Adam Thornton wrote:
I haven't ever approached Theo about a 390 port.
But with Hercules,
you could get started for very very cheap
Of course, Theo would probably sooner jump off a
cliff than allow OCO
stuff to intrude into his OS.
Is it possible to put OBSD efficiently on VM
PING does not run on the TCP/IP stack, it runs on the userid that issued
the command.
I would like to thank everyone who helped me understand the
way PING and DNS work in CMS. :-)
It's working fine!
The only other thing I needed to fix was
an incorrect DOMAINORIGIN statement, our network
bind is, these days, anything but minimal.
We should port OpenBSD to the 390. You could probably run OpenBSD +
bind
in a 12MB VM.
You can run Linux in a 12Mb VM just fine -- we do 16 and 32M Debian
guests all the time. You just can't run *SuSE or RH as distributed* in
that little memory.
On 12/20/06, Shimon Lebowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The only other thing I needed to fix was
an incorrect DOMAINORIGIN statement, our network
uses something weird. But having the wrong
value *does* prevent me from pinging things.
The DNS lookup is only for fully qualified names like
Of course, Theo would probably sooner jump off a cliff than allow OCO
stuff to intrude into his OS.
Is it possible to put OBSD efficiently on VM without OCO blobs?
The only remaining OCO Linux on Z driver is the 3590 tape driver code,
AFAIK.
The DNS protocol has been stretched and
the de-facto standard extended beyond the RFCs.
And bind happens to *be* the de-facto standard implementation. Another
reason to run it instead of the VM DNS server code.
And Microsoft Windows happens to *be* the de-facto standard implementation
(of a
On 12/20/06, Jack Woehr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
bind is, these days, anything but minimal.
We should port OpenBSD to the 390. You could probably run OpenBSD + bind
in a 12MB VM.
So on what measurements would you base such a claim? And what does it
compare to with Linux on zSeries? I
Has anyone taken the time to come up with the minimal system requirements
for a SLES installation?
Even the minimal system selection on the software install panel seems a
little over engineered.
--
Mark Pace
Mainline Information Systems
I bet that there is a vendor (not IBM) that would be glad to sell you a minimal DNS server in a
small Linux. It would probably come in DDR format ready to load on a minidisk and run.
Is a salesman at Sine Nomine listening? :)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 19, 2006, at 9:25 PM, Jack Woehr
In my low memory tests of SUSE, it would run fine in 12 MBs and no
swapping, that is, until you want to do something (like YaST). joe
works. kate works.
The biggest difference I've seen in the low memory linux images, is
method of communication.
IUCV and VCTCA, works well in 12 MB.
OSA and
SLES9 64 bit with OSA (OSA and Hipersockets have large buffer
requirements) say they need 512MB. I've done installs in 256 MBs. I do
get a message stating insufficient storage, but the install with only
the normal base packages, works fine.
During the installation, you don't have access to
I bet that there is a vendor (not IBM) that would be glad to sell you
a
minimal DNS server in a
small Linux. It would probably come in DDR format ready to load on a
minidisk and run.
Is a salesman at Sine Nomine listening? :)
When do you want it? 8-)
-- db
Tom Duerbusch wrote:
IUCV and VCTCA, works well in 12 MB.
OSA and Hipersockets, 48 MB.
Now back on tangent to the origional discussion...
Speaking of tangents
There's OCO in Linux/390 ... is it *necessary* to run a guest OS or
is it possible to run (and run efficiently?) a guest OS
On Dec 20, 2006, at 12:37 PM, Jack Woehr wrote:
Tom Duerbusch wrote:
IUCV and VCTCA, works well in 12 MB.
OSA and Hipersockets, 48 MB.
Now back on tangent to the origional discussion...
Speaking of tangents
There's OCO in Linux/390 ... is it *necessary* to run a guest OS or
is it
On 12/20/06, Adam Thornton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't know how much OCO there really is anymore, actually. The
QDIO drivers are available now, and I think there's even a 3590
implementation. You could certainly get a Linux system, with
networking, built without anything that isn't Free
various We should port BSD quotes
Someone did a bunch of patches to one of the BSD's some years ago.
I know, I saw it. I'm pretty sure I bookmarked it but as per usual, when
I want to find the thing I can't... ah, there it is. Hmmm... it was the
FreeBSD stuff. Maybe someone (else) can have a
On Wednesday, 12/20/2006 at 09:07 CET, Rob van der Heij
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12/20/06, Adam Thornton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't know how much OCO there really is anymore, actually. The
QDIO drivers are available now, and I think there's even a 3590
implementation. You
Alan Altmark wrote:
An OCO module may use the above in any combination, so I'm not sure what
Jack is asking about: OCO modules (none remain - the 3590 tape driver was
open sourced back in May) or interfaces in category 2.
I was really asking two questions (which now seem to be answered):
There's OCO in Linux/390 ... is it *necessary* to run a guest OS or
is it possible to run (and run efficiently?) a guest OS like, um, say,
just hypothetically, OpenBSD/390 without any OCO?
If you don't have or don't want to use 3590 tapes, yes.
)491-6001
Catch the WAVV! http://www.wavv.org
WAVV 2007 - Green Bay, WI
- Original Message -
From: Jack Woehr [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wednesday, December 20, 2006 11:37 am
Subject: DNS question tangents to OpenBSD/390
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Tom Duerbusch wrote:
IUCV and VCTCA
Hi,
VM here has a connection to the LAN, but this
has always been used for access *to* the mainframe
rather than *from* the mainframe. As a result I never
bothered to set up any DNS in VM's tcpip.
I am now trying to do this, on a test stack.
I copied TCPIP DATA to its 191 and added
these lines:
On 12/19/06, Shimon Lebowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What am I forgetting?
The TCPIP DATA goes on the 592 disk. It's the client code (e.g. PING,
TELNET) that has to talk to the DNS to translate the host name into an
IP address. The stack has no clue about that.
We used to say that it was a
We used to say that it was a good idea to run the cache-only resolver
that comes with VM TCP/IP (i.e. NAMED) to avoid excessive DNS lookups
going outside VM. Some installations also used it to prime the cache
with a set of important host names (in case the outboard DNS was not
available). But
PING does not run on the TCP/IP stack, it runs on the userid that issued
the command.
-Original Message-
From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Shimon Lebowitz
Sent: December 19, 2006 12:59
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: DNS question
Quoting
Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
12/19/2006 12:59 PM
Please respond to The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
From
Shimon Lebowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To
IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
cc
Subject
Re: DNS question
Quoting Rob van der Heij [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On 12/19/06, Shimon
On Tuesday, 12/19/2006 at 07:59 ZE2, Shimon Lebowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
confused
I don't think I understand what you are saying. I put
the altered version of TCPIP DATA on TCPIP2's (my test stack
userid) so that the stack would see the DNS lines, doesn't
PING run in the TCPIP2 user
Having said that, would there be torches and pitchforks awaiting
us at the next conference if we chose to remove the VM DNS server
from the suite of supported apps? (No plans...just a Grinchy idea.)
Mr. Grinch,
We would not object to you removing the VM DNS server. We have
always used
We have not run the VM DNS server since z/VM 3.0. We are now on 5.1, wait
ing
for 5.3. We would not have any problem with the removal of the VM DNS ser
vice.
Are there other VM TCP/IP services that you would consider removing?
/Tom Kern
On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 14:03:37 -0500, Alan Altmark wrote:
And of course the programming needed to make this change would be known
as The DaGrinchy Code.
Laugh now, they don't get any better.
Peter
Having said that, would there be torches and pitchforks awaiting us at
the
next conference if we chose to remove the VM DNS server from the suite
of
Quoting David Boyes [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
We used to say that it was a good idea to run the cache-only resolver
that comes with VM TCP/IP (i.e. NAMED) to avoid excessive DNS lookups
going outside VM. Some installations also used it to prime the cache
with a set of important host names (in
, December 19, 2006 11:14 AM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: DNS question
And of course the programming needed to make this change would be known
as The DaGrinchy Code.
Laugh now, they don't get any better.
Peter
Having said that, would there be torches and pitchforks awaiting us at
the next
Quoting Alan Altmark [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Tuesday, 12/19/2006 at 07:59 ZE2, Shimon Lebowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
confused
I don't think I understand what you are saying. I put
the altered version of TCPIP DATA on TCPIP2's (my test stack
userid) so that the stack would see the DNS
On Dec 19, 2006, at 2:03 PM, Alan Altmark wrote:
Having said that, would there be torches and pitchforks awaiting us
at the
next conference if we chose to remove the VM DNS server from the
suite of
supported apps? (No plans...just a Grinchy idea.)
Yes, unless you tossed in a minimal
I'd disagree with the assertion that you no longer need an internal DNS;
there's still value to having the ability to not go out on the wire, and
also to periodically lie to various things about the real setup for a
subset of the environment. Remember, you're attaching network segments
with the
On Dec 19, 2006, at 2:23 PM, Shimon Lebowitz wrote:
Quoting David Boyes [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
We used to say that it was a good idea to run the cache-only
resolver
that comes with VM TCP/IP (i.e. NAMED) to avoid excessive DNS
lookups
going outside VM. Some installations also used it to prime
Mr. Grinch -
Cindy Loo Who asked if z/OS is using BIND now and if that could run on
OpenVM. She's a bright kid!
I was going to ask her more about the idea, but some Opie-looking guy kept
yelling cut! cut! and chased us off the set.
- ho ho ho - Sir Santa
-- R;
We used to say that it was a good idea to run the cache-only
resolver
that comes with VM TCP/IP (i.e. NAMED) to avoid excessive DNS
lookups
going outside VM. Some installations also used it to prime the
cache
with a set of important host names (in case the outboard DNS was
not
On 12/19/06, David Boyes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's handy for test purposes because you could force the Linux guest to
give any answer you wanted w/o having to convince your Windows admins to
break the real DNS for your purpose. It's also useful in the case where
you're hosting Linux guests
On Tuesday, 12/19/2006 at 02:56 EST, Adam Thornton
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, unless you tossed in a minimal DNS server, say in a 16M Linux
guest with, say, a tiny little filesystem in a shared segment.
B. IBM is not a Linux distributor and it doesn't qualify as an
imbedded system.
On 12/19/06, David Boyes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's handy for test purposes because you could force the Linux guest
to
give any answer you wanted w/o having to convince your Windows
admins to
break the real DNS for your purpose. It's also useful in the case
where
you're hosting Linux
On Dec 19, 2006, at 9:25 PM, Jack Woehr wrote:
Adam Thornton wrote:
Yes, unless you tossed in a minimal DNS server, say in a 16M Linux
guest with, say, a tiny little filesystem in a shared segment.
It's called 'Bind'
Well, no.
A minimal DNS server would be, say, tinydns. But then you'd
On Dec 19, 2006, at 11:01 PM, Jack Woehr wrote:
Adam Thornton wrote:
bind is, these days, anything but minimal.
We should port OpenBSD to the 390. You could probably run OpenBSD +
bind in a 12MB VM.
Way back in '99 I suggested a port to the NetBSD guys (back when
NetBSD's big claim to
42 matches
Mail list logo
