Hi Dougie
Excuse me being pedantic here, but those instructions seem to be for cdl
formatted (2.4 kernel) not ldl formatted (2.2 kernel) dasd.
The subject of this thread was for 2.2.x kernels, so isn't the only option
in this case the OFFLINDR stuff or OEM utilities, again.
Hello all,
yes, I know this, but this is the OLD part of the OS. I could not have been
done in normal PL/1 because of too much overhead and because of the (too) many
features of the language, which prevent effective optimization.
C was designed as a systems programming language, and so you have
Hi Dougie,
As ever, you are always quick to jump in to help the newbies...always
appreciated! I'll see if I can get a CD cut and try this approach.
Thanks for the tip.
Happy Manic day,
Jill Grine
GT Software
-Original Message-
From: Dougie Lawson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent:
I have to take exeption to that statement, as it has been my experience
that they send you a we'll get right back to you e-mail and then do not
follow through. I've asked for pricing and support offerings three times
now and I've been rebuffed 3 times.
I'm having my IBM people pursue it for me
Hi Dave,
Guess I better just give in and try the same route. Problem for our
environment is that, in order to install Linux, I had to apply several
microcode
upgrades to our P390, including a new tape driver. But the tape driver
won't
support our cartridge drive it isn't an IBM piece of
I've been trying to think of a way to automate the shutdown of my linux
servers under z/vm and the thought of using rexec or rsh came to mind.
Before doing so what is the collective wisdom of the list? Is this a
worthwhile option to pursue? Are there any pros/cons to one or the other?
Any tips
David Boyes [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Although the article did have issues, I'm most disconcerted
with some of the bang-per-buck comparisons (one of the
charts showed a mid-range SUN performs at 300% that of the
z/900 at only %18 of the cost... and that was a *mid-range*
SUN!)
He's
David,
No, I've been informed by a reliable source that this is an MSF'd Amdahl
0700 processor.
Mark Post
-Original Message-
From: David Boyes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2002 8:29 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: LinuxWorld Article series
If I'm reading
I am using a REXX EXEC running on CMS in combination with Mike Kershaw's
bootshell on Linux to manage Linux termination. Simple, works well, and I
don't have to worry about passwords.
-Original Message-
From: Lionel Dyck [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2002 9:31 AM
Hi Lionel,
rsh or rexec is not very secure. I'd use openssh instead.
Robert.
- Original Message -
From: Lionel Dyck [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2002 3:31 PM
Subject: Use of REXEC or RSH?
I've been trying to think of a way to automate the shutdown
clip
. Any time you see a posting from Alan Altmark, or
Romney White about some aspect of VM or VIF, pay particular attention,
as they're intimately familiar with the product from the inside out.
Sorry Romney, I sent the reply to a prior note before reading yours.
I've been talking to IBM,
Peter Webb:
Could you detail exactly how you do this? I've never heart of that
bootshell.
|-+
| | Peter Webb, |
| | Toronto Transit |
| | Commission |
| | [EMAIL PROTECTED]|
|
We are pleased to provide details on the upcoming joint meeting of the
Canada VM and VSE User Groups.
The meeting will take place on Friday May 10 at 330 University Avenue in
Toronto from 8:30 a.m. until approximately 4 p.m.
330 University is just north of Queen. You can't miss it since it is the
I followed SuSE's instructions on creating an IPL tape and used that for the
IPL of the LPAR. This worked fine - I did not get the Kernel panic
message this time. The only reason why I chose the DASD IPL volume (using
instructions that I got from another Manual) was because it was easier to
IPL
Alan Altmark posted that z/VM 3 can't run in IFL engines. This is not
good news for us. We are currently running VM on a machine that can't
run z/VM 4. We are looking at getting newer machine with an IFL engine.
We wanted to do a Linux proof of concept on the new machine, on the IFL
to isolate
Ann,
You can have the IFL added to your system, and use PR/SM to create several
LPARs that share the processor resource, and don't use VM at all until your
hardware and software portfolio match up to allow that. That should at
least allow you to get started on your proof of concept.
Mark
Are both machines going to be on the floor together for a while? If so, will
there be enough time to migrate your VM workload to the other system and
start your Linux POC after your VM migration?
On Monday 22 April 2002 12:12 pm, you wrote:
Alan Altmark posted that z/VM 3 can't run in IFL
Ann,
If you try to IPL any version of z/VM prior to z/VM 4 on an IFL, the
processor will check stop on you. It's definitely not just a licensing
issue, it's a real limitation put there by IBM so that they and the ISVs
could feel safe in not counting the processing capability of an IFL
towards
But - he's comparing one mid-range sun to one z/900. Seems like
the 37% people and remainder facilities would be the same in both
of those. One sun should be just about as much work/power as one
z/900.. in fact, I'd expect one mid-range sun to be a little lower
on the power/HVAC
Keeping both machines could incur additional software and hardware costs.
For now, I just need IBM to verify z/VM 3 really can't run in an IFL.
If it really can't, we'll just have to deal with it.
Rich Smrcina wrote:
Are both machines going to be on the floor together for a while? If so, will
As pointed out by many, hardware is the smallest cost in all of this.
Also, you need to consider software costs. IF the application software isn't
free, multiple boxes are a negative. Consider that Websphere is about $20K per
engine. DB2/UDB is also around $20K per engine. Now 4 Sun boxes
On Monday, 04/22/2002 at 02:05 AST, Ann Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Keeping both machines could incur additional software and hardware
costs.
For now, I just need IBM to verify z/VM 3 really can't run in an IFL.
If it really can't, we'll just have to deal with it.
z/VM V3 really CANNOT run
Hi Lionel,
unless you have a closed private network REXEC and RSH while functional
leave your system wide open to attack, consider the secure shell ssh
instead.
Mark
-Original Message-
From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Lionel Dyck
Sent: 22 April 2002 15:31
...
This is nothing really new. Sharing a VM system with early releases of
MVS was unpleasant.
I hear that it's no problem with the two in different LPARs, and that
running MVS as a guest under VM works well with a surprisingly small
performance hit (in the 2-3% ballpark.)
--
--henry
I don't really see much of a problem here.
Since the IFL engines can't be mixed with S/390 engines. You end up
running the S/390 in seperate LPARs from the IFL engines.
Buy the new box.
Move your current z/VM 3 on the S/390 engines.
Install z/VM 4.2 on the IFL side.
Do the Linux proof of
Got this from a colleague today.
Mark Post
-Original Message-
The Penguin marches on...
For full text of article see the following URL:
http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,51902,00.html
--
Peru Discovers Machu
And, if I may ask, what
do you need
RSCS and PVM for that cannot be handled by FTP or Telnet? (Given that
this is a Linux workload, not traditional apps.)
One thing might be that they're integrating a set of pre-existing management
tools to cover the VM side of the new box -- not too
I have to take exeption to that statement, as it has been my experience
that they send you a we'll get right back to you e-mail and then do not
follow through. I've asked for pricing and support offerings three times
now and I've been rebuffed 3 times.
Seems to me you're trying awfully hard
I've been trying to think of a way to automate the shutdown of my linux
servers under z/vm and the thought of using rexec or rsh came to mind.
Before doing so what is the collective wisdom of the list? Is this a
worthwhile option to pursue? Are there any pros/cons to one or the other?
Any
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
First you get bootshell.cc from http://reason.marist.edu/patches/
bootshell-1.3.cc, and compile it and install it on your Linux system.
Then you can use a REXX EXEC like:
Now, if Mike put a GPL or BSD notice in it, perhaps SuSE and the others would
include it in their
When trying to install the 32-bit Oracle developer's edition under SLES (glibc
2.2.2-26, gcc 2.95.3, 2.4.7-SuSE-SMP kernel), I get
Linking client shared library
/opt/oracle/lib/libgeneric9.a(skgfr.o): In function `LT0_0':
skgfr.o(.text+0x18): undefined reference to `__cmpdi2'
has anyone established mean-time-between-failure numbers for linux instances
running under vm? anything general would be good information. i'm curious
about disk, memory or other system failures that compromise the vm
instances.
Jason A. Holly
CSC Mid-Range Systems Support
email: [EMAIL
...
This is nothing really new. Sharing a VM system with early releases of
MVS was unpleasant.
I hear that it's no problem with the two in different LPARs, and that
running MVS as a guest under VM works well with a surprisingly small
performance hit (in the 2-3% ballpark.)
--
--henry
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
James,
Go to http://reason.marist.edu/patches/bootshell-1.3.cc for the
source. The instructions on how to compile it are very simple: g++
bootshell.cc -o /sbin/bootshell
Then edit /etc/inittab and replace
1:2345:respawn:/sbin/sulogin /dev/console
with
On Tue, 23 Apr 2002 05:32:03 +0800, John Summerfield
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
This is nothing really new. Sharing a VM system with early releases of
MVS was unpleasant.
I hear that it's no problem with the two in different LPARs, and that
running MVS as a guest under VM works well
Hello from Gregg C Levine
Funny that particular comment surfaced here. If I remember correctly,
MVS was originally built, and debugged, under VM, early releases that is
of MVS, I would think, and I know everyone will correct me, that VM
itself was also built, and debugged under itself. Oh, and
John,
As you should remember, :) the feature on the 580s was MDF - Multiple
Domain Feature.
Dennis.
Of course PR/SM which turned into the LPAR facility... and a parallel
Amdal 580 feature obsoleted the software in 4-5 years.
john alvord
On Mon, Apr 22, 2002 at 04:26:39PM -0500, Holly, Jason wrote:
has anyone established mean-time-between-failure numbers for linux instances
running under vm? anything general would be good information. i'm curious
about disk, memory or other system failures that compromise the vm
instances.
38 matches
Mail list logo
