Am I missing something here? The subject matter is Add Virtual Memory
Dynamically, which has got to be a function worth having - but why
would anyone want to remove it?
Surely it's akin to being able to add packs for paging - and you can't
take them away (cue for a song?).
This may be half
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of HARROP, Roy
Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2008 1:19 AM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: FW: ADD VIRTUAL MEMORY DYNAMICALLY
Am I missing something here? The subject matter is Add
Virtual Memory
Dynamically, which has got to be a function worth having
On Wed, 6 Aug 2008 16:25:27 -0700, Mike Harding [EMAIL PROTECTED] w
rote:
...
An alternative - which might even satisfy Mr. Schuh - could be to restri
ct
detachable memory to that which has been dynamically added after CP wa
s
iplled. I wouldn't think the SXS would extend into such, which
On Thu, 7 Aug 2008 11:48:24 -0500, Bill Holder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
:
On Wed, 6 Aug 2008 16:25:27 -0700, Mike Harding [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
...
An alternative - which might even satisfy Mr. Schuh - could be to
restrict
detachable memory to that which has been dynamically added after
On Thu, 7 Aug 2008 11:59:33 -0500, Brian Nielsen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
...
Did you see my post yesterday regarding XSTORE? I've included it below.
Brian Nielsen
...
=
===
Yes, I did saw that and meant to respond but
ARK.EDU Re: ADD VIRTUAL MEMORY DYNAMICALLY
08/07/2008 11:48
On Thu, 7 Aug 2008 12:53:03 -0500, Bill Holder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
:
On Thu, 7 Aug 2008 12:51:21 -0500, Bill Holder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrot
e:
=
=
Yes, I did saw that and meant to respond but forgot. The current
support
On Tue, 5 Aug 2008 09:58:58 -0700, Schuh, Richard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
:
Yes, it can add, but not subtract without LPAR deactivation. Let me know
when the ability to dynamically remove previously added storage is
available, and I will be more enthusiastic.
Regards,
Richard Schuh
Deleting
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 8:06 AM, Alan Ackerman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Deleting memory is a lot harder.
Many delicate CP areas now also are in virtual memory as a result of
the 2G relief, even though not all may be paged.
It depends a lot on the granularity of the next level of mapping. When
Do people really have Linux systems that run 7 x 24?
YES. But I get an outage once a quarter. Usually.
And YES again here. We are _lucky_ if we get an outage once a quarter!
Jim Vincent
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 6:11 AM, Mary Anne Matyaz [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
Do people really have Linux systems that run 7 x 24?
YES. But I get an outage once a quarter. Usually.
Yes, definitely. 24 x 7 x 365
-Mike
-Original Message-
From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Alan Ackerman
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 2:06 AM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: ADD VIRTUAL MEMORY DYNAMICALLY
Do people really have Linux
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 2:17 PM, Michael Coffin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, definitely. 24 x 7 x 365
That's from the IBM marketing material, IIRC :-) (unless you meant to
retire after 7 years)
Ackerman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent by: The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
08/06/2008 02:06 AM
Please respond to
The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
To
IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
cc
Subject
Re: ADD VIRTUAL MEMORY DYNAMICALLY
On Tue, 5 Aug 2008 09:58:58 -0700
Do people really have Linux systems that run 7 x 24?
I have 5 currently that are 7 x 24. About to add a couple more.
--
Mark Pace
Mainline Information Systems
1700 Summit Lake Drive
Tallahassee, FL. 32317
:12 AM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: ADD VIRTUAL MEMORY DYNAMICALLY
Do people really have Linux systems that run 7 x 24?
I have 5 currently that are 7 x 24. About to add a couple more.
--
Mark Pace
Mainline Information Systems
1700 Summit Lake Drive
Tallahassee, FL. 32317
PROTECTED] On Behalf Of James Vincent
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 4:14 AM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: ADD VIRTUAL MEMORY DYNAMICALLY
And YES again here. We are _lucky_ if we get an outage once a
quarter!
Jim Vincent
,
Richard Schuh
-Original Message-
From: The IBM z/VM Operating System
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael Coffin
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 5:18 AM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: ADD VIRTUAL MEMORY DYNAMICALLY
Yes, definitely. 24 x 7 x 365
-Mike
: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 11:51 AM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: ADD VIRTUAL MEMORY DYNAMICALLY
How long of a period is 24 X 7 X 365? Perhaps 365 weeks? 7 years? 365
weeks? There is redundancy in the expression. I would almost be willing
to bet that nobody responding in the affirmative
, August 06, 2008 9:18 AM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: ADD VIRTUAL MEMORY DYNAMICALLY
Gee, I don't know when the expression first started being
used, but I know I've been using it for at least two decades. :)
24 HOURS x 7 DAYS/WEEK x 365 DAYS/YEAR
-MC
-Original Message
Yes you are indeed correct. It made sense to ME when I wrote it! So,
Lucky to get PLANNED outages once a quarter is what it should say.
z/VM and the hardware have been darn near rock solid. We have had a bump or
two in the road, but they have long been solved. From a virtualization and
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 7:16 PM, Schuh, Richard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just because it is widely used doesn't make it correct or accurate.
I suppose the X is not the multiplication like in math, but a
marketing operator.
OT: We have a cigarette paper over here that uses the marketing slogan
On Wed, 6 Aug 2008 08:50:31 -0700, Schuh, Richard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
:
How long of a period is 24 X 7 X 365? ...
Regards,
Richard Schuh
=
===
I always thought it meant planned outages on Leap Days! %-)
- Bill
On Wed, 6 Aug 2008 09:17:24 +0200, Rob van der Heij [EMAIL PROTECTED] w
rote:
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 8:06 AM, Alan Ackerman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Deleting memory is a lot harder.
Many delicate CP areas now also are in virtual memory as a result of
the 2G relief, even though not all may be
On Wed, 6 Aug 2008 16:48:13 -0500, Bill Holder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
:
On Wed, 6 Aug 2008 09:17:24 +0200, Rob van der Heij [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 8:06 AM, Alan Ackerman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Deleting memory is a lot harder.
Many delicate CP areas now also are
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 11:48 PM, Bill Holder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just to emphasize the point - the fact that most of CP's storage is now
mapped into virtual(the System Execution Space) is really irrelevant to the
question of detaching memory. Although that mapping is indeed the default
The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU wrote on
08/06/2008 03:40:56 PM:
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 11:48 PM, Bill Holder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just to emphasize the point - the fact that most of CP's storage is
now
mapped into virtual(the System Execution Space) is really
:06 PM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: [IBMVM] ADD VIRTUAL MEMORY DYNAMICALLY
On Tue, 5 Aug 2008 09:58:58 -0700, Schuh, Richard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote=
:
Yes, it can add, but not subtract without LPAR deactivation. Let me
know=
when the ability to dynamically remove previously added
On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 16:17:15 -0500, Bill Holder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrot
e:
To address the question of adding Linux real memory dynamically:
The z/Linux support for dynamic addition of real memory has been provide
d to
the open source community fairly recently. (I don't know the exact date.
)
PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Holder
Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 9:09 AM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: ADD VIRTUAL MEMORY DYNAMICALLY
On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 16:17:15 -0500, Bill Holder
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrot=
e:
To address the question of adding Linux real memory dynamically
Subject: Re: ADD VIRTUAL MEMORY DYNAMICALLY
On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 16:17:15 -0500, Bill Holder
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrot=
e:
To address the question of adding Linux real memory dynamically:
The z/Linux support for dynamic addition of real memory has been
provide=
d to
the open source
: ADD VIRTUAL MEMORY DYNAMICALLY
On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 16:17:15 -0500, Bill Holder
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrot=
e:
To address the question of adding Linux real memory
dynamically
As now, we can mix and match 390 engines with IFLs (and other engine types) in
the same LPAR, it might be good to reduce the number of LPARs back to 1. You
gain the memory used by the other copies of VM, and you only need to add memory
to the LPAR when you buy more memory.
I do know there are
On Tuesday, 08/05/2008 at 04:14 EDT, Tom Duerbusch
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As now, we can mix and match 390 engines with IFLs (and other engine
types) in
the same LPAR, it might be good to reduce the number of LPARs back to 1.
You
gain the memory used by the other copies of VM, and you
-Original Message-
From: The IBM z/VM Operating System
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom Duerbusch
Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 1:13 PM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: ADD VIRTUAL MEMORY DYNAMICALLY
As now, we can mix and match 390 engines with IFLs (and other
Right.
It is not a price difference, it is a resource difference.
Less LPARs (down to 1) vs more LPARs:
Less copies of VM running (along with all the service machines) a couple 3390
drives
(still may need the same total number of paging/spool packs as well as SFS
packs)
Less real memory
-Original Message-
From: The IBM z/VM Operating System
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom Duerbusch
Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 4:08 PM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: ADD VIRTUAL MEMORY DYNAMICALLY
[snip]
Anyway, I've been thinking about Linux pricing
On 8/5/2008 at 5:13 PM, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], McKown, John
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-snip-
I don't know for a fact, but I'll bet that z/VM will not allow you to
have a single guest run on both an IFL and a CP. I'd bet that the
directory for the user will need designate either CP or
On Monday, 07/28/2008 at 03:55 EDT, McKown, John
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hum, perhaps we need a code phrase to distinguish VM virtual memory,
which
is guest real memory from guest virtual memory?
These terms already exist.
Guest virtual
Guest real
Guest absolute
Host
On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 15:52:52 -0400, Alan Altmark [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Monday, 07/28/2008 at 03:55 EDT, McKown, John
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hum, perhaps we need a code phrase to distinguish VM virtual memory
,
which
is guest real memory from guest virtual memory?
These terms
On Thursday, 07/31/2008 at 04:42 EDT, Brian Nielsen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm virtually certain that you really believe in the absolute truth of
that, and as you might have guessed, so do I. If memory serves me, I
havn't had a Hostess cupcake in a long time - I was last at the store
ages
Don't groan. You gave him the incentive :-)
Regards,
Richard Schuh
-Original Message-
From: The IBM z/VM Operating System
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Alan Altmark
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 2:37 PM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: ADD VIRTUAL MEMORY
To address the question of adding Linux real memory dynamically:
The z/Linux support for dynamic addition of real memory has been provided
to
the open source community fairly recently. (I don't know the exact date.)
When that support becomes generally available is up to the open source
Hi
I have a Linux server running now that is in need of more VIRTUAL
MEMEORY. Is there a way that I can dynamically allocate more memory to
this guest without bring it down?
Thank You,
Terry Martin
Lockheed Martin - Information Technology
z/OS z/VM Systems - Performance and Tuning
)
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 2:40 PM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: ADD VIRTUAL MEMORY DYNAMICALLY
Hi
I have a Linux server running now that is in need of more
VIRTUAL MEMEORY. Is there a way that I can dynamically allocate more
On Jul 28, 2008, at 2:43 PM, Schuh, Richard wrote:
No. Redefining virtual memory causes a virtual system reset. It
takes an IPl after that. You can update the directory to allow
additional, but you cannot redefine the virtual storage of a
running machine without causing the reset.
28, 2008 2:43 PM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: ADD VIRTUAL MEMORY DYNAMICALLY
No. Redefining virtual memory causes a virtual system reset. It
takes an IPl after that. You can update the directory to allow
additional, but you cannot redefine
12:47 PM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: ADD VIRTUAL MEMORY DYNAMICALLY
Depends on what the OP means by virtual memory. If he means
more VM real (to the guest), then you're correct. But if he needs more
Linux paging memory, then a VDISK, mkswap
:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Schuh, Richard
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 2:51 PM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: ADD VIRTUAL MEMORY DYNAMICALLY
The question was on the VM list. I may have mistaken it for a
question about VM, not Linux
PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Schuh, Richard
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 3:43 PM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: ADD VIRTUAL MEMORY DYNAMICALLY
No. Redefining virtual memory causes a virtual system reset. It takes an
IPl after that. You can update the directory to allow additional, but
you
50 matches
Mail list logo
