Is this funny or what!I just brought up zVM 5.3 from 5.1Defining a Vdisk as
follows fails:CP DEFINE VFB-512 AS 0153 BLK 20and I getHCPLNM091E DASD
0153 not defined; vdisk space not availableBut CP DEFINE VFB-512 AS 0153 BLK
19does not fail. My user Vdisk limit was 75 blocks and
Look for this entry in SYSTEM CONFIG
Vdisk Userlim 144000 blocks /* Maximum vdisk allowed per user */
Rick
Richard R. Bourgeois
Virtual Software Systems, Inc.
7715 Browns Bridge Rd
Gainesville, GA 30506
770-781-3200
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_
From: The IBM z/VM Operating
Sorry I didnt see the whole note because it was in a preview window. What
do you see when you query the limits?
q vdisk syslim
VDISK SYSTEM LIMIT IS 10817616 BLK, 55000 BLK IN USE
Ready; T=0.01/0.01 23:43:57
10 matches
Mail list logo
