My searches haven't found anything that answers this question, and perhap
s
only Alan will know the answer, so here goes:
Does Standalone DDR (directly in an LPAR, not under z/VM) do a hardware
assign release for the 3590 tape drive addresses it uses?
I'm thinking ahead to an upcoming DR
On Monday, 04/05/2010 at 01:19 EDT, Brian Nielsen bniel...@sco.idaho.gov
wrote:
Does Standalone DDR (directly in an LPAR, not under z/VM) do a hardware
assign release for the 3590 tape drive addresses it uses?
Yes. When running standalone, drives are assigned on first use and
unassigned at
Gabe, you know how much I hate getting pulled into these discussions. :-)
First, I totally agree that both the zJournal and IBM's S.M. provide a lot
of information and support for the mainframe. I also appreciate how
difficult it is to get customers to discuss their efforts due to
On Mon, 5 Apr 2010 14:01:32 -0400, Alan Altmark alan_altm...@us.ibm.com
wrote:
On Monday, 04/05/2010 at 01:19 EDT, Brian Nielsen bniel...@sco.idaho.go
V
wrote:
Does Standalone DDR (directly in an LPAR, not under z/VM) do a hardwar
e
assign release for the 3590 tape drive addresses it uses?
No argument here. One reason it is so tough is that some shops would require
that every word pass through a legal department filter. His makes the real
burden one of distinguishing between dragons and windmills.
Regards,
Richard Schuh
-Original Message-
From: The IBM z/VM
Hi
I have a bit of a delima. We do a lot of talking from our z/OS system
over to our z/VM z/Linux systems via HiperSockets. We have a request for
about 20 more z/Linux guests all of which will have two HiperSockets
CHPIDs (3 UCBS per guest off of the different CHPIDS). The issue is that
I
Create a Linux guest as a L2 bridge between a VSWITCH and the hipersocket. Only
one HS UCB used, and you still get separation. You can use VLANs to separate
traffic.
David,
Are there any performance implications with doing it this way as opposed
to HiperSocket directly to each guest?
Thank You,
Terry Martin
Lockheed Martin - Citic
z/OS and z/VM Performance Tuning and Operating Systems Support
Office - 443 348-2102
Cell - 443 632-4191
From:
Why not put the z/Linux systems on a VSWITCH with the z/OS system? No more UCB
problems. One set of UCBs to the VSWITCH in each guest. Oh, z/OS is not under
z/VM. Well, VSWITCH the z/Linux systems along with the z/VM TCPIP stack, then
hipersocket the z/VM TCPIP stack with z/OS. I'm not too
Are there any performance implications with doing it this way as opposed to
HiperSocket directly to each guest?
Yes - I'll leave it to others to quantify it exactly, but it will use a
non-zero amount of 390 CPU to do the packet forwarding between interfaces.
Since there is no external
On Monday, 04/05/2010 at 03:55 EDT, Martin, Terry R. (CMS/CTR) (CTR)
terry.mar...@cms.hhs.gov wrote:
I have a bit of a delima. We do a lot of talking from our z/OS system
over to
our z/VM z/Linux systems via HiperSockets. We have a request for about
20 more
z/Linux guests all of which will
-Original Message-
From: The IBM z/VM Operating System
[mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Alan Altmark
Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 3:25 PM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: HiperSocket UCBs
snip
You have
- 16 HiperSocket chpids available
- 64 control units
On Monday, 04/05/2010 at 04:24 EDT, David Boyes dbo...@sinenomine.net
wrote:
You?re probably on a z10, so here?s another idea ? try defining a L2
VSWITCH
using a hipersocket device ? I faintly remember reading somewhere that
hipersockets got L2 capabilities at some point. I don?t know if
Not sure about using it with z/OS -- but wonder if a 'disconnected' OSA
could be shared across the LPARs? We went this route to provide a 'backup
network' across several z/VM LPARs.. the advantage over hipersockets
being:
- Less management of UCB's (just connect to the vswitch)
- Overhead
-Original Message-
From: The IBM z/VM Operating System
[mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Alan Altmark
Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 3:29 PM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: HiperSocket UCBs
snip
The VSWITCH does not support attachment of HiperSockets.
Alan
The VSWITCH does not support attachment of HiperSockets.
You should fix that. Where's my requirement pad? 8-)
-- d b
Hi, Terry.
You might want to take a look at the SHARE presentation Sharing the
Wealth Using Vlans on Vswitch. It discusses how to set up VSWITCH and
hipersockets configuration similar to what you are describing.
If you can't snag a copy, I can send it to you.
Have a good one.
On
On Monday, 04/05/2010 at 04:35 EDT, McKown, John
john.mck...@healthmarkets.com wrote:
So you'd need a router machine to talk between the hipersocket to z/OS
and
the VSWITCH, right?
Yes, which undoes all the performance benefit of HiperSockets by funneling
all the traffic through a single
Dave,
If have a copy that would great!
Thank You,
Terry Martin
Lockheed Martin - Citic
z/OS and z/VM Performance Tuning and Operating Systems Support
Office - 443 348-2102
Cell - 443 632-4191
-Original Message-
From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On
Yes this is correct Probably running into a limitation on the number of
UCBs in a single z/OS LPAR.
Thank You,
Terry Martin
Lockheed Martin - Citic
z/OS and z/VM Performance Tuning and Operating Systems Support
Office - 443 348-2102
Cell - 443 632-4191
-Original Message-
From: The IBM
Well we have to all remember that z/VM, z/OS and the like
are all niche markets.
I love to go the MVMUG (NYC area) and hear IBM people tell
us about the wonderful things that z/VM is doing and what it will do in the
future, but we all have to keep in mind that relatively speaking
It is not a z/OS problem it is that I am running out of UCBs on the
HiperSockets CHPID on an individual LPAR.
Thank You,
Terry Martin
Lockheed Martin - Citic
z/OS and z/VM Performance Tuning and Operating Systems Support
Office - 443 348-2102
Cell - 443 632-4191
-Original Message-
-Original Message-
From: The IBM z/VM Operating System
[mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Alan Altmark
Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 3:48 PM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: HiperSocket UCBs
On Monday, 04/05/2010 at 04:35 EDT, McKown, John
On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 10:47 PM, Alan Altmark alan_altm...@us.ibm.com wrote:
On Monday, 04/05/2010 at 04:35 EDT, McKown, John
john.mck...@healthmarkets.com wrote:
So you'd need a router machine to talk between the hipersocket to z/OS
and
the VSWITCH, right?
Yes, which undoes all the
On 4/5/2010 at 04:51 PM, Martin, Terry R. (CMS/CTR) (CTR)
terry.mar...@cms.hhs.gov wrote:
Yes this is correct Probably running into a limitation on the number of
UCBs in a single z/OS LPAR.
If you're thinking you need to define a new HiperSocket triplet to z/OS for
each Linux guest added to
Sorry to be late on this but Mikethis one is a keeper. Thanks for the
bits...
--- On Fri, 3/5/10, Mike Walter mike.wal...@hewitt.com wrote:
From: Mike Walter mike.wal...@hewitt.com
Subject: Re: CP's Parm Disks
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Date: Friday, March 5, 2010, 10:45 AM
There any
I will be out of the office starting 06/04/2010 and will return on
12/04/2010.
CAUTION - This message may contain privileged and confidential information
intended only for the use of the addressee named above. If you are not the
intended recipient of this message you are hereby notified
No, that is not what I was thinking. I have been using HiperSockets
extensively and I am familiar with how they work.
Each guest that needs to talk to z/OS needs a Triplet UCB definition on
a HiperSocket CHPID defined to it. The more guest I have that require
this the more UCBs I need to use,
On Monday, 04/05/2010 at 10:42 EDT, Martin, Terry R. (CMS/CTR) (CTR)
terry.mar...@cms.hhs.gov wrote:
Each guest that needs to talk to z/OS needs a Triplet UCB definition on
a HiperSocket CHPID defined to it. The more guest I have that require
this the more UCBs I need to use, eventually I hit
29 matches
Mail list logo
