pERFKIT bATCH rEPORTS

2011-04-01 Thread Billy Bingham
I'm running a Performance Toolkit batch report and it seems to be using a single quote (') instead of a comma (,) in numbers greater than 999. IE: Total real storage 2'048MB Does anyone know how to change this to use a comma instead of a quote mark? Thanks, Billy

AUTO: Jocelyn Blais is out of the office/ Jocelyn Blais n'est pas disponible. (returning 11/04/2011)

2011-04-01 Thread Jocelyn Blais
I am out of the office until 11/04/2011. Bonjour, Je serai absent du bureau en vacance jusqu'au 11 avril 2011. Pour toute urgence veuillez contacter votre representant logiciel. Pour des questions techniques vous pouvez communiquer avec Paul Hall at 905-316-6542 ou par courriel

z/VM and Linux

2011-04-01 Thread Hughes, Jim
Is there an additional z/VM charge when running Linux in an IFL? We already have z/VM 5.4 on a z/10. Just curious. Been out of the loop on licensing charges for a while. Regards, Jim Hughes Consulting Systems Programmer Mainframe Technical Support Group Department of

Re: z/VM and Linux

2011-04-01 Thread Davis, Larry (National VM/VSE Capability)
z/VM is charged for all GP and IFL's on the box only if it is also running on the GP's and not just on the IFL's. Larry Davis -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU] On Behalf Of Hughes, Jim Sent: Friday, April 01, 2011 3:32 PM To:

Re: z/VM and Linux

2011-04-01 Thread Michael Forte
Right, but unless I'm mistaken, z/VM workload is GP only. The Linux workload is IFL only (or should be). No charge for IFL workload but there would be a minimal charge for the underlying z/VM processing (storage, memory, shared resources...)? Michael J. Forte z/OS Storage ID (and on

Re: z/VM and Linux

2011-04-01 Thread Alan Altmark
On Friday, 04/01/2011 at 03:32 EDT, Hughes, Jim jim.hug...@doit.nh.gov wrote: Is there an additional z/VM charge when running Linux in an IFL? We already have z/VM 5.4 on a z/10. Just curious. Been out of the loop on licensing charges for a while. The charge for z/VM does not change based

Re: z/VM and Linux

2011-04-01 Thread Mike Walter
Interesting. But that seems at odds with the deal we worked out with our local IBM marketeers for two z196 EC's, each with 16 IFLs and 32TB of storage; and two z/VM 6.1 licenses, and the all many IBM and ISV products we needed - with IBM owing *us* money instead of having to pay them

Re: z/VM and Linux

2011-04-01 Thread Mark Post
On 4/1/2011 at 04:04 PM, Hughes, Jim jim.hug...@doit.nh.gov wrote: So to be clear, I have a single CEC with two GP's and one IFL. I'm told our z/VM license is for two CPU's. We are not using the IFL now. If we were to begin using the IFL, our CPU count increases to three and our z/VM

Re: z/VM and Linux

2011-04-01 Thread Mark Wheeler
Alan, Wouldn't you rather say: snip - If you have a CEC with one or more z/VM LPARs that are defined to use GPs, count all GPs on the CEC - If you have a CEC with one or more z/VM LPARs that are defined to use IFLs, count all IFLs on the CEC snip Mark Wheeler UnitedHealth Group --

Re: z/VM and Linux

2011-04-01 Thread Mark Post
On 4/1/2011 at 03:41 PM, Michael Forte mjfo...@us.ibm.com wrote: Right, but unless I'm mistaken, z/VM workload is GP only. That hasn't been true for years, unless you're talking about traditional CMS-based workloads. In which case you may not be able to license all the IBM software you want

Re: z/VM and Linux

2011-04-01 Thread Michael Forte
I stand corrected :-) From: Mark Post mp...@novell.com To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Date: 04/01/2011 04:31 PM Subject:Re: z/VM and Linux Sent by:The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU On 4/1/2011 at 03:41 PM, Michael Forte mjfo...@us.ibm.com wrote:

Re: z/VM and Linux

2011-04-01 Thread Alan Altmark
On Friday, 04/01/2011 at 04:16 EDT, Mike Walter mike.wal...@aonhewitt.com wrote: But that seems at odds with the deal we worked out with our local IBM marketeers for two z196 EC's, each with 16 IFLs and 32TB of storage; and two z/VM 6.1 licenses, and the all many IBM and ISV products we

Re: z/VM and Linux

2011-04-01 Thread Alan Altmark
On Friday, 04/01/2011 at 04:28 EDT, Mark Wheeler mwheele...@hotmail.com wrote: Wouldn't you rather say: snip - If you have a CEC with one or more z/VM LPARs that are defined to use GPs, count all GPs on the CEC - If you have a CEC with one or more z/VM LPARs that are defined to use IFLs,

Re: z/VM and Linux

2011-04-01 Thread Tom Huegel
If this was any more confusing it would have to be the IRS. On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 5:06 PM, Alan Altmark alan_altm...@us.ibm.comwrote: On Friday, 04/01/2011 at 04:28 EDT, Mark Wheeler mwheele...@hotmail.com wrote: Wouldn't you rather say: snip - If you have a CEC with one or more

Re: z/VM and Linux

2011-04-01 Thread David Boyes
Right, but unless I'm mistaken, z/VM workload is GP only. The Linux workload is IFL only (or should be). There's nothing in the code that cares what kind of processor it runs on. There are licensing issues with CMS workload (and running VSE and z/OS guests) in that it's really expensive to run