All:
I have the need to define a virtual CTC between a first-level
zVM machine and a 2nd-level zVM machine. This is in order to activate
ISLINK between those two machines.
Since the virtual CTCs need to belong to the z/VM system I
am at a loss as to how to do this. Can anyone
, David
Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 9:34 AM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Defining virtual CTCAs
All:
I have the need to define a virtual CTC between a first-level
zVM machine and a 2nd-level zVM machine. This is in order to activate
ISLINK between those two machines
David,
Add this statement to your 2nd level system USER DIRECTORY entry.
SPECIAL 100 CTCA
then you will be able to define the VCTCA and couple to it
Bill Munson
VM System Programmer
Office of Information Technology
State of New Jersey
(609) 984-4065
President MVMUA
: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 9:48 AM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: Defining virtual CTCAs
In the directory for your 2nd level guest you would have:
SPECIAL 0D90 FCTC 1stlevelSVM
For your other 1st level SVM:
SPECIAL 0F11 FCTC 2ndlevelguestid
The on both issue a COUPLE command
No, but if the machines are close to each other, an ESCON CTC can be used.
Wakser, David wrote:
As a further complication, we also need to use a virtual CTC
between two VMs running on different processors - is that doable?
David Wakser
--
Rich Smrcina
VM Assist, Inc.
Phone:
Subject: Re: Defining virtual CTCAs
Jim:
I think you misunderstood my question: the zVM system must
own one side of the CTC - otherwise an ACTIVATE ISLINK cannot succeed.
There is no SVM involved. Defining the side belonging to the guest
machine is the piece that I know; defining the side
@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: Defining virtual CTCAs
The 1st level system (CP) needs to use a real CTC device, so the 2nd
level
system will need to have another real CTC device attached to it, capable
of
connecting (via IOCP defs) to the first. Or wo a third system in your CS
collection which itself
Subject
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Re: Defining virtual CTCAs
ARK.EDU
, and all others who answered.
David Wakser
-Original Message-
From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of RPN01
Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 10:27 AM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: Defining virtual CTCAs
If you need to talk to the actual 1st
z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Wakser, David
Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 7:04 AM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: [IBMVM] Defining virtual CTCAs
Mark:
That is what I was afraid of - that first level needed a REAL
CTC. Thanks for the confirmation
@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: Defining virtual CTCAs
Can you use TSAF for what you want to do?I've used that to shared
SFS between 1st and 2nd level without a real CTC, only virtual.
Marcy Cortes
This message may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If
you are not the addressee
Yes, that was what I thought. But I received an answer from someone at
IBM (regarding a DITTO problem between nodes) that indicated that a
virtual CTC would work. I believe that person must have been mistaken,
because I cannot see how! So, I approached the list for verification!
At one point
, 2007 8:07 AM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: [IBMVM] Defining virtual CTCAs
Marcy:
Unless I am mistaken, TSAF requires VTAM - which is not running
in the 2nd-level VM.
David Wakser
-Original Message-
From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf
Marcy got it right. Use TSAF.
Regards,
Richard Schuh
-Original Message-
From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Wakser, David
Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 8:30 AM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: Defining virtual CTCAs
David
In theory, I see no reason why TCP couldn't be the medium, but
IUCV doesn't support that type of connection.
Yeah, then AVS or TSAF are probably your only other options. There's a
nice market niche there for someone to create an IP-based 3088-like
device. It'd be hard, but very, very
@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: Defining virtual CTCAs
In theory, I see no reason why TCP couldn't be the medium, but
IUCV doesn't support that type of connection.
Yeah, then AVS or TSAF are probably your only other options. There's a
nice market niche there for someone to create an IP
It certainly would have made THIS project simpler!
David Wakser
-Original Message-
From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Schuh, Richard
Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 12:28 PM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: Defining virtual CTCAs
Chuckie
On Wednesday, 10/10/2007 at 09:34 EDT, Wakser, David
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have the need to define a virtual CTC between a first-level
zVM machine and a 2nd-level zVM machine. This is in order to activate
ISLINK between those two machines.
Since the virtual CTCs need to belong to the
:22 PM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: Defining virtual CTCAs
On Wednesday, 10/10/2007 at 10:37 EDT, Wakser, David
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, that was what I thought. But I received an answer from someone at
IBM (regarding a DITTO problem between nodes) that indicated that a
virtual
19 matches
Mail list logo
