I don't see a reason directly. But, why don't you use ADDRESS COMMAND in
your exec?
2007/10/10, Schuh, Richard [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I have a very simple exec that has a pipe that, reduced to its simplest
form, looks like this:
/* TEST EXEC */
ipaserver =
'IPSERV'
The last Z/VM to run on that box is 4.4. We are currently running both
MP3000 and z/VM 4.4
Jim Dodds
Systems Programmer
Kentucky State University
400 East Main Street
Frankfort, Ky 40601
502 597 6114
-Original Message-
From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
All:
I have the need to define a virtual CTC between a first-level
zVM machine and a 2nd-level zVM machine. This is in order to activate
ISLINK between those two machines.
Since the virtual CTCs need to belong to the z/VM system I
am at a loss as to how to do this. Can anyone
In the directory for your 2nd level guest you would have:
SPECIAL 0D90 FCTC 1stlevelSVM
For your other 1st level SVM:
SPECIAL 0F11 FCTC 2ndlevelguestid
The on both issue a COUPLE command because you may not know which is
second:
CP COUPLE 0D90 1stlevelSVM 0F11
And
I've only worked with other people who knew something about switches,
but
from what I saw done, every port on every switch is configurable as to
what IP address and subnet it is in. If there are other switches with
unused ports, they can be reworked to be what you need them to be. If
your
David,
Add this statement to your 2nd level system USER DIRECTORY entry.
SPECIAL 100 CTCA
then you will be able to define the VCTCA and couple to it
Bill Munson
VM System Programmer
Office of Information Technology
State of New Jersey
(609) 984-4065
President MVMUA
On Wednesday, 10/10/2007 at 09:05 EDT, Dodds, Jim [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
The last Z/VM to run on that box is 4.4. We are currently running both
MP3000 and z/VM 4.4
As long as you already have z/VM V3 or V4 in-house, everything's ok. If
the MP3000 represents a net increase to your z/VM
Jim:
I think you misunderstood my question: the zVM system must
own one side of the CTC - otherwise an ACTIVATE ISLINK cannot succeed.
There is no SVM involved. Defining the side belonging to the guest
machine is the piece that I know; defining the side for the system is
the part I cannot
Tha last z/VM that would run on that box was 2.4 or perhaps 3.1,
neither
of which IBM still sells.
For a MP3000, z/VM 4.4. It was a G5 machine if you had up to date ucode.
The P390 only ran up to ESA 2.4, unless you had the PCI version, which
would run 3.1 (very, very slowly).
No, but if the machines are close to each other, an ESCON CTC can be used.
Wakser, David wrote:
As a further complication, we also need to use a virtual CTC
between two VMs running on different processors - is that doable?
David Wakser
--
Rich Smrcina
VM Assist, Inc.
Phone:
Thanks for the clarification.
No, VCTCs are within the same processor. Across processors you need
real CTCs.
-Original Message-
From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Wakser, David
Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 9:55 AM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
On Tuesday, 10/09/2007 at 08:58 EDT, Hans Rempel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Thanks Mark. I think that is what a VLAN is all about. Using a switch
(real
or virtual) to setup different ports for different subnet addresses. I
just
wanted to be sure that I'm not missing something before talking to
Mark:
That is what I was afraid of - that first level needed a REAL
CTC. Thanks for the confirmation.
David Wakser
-Original Message-
From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Mark Wheeler
Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 10:01 AM
To:
The 1st level system (CP) needs to use a real CTC device, so the 2nd level
system will need to have another real CTC device attached to it, capable of
connecting (via IOCP defs) to the first. Or wo a third system in your CS
collection which itself has an ISLINK to the first.
Mark L. Wheeler
IT
My customer is interested to get a copy of
L61 Sparda Bank experience with Linux on z/VM, WebSphere, and
Tivoli Storage Manager
(Oliver Boethinger, Sparda Bank)
that was given in the Tech Conf in Munich. They had one or more
participants but on the CD they received with the presentations this
Yes, that was what I thought. But I received an answer from someone at
IBM (regarding a DITTO problem between nodes) that indicated that a
virtual CTC would work. I believe that person must have been mistaken,
because I cannot see how! So, I approached the list for verification!
Thanks, Robert,
Can you use TSAF for what you want to do?I've used that to shared
SFS between 1st and 2nd level without a real CTC, only virtual.
Marcy Cortes
This message may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If
you are not the addressee or authorized to receive this for the
addressee,
Marcy:
Unless I am mistaken, TSAF requires VTAM - which is not running
in the 2nd-level VM.
David Wakser
-Original Message-
From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Marcy Cortes
Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 11:04 AM
To:
Yes, that was what I thought. But I received an answer from someone at
IBM (regarding a DITTO problem between nodes) that indicated that a
virtual CTC would work. I believe that person must have been mistaken,
because I cannot see how! So, I approached the list for verification!
At one point
AVS does, but TSAF does not.
Marcy Cortes
This message may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If
you are not the addressee or authorized to receive this for the
addressee, you must not use, copy, disclose, or take any action based on
this message or any information herein. If
I do in the non-example version. I did not include it in the example for
reasons of brevity.
Regards,
Richard Schuh
From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kris
Buelens
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2007 11:56 PM
To:
Marcy got it right. Use TSAF.
Regards,
Richard Schuh
-Original Message-
From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Wakser, David
Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 8:30 AM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: Defining virtual CTCAs
David:
In my haste at the end of a long day, I left one key piece of information out -
when connected, the EXEC works as expected; it only fails if running in a
disconnected machine. Before you ask, whether there is or is not a SECUSER for
the disconnected machine is irrelevant, both cases fail.
In theory, I see no reason why TCP couldn't be the medium, but
IUCV doesn't support that type of connection.
Yeah, then AVS or TSAF are probably your only other options. There's a
nice market niche there for someone to create an IP-based 3088-like
device. It'd be hard, but very, very
Chuckie seemed intrigued by the idea of ISFC over TCP/IP when I
suggested it in this list some time ago.
Regards,
Richard Schuh
-Original Message-
From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of David Boyes
Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 9:20 AM
To:
It certainly would have made THIS project simpler!
David Wakser
-Original Message-
From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Schuh, Richard
Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 12:28 PM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: Defining virtual CTCAs
Chuckie
On Wednesday, 10/10/2007 at 09:34 EDT, Wakser, David
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have the need to define a virtual CTC between a first-level
zVM machine and a 2nd-level zVM machine. This is in order to activate
ISLINK between those two machines.
Since the virtual CTCs need to belong to the
Thanks, Alan. Yes, it is possible they were thinking of TSAF, which is
not running in all of the VMs involved. Hence, I used ISFC.
David Wakser
-Original Message-
From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Alan Altmark
Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Now I hate to say that there *must* be a big difference if there is a
secondary machine for the user running the EXEC.
As you code CP SET MSG IUCV, I guess(?) the server answers with a MSG. When
you then know that a message sent to a disconnected user that has a
secondary user simply bypasses
I have found a combination that seems to work:
1. Change the communication back to the client machine from MSG to SMSG.
2. Change the SET MSG IUCV to SET SMSG IUCV in the client.
3. Change PIPE starmsg *MSGALL to PIPE starmsg *MSG, also in the client.
Regards,
Richard
In reviewing the RACF/VM pubs it appears that the racf report writer is
functionally stabilized and is not recommended for use and the only other
option is to post process the racf data.
Are there any racf exception report tools available?
Thanks
Lionel B. Dyck, Consultant/Specialist
Welcome to the world of the poor shoemaker's skinny stepchild.
The RLPF package on the VM Download page
(http://www.vm.ibm.com/download) provides a lot of useful tools to
assuage the pain of running RACF. That's probably the best easily
accessible tool available. And it helps you actually use
I will look at the RLPF package - thanks.
Is there any reporting program out there that will take the racf/vm data
and generate a report of exceptions and violations?
Thanks
From:
David Boyes [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To:
IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Date:
10/10/2007 12:41 PM
Subject:
Re: RACF/VM
Yes indeed, something I didn't notice in your code: *MSGALL intercepts all
console traffic that is *not* set to IUCV. So, if you issue CPSET MSG IUCV,
*MSGALL does not intercept MSG, but it does intercept CP and VM console
IO. *MSGALL was created for CMS Fullscreen, it intercepts everything
On Wednesday, 10/10/2007 at 02:58 EDT, Lionel B. Dyck
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In reviewing the RACF/VM pubs it appears that the racf report writer is
functionally stabilized and is not recommended for use and the only
other
option is to post process the racf data.
Are there any racf
Alan - thanks - that does help.
btw. are the racf/vm smf records using the same mapping as the z/os racf
smf records?
Lionel B. Dyck, Consultant/Specialist
From:
Alan Altmark [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To:
IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Date:
10/10/2007 02:45 PM
Subject:
Re: RACF/VM Exception Reporting for
36 matches
Mail list logo
