Thank you, Mike. It's nice to hear from an IBM-er who doesn't just
blindly follow the SERVICE and then PUT2PROD pages thinking that
everything is auto-magically wonderful.
Jim
On 9/24/2010 3:48 PM, Michael Harding wrote:
--0__=07BBFD3BDFF8664D8f9e8a93df938690918c07BBFD3BDFF8664D
Content-typ
I am out of the office until 04.10.2010.
I'm out of office, due to education trip. I'll be back on Monday,
04.10.2010
Mail will be checked after returning.
For topics related to PLA Service, please contact
michael.kai...@de.ibm.com.
For PMRs related mails, please make an update in the record or s
On: Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 02:44:30PM -0400,George Henke/NYLIC Wrote:
} So, I guess the "bottom line" is that there is no *silver bullet*, no
} *shortcut*, for even the smallest change, that PUT2PROD at Level1:
}
} steps on the current CPLOAD no matter what you do.
} is unacceptable, without shaki
Thanks Dave,
CHUG does give me good ideas for other things for the future.
As for automated logon, RXLDEV was the best way for me to create my prototype.
Using only REXX, I was able to logon automatically on my 2nd level test system.
I will have some REXX development to do, something
> Flipping the PFPO bit (PSW bit 44) to virtualize z10 when ipling z/VM 61on a
> z9 should qualify.
Too easy. You'd have to get a wheel bit in TOPS-20 on emulated KL10 hardware to
replace most of the stuff used to control the US power grid. Or something like
that.
-- db
Flipping the PFPO bit (PSW bit 44) to virtualize z10 when ipling z/VM 61on
a z9 should qualify.
David Boyes
Sent by: The IBM z/VM Operating System
09/24/2010 05:13 PM
Please respond to
The IBM z/VM Operating System
To
IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
cc
Subject
Re: Applying Maintenance - Best P
> Other people break it? No, we break it all by ourselves! :)
Oh... no, not going there. Nope. Wouldn't be prudent. *grin*
The alternative way to get interesting toys that only semi-exist is to produce
ideas disruptive enough that IBM wants to have an idea of what you're going to
do next so th
Other people break it? No, we break it all by ourselves! :)
Yes, GA on 9/10, installed here (dev/test) on 9/19.
So, it did officially exist :)
Others here have one too ...
It's running quite nicely.
Marcy
From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@lis
ty, I was just wondering what took her so long. ;-)
David Boyes
Sent by: The IBM z/VM Operating System
09/24/2010 04:58 PM
Please respond to
The IBM z/VM Operating System
To
IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
cc
Subject
Re: Applying Maintenance - Best Practice
Marcy is fortunate enough to wo
Marcy is fortunate enough to work for a company that writes VERY large checks
to IBM every year,and they're willing to let her deal with the fun of running
early release software (and dealing with the near constant updates thereof as
other people break it and Endicott fixes it). If you ever are
Marcy,
Is that true?
You are running z/VM 5.4 on z10 and z196 now?
The z196 was announced last June and shipped only this month and you
already have it up and running?
Marcy Cortes
Sent by: The IBM z/VM Operating System
09/23/2010 04:00 PM
Please respond to
The IBM z/VM Operating System
Being the paranoid sort, I take it further. My second-level maintenance
image has everything but page/spool on a single mod9. Before applying
maintenance I make a backup of that volume. Once I'm satisfied with the
outcome of a maintenance run I do a minidisk-by-minidisk compare of the
changed
Great. tyvm, Alan
Alan Altmark
Sent by: The IBM z/VM Operating System
09/24/2010 03:05 PM
Please respond to
The IBM z/VM Operating System
To
IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
cc
Subject
Re: Applying Maintenance - Best Practice
On Friday, 09/24/2010 at 02:45 EDT, George Henke/NYLIC
wrote:
>
On Friday, 09/24/2010 at 02:45 EDT, George Henke/NYLIC
wrote:
> So, I guess the "bottom line" is that there is no *silver bullet*, no
> *shortcut*, for even the smallest change, that PUT2PROD at Level1:
>
> steps on the current CPLOAD no matter what you do.
> is unacceptable, without shaking
On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 7:14 PM, Alan Altmark wrote:
> But, see, it's not *quite* that simple. MVS is optimized to run in an
> unconstrained environment. z/VM, on the other hand, has been optimized to
> run in constrained environments. Both reflect their respective value
> propositions and dec
So, I guess the "bottom line" is that there is no *silver bullet*, no
*shortcut*, for even the smallest change, that PUT2PROD at Level1:
steps on the current CPLOAD no matter what you do.
is unacceptable, without shaking down the change on Level 2 first and
having a backup.
If anyone knows othe
2010/9/23 Mike Walter
>
>
> BTW, after applying maintenance I consider it a good idea for each of the
> component which were serviced, to use VMFSETUP so that their disks are
> linked and accessed, then issue: FILELIST * * * (TODAY ISO
> then browse around to see what was changed. That breeds ev
On Friday, 09/24/2010 at 12:54 EDT, Thomas Kern
wrote:
> >"Why does z/VM page at all? Our MVS LPAR has enough storage that we
> >don't have to."
>
> Because you did not give z/VM the same magnitude of resources that you
> gave your MVS LPAR.
But, see, it's not *quite* that simple. MVS is opti
On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 17:46:11 +0200, Rob van der Heij
wrote:
>Other Frequently asked Questions that I rarely bother to answer:
>
>"Why have z/VM run Linux guests when MVS can't do it?"
Because MVS can't do it.
>"Why does z/VM page at all? Our MVS LPAR has enough storage that we
>don't have to."
On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 3:04 PM, George Henke/NYLIC
wrote:
> Why now the need Expanded Storage in the VM world to accommodate LINUX guests
> when Expanded Storage in the MVS world is a thing of the past?
Other Frequently asked Questions that I rarely bother to answer:
"Why have z/VM run Linux
On Friday, 09/24/2010 at 10:56 EDT, George Henke/NYLIC
wrote:
> You speak of more powerful features in SSI and SOD l that would
eventually make
> it worthwhile to move off of z/VM 5.4.
>
> Specifically what are these features?
>
> Also what do the acronyms SSI and SOD stand for?.
FWIW, the
On Friday, 09/24/2010 at 09:06 EDT, George Henke/NYLIC
wrote:
> Why now the need Expanded Storage in the VM world to accommodate LINUX
guests
> when Expanded Storage in the MVS world is a thing of the past?
Because the system performs better when you have it. z/VM was designed
for overcommi
George Henke wrote:
> You mention this is what you do when you do major maintenance.
> Do you have a different, perhaps *shortcut* procedure, when you are just
putting on COR PTF to fix a specific problem?
We should do the same every time but, if it is a minor maintenance which
we consider
ty, Marcy.
SSI sounds like VMPLEX, mtfbwy!
Marcy Cortes
Sent by: The IBM z/VM Operating System
09/24/2010 11:02 AM
Please respond to
The IBM z/VM Operating System
To
IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
cc
Subject
Re: Virtualizing a z10
SOD = Statement of Direction
SSI = Single System Image
There is handshaking between Linux and VM, and even more than one flavor
The fact that z/VM still likes to have some expanded storage is that the
management of central and expanded are different:
For expanded, CP has a time stamp and know exactly how old each page is.
For central storage there
Sure, I'd recommend reviewing the EXEC before using it. There is a
small configuration section, which SHOULD be all you need to modify.
Frank M. Ramaekers Jr.
From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On
Behalf Of George H
SOD = Statement of Direction
SSI = Single System Image
Here's the scoop http://www.vm.ibm.com/zvm610/zvm61sum.html
If you've got multiple VM systems, you know its a pain to manage and share
things easily.
Marcy
From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib
tyvm, this is very helpful.
You mention this is what you do when you do major maintenance.
Do you have a different, perhaps *shortcut* procedure, when you are just
putting on COR PTF to fix a specific problem?
Colin Allinson
Sent by: The IBM z/VM Operating System
09/24/2010 10:48 AM
Plea
Marcy,
You speak of more powerful features in SSI and SOD l that would eventually
make it worthwhile to move off of z/VM 5.4.
Specifically what are these features?
Also what do the acronyms SSI and SOD stand for?.
Marcy Cortes
Sent by: The IBM z/VM Operating System
09/21/2010 03:59 PM
Pl
As we have 9 different VM systems with varying degrees of criticality -
here is what we do :-
1. We have a 2nd level 6 pack build system. Disks are 3338 cyl
minidisks (starting at real cyl 1) with the distribution labels. A new set
for each VM release.
2. If we are about to do a majo
ty again.
May I have a copy of your FLASH2ND EXEC?
"Frank M. Ramaekers"
Sent by: The IBM z/VM Operating System
09/24/2010 10:38 AM
Please respond to
The IBM z/VM Operating System
To
IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
cc
Subject
Re: Applying Maintenance - Best Practice
I think the answer to
I think the answer to your question is yes?I assume, that any
problem discovered are not insurmountable that they have to be backed
out (instead additional fixes may need to be applied).
This is correct. From my FLASH2ND EXEC:
/*
ty for sharing this.
One question though:
It is ok to apply the maintenance to the production system, Level 1, your
1st step, as long as you do not run PUT2PROD at that time there?
Also I noticed you do not use the SYSTEM CONFIGURATION parm disk fallback,
but just point to the FLASH COPIED dis
Here's what I do:
1) Apply Maintenance to production system
2) Flash production DASD to test packs (using
different naming conventions)
Actually, I have a REXX program I wrote that not only changes the name,
but updates the SYSTEM CONFIG, directory and updat
You should also be able to lock pages for the guest as in
Lock MVSGuest 0 0 map
This will lock page 0 in memory.
From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On
Behalf Of George Henke/NYLIC
Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 8:04 AM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Sub
Is there a procedure for applying maintenance selectively such that a
full system backup is not necessary beforehand?
In other words, save the old CPLOAD and just point to the new CPLOAD at
IPL and if need be simply fallback to the old CPLOAD.
I know the CF1 Parm Disk backup supports this.
Bu
Anne & Lynn Wheeler wrote:
Was not this the problem in the early days of MVS under VM. There was
also a stopgap workaround performance option (bandaid) called PMA,
Preferred Machine Assist to circumvent this, so that MVS actually
controlled Page 0 and VM became the guest.
VSE did not have
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 2:14 AM, O'Brien, Dennis L
wrote:
I heard from a couple of performance people at SHARE that we should have
20% to 25% of the total storage in an LPAR configured as expanded
storage. Naturally, that's a guideline and the proper amount varies by
workload. What should I lo
38 matches
Mail list logo
