>>> On Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at 3:39 PM, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, RPN01 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just to steer things a bit off target...
>
> Is there any advantage of either CDL or CMS formatting over the other? CMS
> would require pre-processing before giving the disk to a Linux image,
Just to steer things a bit off target...
Is there any advantage of either CDL or CMS formatting over the other? CMS
would require pre-processing before giving the disk to a Linux image, where
Linux can format the disk itself if it is doing CDL. Beyond that, are there
any speed or capacity issues?
Am Freitag, 21. September 2007 schrieb Richard Troth:
> Christian,
>
> Never assume that ECKD is CDL again, please.
And never assume its not, please :-)
Rick, I know that you have enough knowledge about disk formats. And people
trust you, because they know you have a lot of experience. So when yo
Christian,
Never assume that ECKD is CDL again, please. The CMS FORMAT command lays down a
flawless array of 4k blocks before it stamps a CMS "EDF" filesystem on the
volume.
You are correct that FBA has no problem with unpartitioned media. But most
other disk architectures do likewise, includi
Also, make sure that if you code your dasd device entries in zipl.conf that
this device address is in zipl.conf? Also probably want to do a mkinitrd
and then a zipl.
You probably want an fstab entry for it too.
-J
Martha specifically indicated that she had CMS formatted the disk, which
renders it with uniform 4k blocks, not the "strange" first cylinder laid down
by CDL.
I quite agree: if using CDL, then DO NOT try to use the first cyl for arbitrary
data. But I would take it further and say don't use CDL
Thanks for showing me the error of my ways!
Turns out, I had run mkinitrd earlier in the process to add ext3 to the
initrd. So, had failed to run it, again, after activating the disk.
Seems that doing it later on doesn't help. You really have to do it at the
right time.
Now my disk and boot are
Am Freitag, 21. September 2007 schrieb Richard Troth:
> Skip the "partitioning" game. Put the filesystem on /dev/dasdd instead
of /dev/dasdd1 and mount that. (be sure all this matches /etc/fstab, of
course)
Rick,
Never suggest that again, please. You really have to know your systems very
well bef
>>> On Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at 11:56 AM, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Richard Troth
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Skip the "partitioning" game. Put the filesystem on /dev/dasdd instead of
> /dev/dasdd1 and mount that. (be sure all this matches /etc/fstab, of course)
-snip-
Since the IBM developer
Martha
It sounds like you have it defined wrong in fstab. What does the entry look
like.
Calvin Fisher
--
For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LIN
Skip the "partitioning" game. Put the filesystem on /dev/dasdd instead of
/dev/dasdd1 and mount that. (be sure all this matches /etc/fstab, of course)
But lately, SuSE likes to put more knowledge in the initial RAM disk. So you
probably need to run 'mkinitrd' and then 'zipl' before rebooting.
>>> On Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at 11:45 AM, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Martha McConaghy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
-snip-
> figure). Suddenly, someone needs a disk added to their Suse virtual
> machine. I created the minidisk, and CMS formatted it - so far no problem.
>
> I went through Yast-hard
Did you do a zipl or what ever is used in Suse to rebuild/update the boot
record?
-Original Message-
From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Martha McConaghy
Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 11:46 AM
To: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Suse disk frustration
OK, I'
OK, I'm sure I'm doing something dumb, but I've pounded my head against the
wall long enough to seek some help.
I haven't really touched Suse in a couple of years, so I'm pretty rusty
and my notes aren't as good as they seemed to be when I wrote them (go
figure). Suddenly, someone needs a disk ad
14 matches
Mail list logo
