mailto:IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: VTAM on an IFL?
Interesting question.
I was trying to explain VTAM to a relatively newbe a couple weeks ago.
And I did come to the conclusion that since there are no new
SNA hardware anymore, not only VTAM should be sunsetted, but
we need
1:35 PM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: VTAM on an IFL?
Interesting question.
I was trying to explain VTAM to a relatively newbe a couple weeks ago.
And I did come to the conclusion that since there are no new
SNA hardware anymore, not only VTAM should be sunsetted
On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 11:55 PM, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Alan
Altmark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Saturday, 04/26/2008 at 08:59 EDT, Mark Post [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Compared to a CP, an IFL has one less instruction.
This is not true, and if it were it wouldn't apply to GCS or
On Tuesday, 04/29/2008 at 07:00 EDT, Mark Post [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 11:55 PM, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
Alan
Altmark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Saturday, 04/26/2008 at 08:59 EDT, Mark Post [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Compared to a CP, an IFL has one less
: Re: VTAM on an IFL?
On Saturday, 04/26/2008 at 08:59 EDT, Mark Post [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Compared to a CP, an IFL has one less instruction.
This is not true, and if it were it wouldn't apply to GCS or VM/VTAM.
And all of the business reasons for having an IFL still exist.
Specialty
engines
will not and not licensed for are two different animals.
I think the will not list is z/OS, z/OS.e, OS/390, and all of the less
than z architecture system (VM/370, MVS, MVT, etc)
The not licensed for list would be too extensive for IBM to consider
publishing.
It would be better to reverse the
On Monday, 04/28/2008 at 10:28 EDT, Mrohs, Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Is there a list of z/VM software products and/or applications that will
NOT run on an IFL?
VSE, MVS, TPF, any VM prior to z/VM V4 (including CMS itself).
Other than that, no. All of the products that have IPLA (OTC)
With the IBM z10, you can mix standard and IFL engines in the
same LPAR. So, if you put all your engines in the same LPAR,
what does that do to licensing of 390 software that can also
run on an IFL?
Note that this is a statement of direction. A not as yet
announced release of z/VM will be a
-Original Message-
From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Jim Elliott
Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2008 10:52
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: VTAM on an IFL?
Hi... Is anyone out there running VTAM under VM on an IFL? If so, what
process did you use get
On Monday, 04/28/2008 at 11:42 EDT, Burch, Aubrey Dennis CIV DISA GS4B
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We are uncomfortably restricted in that the Department of Defense
(DOD) Ports and Protocols List prohibits the use of telnet (even SSL),
and port 23 is being systematically closed at all our
Cheating like that can get you visited by armed Marines, etc.
I doubt that any traffic between two DOD bases is unencrypted and tapping
the coax cables inside the bases will get you in even more trouble.
/Thomas Kern
/U.S. Department of Energy
/301-903-2211 (O)
/301-905-6427 (M)
On Mon, 28
] On
Behalf Of Alan Altmark
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 13:36
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: VTAM on an IFL?
On Monday, 04/28/2008 at 11:42 EDT, Burch, Aubrey Dennis CIV DISA GS4B
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We are uncomfortably restricted in that the Department of Defense
(DOD) Ports
: Monday, April 28, 2008 10:48 AM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: VTAM on an IFL?
Cheating like that can get you visited by armed Marines, etc.
I doubt that any traffic between two DOD bases is unencrypted
and tapping=
the coax cables inside the bases will get you in even more
Interesting question.
I was trying to explain VTAM to a relatively newbe a couple weeks ago.
And I did come to the conclusion that since there are no new SNA hardware
anymore, not only VTAM should be sunsetted, but we need to play to get rid of
VTAM in the next few years.
The problem still
Would that be at the same price and support level as VM/VTAM?
/Thomas Kern
/U.S. Department of Energy
/301-903-2211 (O)
/301-905-6427 (M)
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 11:16:52 -0700, Schuh, Richard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrot
e:
Would having the SNA go to a Linux image, perhaps in an IFL LPAR in the
same box
On Monday, 04/28/2008 at 02:27 EDT, Schuh, Richard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Would having the SNA go to a Linux image, perhaps in an IFL LPAR in the
same box an your VM system, running Comm Server solve the problem?
You would have to write the moral equivalent of VSCS, doing LU 2 on one
side
: Re: VTAM on an IFL?
Interesting question.
I was trying to explain VTAM to a relatively newbe a couple weeks ago.
And I did come to the conclusion that since there are no new SNA
hardware anymore, not only VTAM should be sunsetted, but we need to play
to get rid of VTAM in the next few years
You would have to write the moral equivalent of VSCS, doing LU 2 on
one
side and LDSF on the other. (VSCS uses *CCS, not LDSF, but let's not
quibble over details.)
Minus 3d10 sanity for *CCS exposure. (*CCS qualifies as squamous
crawling horror)
If you're going to do it this way, just use
-Original Message-
From: The IBM z/VM Operating System
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gentry, Stephen
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 1:58 PM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: VTAM on an IFL?
How does zOS handle this situation? Does it need VTAM to communicate
: The IBM z/VM Operating System
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Thomas Kern
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 11:41 AM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: VTAM on an IFL?
Would that be at the same price and support level as VM/VTAM?
/Thomas Kern
/U.S. Department of Energy
/301-903
:54 AM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: VTAM on an IFL?
On Monday, 04/28/2008 at 02:27 EDT, Schuh, Richard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Would having the SNA go to a Linux image, perhaps in an IFL LPAR in
the same box an your VM system, running Comm Server solve
the problem?
You
On Monday, 04/28/2008 at 04:00 EDT, Schuh, Richard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
A couple of years ago, when our communications folks were upgrading to
Enterprise Extender (or some such), IBM was pushing this at them for VM
like it was already a done deal. Talk SNA out one side of the mouth;
Of Alan Altmark
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 1:54 PM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: VTAM on an IFL?
On Monday, 04/28/2008 at 04:00 EDT, Schuh, Richard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
A couple of years ago, when our communications folks were
upgrading to
Enterprise Extender (or some
On Monday, 04/28/2008 at 05:38 EDT, Schuh, Richard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I see. It was presented to me, second hand, as a replacement for
VM/VTAM, not an addition to it. That may well have been a
misunderstanding of what was presented.
Oh, my. I can see where such a statement might,
@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: VTAM on an IFL?
On Monday, 04/28/2008 at 05:38 EDT, Schuh, Richard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I see. It was presented to me, second hand, as a replacement for
VM/VTAM, not an addition to it. That may well have been a
misunderstanding of what was presented
In the VSE world I know for a fact that one of the TCP/IP stack vendors
offers a way to access VTAM applications without VTAM. That stack
feature just went GA before the WAVV conference this year. So, any VTAM
application could be accessed directly without having VTAM present on
the system.
While I didn't do it (big disclaimer up front!), I was around back in
the late '70s when they rewrote the TSO terminal handler stuff. The
old TCAM support was removed and the new code intertwined it with VTAM.
While it was a separate component, it seemed to be all gray shadows
and mirrors
IBM should have been able to tell you that the instruction set is different on
an IFL that on a standard LPAR than runs zOS, CICS, VTAM, etc.
--- On Fri, 4/25/08, Thomas Kern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Thomas Kern [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: VTAM on an IFL?
To: IBMVM
On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 9:58 AM, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], william JANULIN
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
IBM should have been able to tell you that the instruction set is different
on an IFL that on a standard LPAR than runs zOS, CICS, VTAM, etc.
Yes, and no. Compared to a CP, an IFL has
Which brings up a different tangent
With the IBM z10, you can mix standard and IFL engines in the same LPAR.
So, if you put all your engines in the same LPAR, what does that do to
licensing of 390 software that can also run on an IFL?
And then on the Linux side, would you then get charged
On Friday, 04/25/2008 at 08:33 EDT, Thomas Kern [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
We requested the 'special quote' when we first looked at purchasing a
z890. It took quite a while to get a simple 'no' as the answer. We also
requested RSCS, ISPF and Callup. All were rejected.
Well, RSCS is a feature of
On Saturday, 04/26/2008 at 09:59 EDT, william JANULIN
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
IBM should have been able to tell you that the instruction set is
different on
an IFL that on a standard LPAR than runs zOS, CICS, VTAM, etc.
Bill, IFLs are not an impediment to running VM/VTAM.
Alan Altmark
z/VM
We wanted the full-featured RSCS 3.2 that we were (are) running to
communicate with z/OS, so that important data (erep, monitor,
accounting, backup jobs) could be transfered to z/OS via NJE for
processing. We have shrunk enough that VM data just isn't worth anything
anymore. None of the bosses
We requested the 'special quote' when we first looked at purchasing a
z890. It took quite a while to get a simple 'no' as the answer. We also
requested RSCS, ISPF and Callup. All were rejected.
/Tom Kern
Lee Stewart wrote:
Hi... Is anyone out there running VTAM under VM on an IFL? If so,
34 matches
Mail list logo
