I had this setup for our z/VM test machine ages back when we ran out of OSA
addresses on a 9672. But I no longer find the config files used then. What
I remember is
- you need to turn on PROXYARP in ASSORTEDPARM in the TCP/IP stack of VM
- you need to specify also the IP address of the guest
Hi all,
I'm looking into the TN3270E server of TCP/IP for z/VM 5.4 as a
replacement for a Cisco CIP/CPA TN3270E server. I have briefly tested
the VM TN3270E server, and it seems to works fine.
Using the Cisco based TN3270E server, our end-users get a VTAM
SNA-session with an USSTAB menu, giving
You didn't mention any guests? Do you have VTAM available in them?
If so you can CTCA and use CDRM and CDRSC to access the applications in
other systems.
Frank M. Ramaekers Jr.
-Original Message-
From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On
Behalf Of
Well, when I have DIALed into VTAM on my VM-TN3270E session then I can
reach all VTAM-cross-domain resources/applications (e.g. several CICS
region in CTC attached VSEs, etc.), just like I can when using our Cisco
TN3270E server.
My concearn was more about the thousands of DIAL commands and
On 8/26/10 4:02 AM, Dieltiens Geert geert.dielti...@inf.vanbreda.be
wrote:
I can do the same using the TN3270E server in VM: I can connect a
TN3270E session to VM/VTAM using the DIAL VTAM command (manually, or
from SCEXIT) which creates a Non-SNA-session on which I can show an
USSTAB menu.
We haven't isolated the dasd by CU (yet). I'm interested in what the
potential for falure is. So far with the MOD-3's we've had no ill side
affects. I imagine the risk would be greater with MOD-9's but I've not
found any written doc on this issue, as if no one would consider doing
it?
http://www.vm.ibm.com/storman/pav/pav2.html#2006 , I finally found a
writeup on the topic , at least up to date as of Z/VM 5.2.
On Thursday, 08/26/2010 at 05:06 EDT, Dieltiens Geert
geert.dielti...@inf.vanbreda.be wrote:
I'm looking into the TN3270E server of TCP/IP for z/VM 5.4 as a
replacement for a Cisco CIP/CPA TN3270E server. I have briefly tested
the VM TN3270E server, and it seems to works fine.
Using the
Greetings,
We are currently running z/VM 5.2 and have z/VM 5.4 under test in a second
level machine. We are pretty stable in our environment.
There is a possibility within a year or so that we will be getting a z10.
Should we go to 5.4 or 6.1?
Are they any advantages in waiting for the new
Mike,
zVM 6.1 requires a z10, so you can't go to 6.1 until you have a z10.
5.2 is unsupported, so the decision is do I run unsupported until I
get a z10?.
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 9:47 AM, Horlick, Michael
michael.horl...@cgi.com wrote:
Greetings,
We are currently running z/VM 5.2 and have
From the z/VM 6.1 Announcement Letter:
Hardware requirements
z/VM V6.1 requires a new Architecture Level Set (ALS) that is available on the:
System z10 Enterprise Class
Refer to the DEVICE2097 Preventive Service Planning (PSP) bucket for the
minimum MCL level and any required updates.
System
Hi, all
which we have z/VM 5.4.0 running on z10 BC, until we stand support?
Best Regards,
Mario Izaguirre
Mainframe System Programmer
Barcelona, Spain
-Mensaje original-
De: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] En nombre de
Ron Schmiedge
Enviado el:
Hi Ron,
I realize we are unsupported since April 30,2009.
The z10 can run both 5.4 and 6.1, correct? And it seems that 6.1 is supported
till April 30, 2013 while 5.4 is supported till Sept 30,2013 so it seems end of
support shouldn't be an issue.
I'm just looking at feature or
On Wed, 25 Aug 2010 23:07:04 -0500, Tom Huegel tehue...@gmail.com wrote
:
In a normal production environment this is not such an insurmountable
problem.
The problem is this is a test lab, and I don't necessarily know what
happens
to the different disk volumes.
I do know what addresses my system
5.4 runs fine on a z10 or a z196.
We didn't find any compelling reason to go to 6.1 and will wait for the next
one.
Just about every new feature we are interested in is available as an SPE to 5.4.
And it's way easier to put maintenance on 10 systems than it is to upgrade 10
systems.
Marcy
On Thursday, 08/26/2010 at 11:49 EDT, Horlick, Michael
michael.horl...@cgi.com wrote:
We are currently running z/VM 5.2 and have z/VM 5.4 under test in a
second
level machine. We are pretty stable in our environment.
There is a possibility within a year or so that we will be getting a
Yes, 5.4 and 6.1 will both run on z10, and both are supported into
2013. If you can wait until you have a z10 then go to 6.1 when you get
there, saves on time. Depending on your situation you could install
6.1 on the z10 as soon as you have it and when you switch machines
switch to 6.1 at the same
Thanks all, my questions have been answered.
Bye,
Geert.
-Original Message-
From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On
Behalf Of Alan Altmark
Sent: donderdag 26 augustus 2010 17:25
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: Coupling TN3270E sessions to VTAM
Simple.
z/VM 6.1 is needed for Z196 hardware. z/VM 5.4 will not run on it.
It is positioning for the new hardware.
Horlick, Michael michael.horl...@cgi.com
Sent by: The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
08/26/2010 12:04 PM
Please respond to
The IBM z/VM Operating System
I do know what addresses my system disks are on,
Ah! - an argument for the convention of using the RDEV as the last four
characters of the volser :))
Mike MacIsaac mike...@us.ibm.com (845) 433-7061
Here, Here!!
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 12:12 PM, Alan Altmark alan_altm...@us.ibm.comwrote:
On Thursday, 08/26/2010 at 11:49 EDT, Horlick, Michael
michael.horl...@cgi.com wrote:
We are currently running z/VM 5.2 and have z/VM 5.4 under test in a
second
level machine. We are pretty stable in
The z/VM Platform Update session at SHARE in Boston said that XRC timestamps
were coming soon (Sep-Nov) for z/VM. Will that be for both 5.4 and 6.1, or 6.1
only? As we saw with the SSL server changes, what was said in the session is
not necessarily definitive.
That's not true.
a z10 or z196 is needed for 6.1.
But 5.4 will run on both of those boxes as well.
marcy
From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf
Of George Henke/NYLIC
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 9:54 AM
To:
Hi Mike,
We run 5.4 on z10. And since we also have some VM's on z890 we have
decided that 6.1 didn't give us the advantage we would need to justify
maintaining two VM levels.
As for your case, you can't run 6.1 on your current machine so look at
it the other way. Can 5.2 run on z10? Or perhaps,
z/VM 6.1 is needed for Z196 hardware. z/VM 5.4 will not run on it.
Incorrect. z/VM 5.4 will run on a z196. z/VM 5.3 and earlier will not.
Dennis
A few more
Thank you.
I stand corrected and also learned something new today.
z196 prereq's z/VM 6.1, but z/VM 6.1 does not prereq z196.
Marcy Cortes marcy.d.cor...@wellsfargo.com
Sent by: The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
08/26/2010 03:42 PM
Please respond to
The IBM z/VM
z/VM 5.2 plus fixes runs fine on a z10 (I've got one such customer)
2010/8/26 Berry van Sleeuwen berry.vansleeu...@xs4all.nl
Hi Mike,
We run 5.4 on z10. And since we also have some VM's on z890 we have
decided that 6.1 didn't give us the advantage we would need to justify
maintaining two VM
5.4 as well as 6.1
Marcy
-Original Message-
From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf
Of O'Brien, Dennis L
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 12:02 PM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: [IBMVM] XRC timestamps for z/VM
The z/VM Platform Update
Actually, z196 requires 5.4 or 6.1 (PTFs required for both)
6.1 requires a z10 or z196.
It's all confusing :)
Thank you.
I stand corrected and also learned something new today.
z196 prereq's z/VM 6.1, but z/VM 6.1 does not prereq z196.
Marcy Cortes marcy.d.cor...@wellsfargo.com
Sent
Some time within the last year I recall browsing a large EXECSERV manual
online, but now I can't find it. I know from the archives that it hasn't
been supported for a long time.
My employer wants me to convert EXECSERV calls to use more modern, suppor
ted
tools. Documentation would be helpful.
Alas, that's about the worst possible convention to adopt if you ever plan to
replace your DASD farm.
Mark Wheeler
UnitedHealth Group
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 13:55:05 -0400
From: mike...@us.ibm.com
Subject: Re: Duplicate VOLID's
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
I do know what addresses
ok, I'll try again.
z196 prereq's z/VM 6.1 or z/VM 5.4 and z/VM 6.1 prereq's z10 or z196.
So then How many peppers did Peter Piper pick?
Marcy Cortes marcy.d.cor...@wellsfargo.com
Sent by: The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
08/26/2010 03:59 PM
Please respond to
The IBM
What put level of z/VM 5.4 is required to move it to the z10?
From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On
Behalf Of Mark Pace
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 11:25 AM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: z/VM 5.4 or 6.1 on
Means 5.4 is a happy place to be ;)
Not too cold not too hot.
EOS date is later than 6.1 as well.
Until we get that bright and shiny SSI stuff of couse!
marcy
From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf
Of George Henke/NYLIC
I found this 8000-line file, with machine carriage control, on one of the
disks where I work:
VM/SP EXEC Services Program
March 8th, 1982
Jerry Metcoff
Northwest Industries, Inc.
Chicago Data Center
So that solves my problem. I guess it isn't on any IBM web
On Thursday, 08/26/2010 at 03:39 EDT, O'Brien, Dennis L
dennis.l.o'br...@bankofamerica.com wrote:
The z/VM Platform Update session at SHARE in Boston said that XRC
timestamps
were coming soon (Sep-Nov) for z/VM. Will that be for both 5.4 and 6.1,
or 6.1
only? As we saw with the SSL
It's seems to be on the tape from the 1987 VM Workshop hosted by Kansas
State.
Pasted:
---snip---
FORMAT LRECLRECORDSDATE TIME
EXECSERV $MANUAL Z1V 70 3 05/20/87
16:44:34
EXECSERV $README Z1V
Wasn't there another one related to performance and vswitch moving large
amounts of stuff from one virtual server to another?
Marcy
-Original Message-
From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf
Of Alan Altmark
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 1:18
Marcy,
Perhaps you're thinking of the z/VM 6.1 virtual switch performance enhancement
in the base, which applies to data moving between virtual servers. It uses
some new instructions that are only on z10 and later.
Ah, yes, that's it.
So it is a change that *has* been made, not a *will* be made from Alan's list.
Marcy
-Original Message-
From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf
Of O'Brien, Dennis L
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 1:25 PM
To:
Reasons to go z196:
•Has technological improvements including new Blade service center –
ability to manage workload on x86 and Aix machines that are connected to
z/OS via private network
•Improved energy efficiency and ability to measure power usage
•Greater engine speed and more sub-capacity
On Thursday, 08/26/2010 at 04:10 EDT, Austin, Alyce (CIV)
aus...@nps.edu wrote:
What put level of z/VM 5.4 is required to move it to the z10?
You *need* to be at service level 902, aka RSU 5404, but you will *want*
to be at SL 1002 (RSU 5407), as some of the original PTFs were marked PE.
See
Does anyone out there have a copy of the SMTPNOTE EXEC that has been modified
to send attached PDF files without destroying the format of the PDF files? My
old copy from 1999 is hammering the PDF attachment.
Thank you
Bill Pettit
-Original Message-
From: The IBM z/VM Operating System
The obvious argument against using the rdev in the volser is when you end
up needing to move the data to a new volume, or restore the pack after a
physical problem, then you no longer have a match between the volser and the
rdev, and it becomes very confusing from there.
There really isn¹t one
What about the MAILIT from the IBM z/VM Download page
http://www.vm.ibm.com/download/packages/mailit.vmarc
It can handle binary attachments.
Lionel
Lionel B. Dyck
z/Linux Specialist
IBM Corporation
Global Technology Services - Kaiser Account
Work: 925-926-5332
Cell: 925-348-0237
E-Mail:
Is RSU 5407 available?
-Original Message-
From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On
Behalf Of Alan Altmark
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 1:48 PM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: z/VM 5.4 or 6.1 on new z10
On Thursday, 08/26/2010 at 04:10 EDT,
Well... that was a bust. The EXECSERVE $MANUAL file contained:
The EXECSERV MANUAL file has been omitted due to space considerations.
The entire EXECSERV package is available on the Waterloo VM mods tape.
Interested parties are directed to that tape.
I could not find any files with names
On Thursday, 08/26/2010 at 05:00 EDT, Austin, Alyce (CIV)
aus...@nps.edu wrote:
Is RSU 5407 available?
Yes. http://www.vm.ibm.com/service/rsu/ is your friend. From there you
can link to RSU contents, as well as discover how to equate the Service
Level with the stacked RSU number.
Alan
Does RSU 5407 run on the z800?
-Original Message-
From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On
Behalf Of Alan Altmark
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 2:22 PM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: z/VM 5.4 or 6.1 on new z10
On Thursday, 08/26/2010 at 05:00
That is absolutely the wrong thing to do. I am now suffering because someone
else did that to dasd that is EMFFd to 3 LPARS. (It was all ZLccuu). It
requires meticulous record keeping and is very error prone. I did wipe out a
disk needed by one system because the records I received were not
On Thursday, 08/26/2010 at 05:00 EDT, Lionel Dyck/Oakland/i...@ibmus wrote:
What about the MAILIT from the IBM z/VM Download page
http://www.vm.ibm.com/download/packages/mailit.vmarc
It can handle binary attachments.
Anything wrong with SENDFILE?
SF MY PDF TO user AT domain.com (MIME
My 5.4 testbed (second level under 5.4) is running at RSU 1002 (5407)
now, no complaints from my testbed and everyone is playing on a z800.
There is also a list of service (the 2098ZVM bucket) required in
addition to RSU 1002 to support a z10.
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 3:33 PM, Austin, Alyce (CIV)
On Thursday, 08/26/2010 at 05:33 EDT, Austin, Alyce (CIV)
aus...@nps.edu wrote:
Does RSU 5407 run on the z800?
RSUs don't change the architectural level set (ALS) or the supported
processor list for the release, so, yes, it still works on a z800.
Alan Altmark
z/VM Development
IBM Endicott
I'll give it a try. Thank you.
Bill
-Original Message-
From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf
Of Lionel Dyck
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 1:57 PM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: Sending files from CMS as Attachments
What about the
Great...I can have it ready to go when we get our z10 BC!!!
-Original Message-
From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On
Behalf Of Alan Altmark
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 3:22 PM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: z/VM 5.4 or 6.1 on new z10
On
Yep, I had finally broke down and pulled up the CMS manual and found the mime
binary-attach option that I was missing. It helps to practice what you
preach...
Thank you all
Bill
-Original Message-
From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf
Of Alan
Hmm.. RACF isn't really related as it's protecting minidisks on z/VM, at
least - and doesn't care about volsers the mindisks are on.The process
for DIRMAINT is probably similar to the things that need doing on VM:Secure
to do the directory changes:
- Make a 'monolithic' copy of the
DIRMAINT is just a directory manager. It is similar to the directory manager
component of VM:Secure. DIRMAINT does have the capability to do mass updates of
the directory. VM:Secure does not. I have my own form of mass updater. I create
code to perform the update of a generic single user and
You make it look too easy, Alan :-)
Regards,
Richard Schuh
-Original Message-
From: The IBM z/VM Operating System
[mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Alan Altmark
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 3:00 PM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: Sending files from CMS
So I guess there is no way to absolutly protect z/VM from using the wrong
pack at IPL.. Maybe a requirement? In SYSTEM CONFIG allow optional rdev on
the SLOT deffinations. comments?
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 5:15 PM, Schuh, Richard rsc...@visa.com wrote:
DIRMAINT is just a directory manager. It
Then it sounds like changing volids isn't such a big deal? ;-)
Automation can really help simplify the annoying stuff..
Scott Rohling
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 6:15 PM, Schuh, Richard rsc...@visa.com wrote:
DIRMAINT is just a directory manager. It is similar to the directory
manager
Would definitely agree an rdev specification on the SLOT def would be very
useful.I just recently built a 2nd level guest and neglected to relabel
the volumes before they IPL'd the 1st level system ... ugly. Wouldn't
have happened if the real address was specified... good idea!
Scott
On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 18:58:08 -0700, Tom Huegel tehue...@gmail.com wrote
:
So I guess there is no way to absolutly protect z/VM from using the wron
g
pack at IPL.. Maybe a requirement? In SYSTEM CONFIG allow optional rdev
on
the SLOT deffinations. comments?
I would rather see z/VM issue prompt
How much 'protection' is really necessary here? If something like this is implemented
*AND* the wrong device number is used in the slot definition, your system could be
rendered non-IPLable because the volid on the slot doesn't match the one on the volume.
What takes precedence? Should the
One can't always be sure the packs are labeled properly.. Besides why depend
on people when software can do it better. I suspect the reasons for VM just
choosing by volid goes back to when the disk packs were removable, put your
second level testRES on the shelf when you were done. Putting an
65 matches
Mail list logo
