Echoing what others have said: Set up your Linux guest userids to IPL CMS
first, and in the profile, run swapgen to create your vdisk swap space. This
takes all the pain out of using vdisk for swap. Once this is done, IPL the
minidisk containing your Linux guest boot.
Once in Linux, if you don't
I visited a customer yesterday, and they mentioned a weird problem:
They have a z/Linux guest that's acting as an SNA gateway for some VSE users.
So it's dual-homed: a virtual NIC (vNIC) for incoming TCP/IP traffic, and a
real OSA for outgoing SNA (to the VSE guest(s) -- not sure what happens
Smells like something outside the box is changing route information in
the rest of the network to indicate a sub-optimal or non-working path.
Several times an hour would be consistent with default OSPF route
announcement/convergence timing.
Phil,
Is this gateway machine having a dispatching problem? Is it running CCL?
Phil Smith III wrote:
I visited a customer yesterday, and they mentioned a weird problem:
They have a z/Linux guest that's acting as an SNA gateway for some VSE users.
So it's dual-homed: a virtual NIC (vNIC)
We are in the midst of a development effort to migrate one of our
websites to the Linux for zSeries platform. Our developers work on
Windows and then move their work over to the Linux for Zseries
platform. On their PCs, they are using Sun's JVM. On Linux, they are
using using IBM's JVM. I am
Not CCL .. The software is from TPS.
-Original Message-
From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Rich Smrcina
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 9:16 AM
To: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: Weird network problem
Phil,
Is this gateway machine having a dispatching
On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 12:49 PM, in message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ron
Foster at Baldor-IS [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We are in the midst of a development effort to migrate one of our
websites to the Linux for zSeries platform. Our developers work on
Windows and then move their work over to the
Hello,
I have more information now.
They are having a problem with something called SEEM that helps them do
security.
It is being used to check a user's roles against a function that they
want to perform.
With the IBM JVM, a user always pass a security check. With an SUN JVM, the
security
In an effort to not have to have the Linux Admin staff do something in
VM I added the exec below to the boot process.
I'm still fine tuning it but over all it works rather well.
We were advised that we should have two swap spaces, one on Vdisk and
one on real disk.
The vdisk being primary and
oops, The product is SEAM, not SEEM. Both are put out by jboss.
Original Message
Subject:[Fwd: Java and Web development sources]
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2008 13:55:26 -0600
From: Ron Foster at Baldor-IS [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Organization: Baldor Electric Company
To:
We have two IFL's defined to one of our systems.
Today via the profiles we have it set so that CPU 00 is used by only VM,
and the Linux guests use only CPU 01 (really IFL's)
Does anyone else do this ... reserve a whole IFL for just VM?
Thanks,
Paul
On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 2:55 PM, in message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ron
Foster at Baldor-IS [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-snip-
We have a Novell support contract. Does anyone know if this is something
that Novell support would work on?
According to
Z/VM's overhead is so little; I'd see no point in reserving an entire engine
for it, unless you have a large CMS workload running beside your Linux
guests. Even then, both the CMS guests and the Linux guests could benefit
from the use of both CPUs when the load of one or the other exceeds a single
On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 4:00 PM, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Ayer,
Paul W [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We have two IFL's defined to one of our systems.
Today via the profiles we have it set so that CPU 00 is used by only VM,
and the Linux guests use only CPU 01 (really IFL's)
Does anyone
I've never had the privilege of having 2 IFLs, but I can't imagine leaving 1
engine only for VM's usage. VM's overhead should be tiny, and I would think
it is nearly a waste of an engine. Of course if you have a monitor you
would be able to see how much/little resources VM is actually using.
On
I am told (I'll have to get a copy of the vm profiles too)that for now
CPU 01 is the only CPU def in each of the Linux guest profiles. And
there is a dedicate statement too. So this leaves CPU 00 for VM.
so this was done by design for some reason.
I'm thinking that this is a waste also.
We have two IFL's defined to one of our systems.
So do we.
Today via the profiles we have it set so that CPU 00 is used by only VM,
and the Linux guests use only CPU 01 (really IFL's)
How did you do this? I can't think of an easy way to do this.
Does anyone else do this ... reserve a whole IFL
I am told (I'll have to get a copy of the vm profiles too)that for now
CPU 01 is the only CPU def in each of the Linux guest profiles.
Ah, but that means *virtual* cpu 01, not *real* cpu 01
And there is a dedicate statement too. So this leaves CPU 00 for VM.
But only one guest (the first one to
Hi, Paul.
Ayer, Paul W wrote:
I am told (I'll have to get a copy of the vm profiles too)that for
now CPU 01 is the only CPU def in each of the Linux guest profiles.
And there is a dedicate statement too. So this leaves CPU 00 for VM.
The CPU definition statement in the CP user directory
Thank you all for your help. I'll try these suggestions and let you know
how it went.
And as for SLES9 vs 10, well that battle wasn't for ones as lowly as the
Sys Admin's politics made this choice for us. :-(
Thanks all!
---
Derric Goodwin
Open Systems Engineering
TransUnion,
On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 2:50 PM, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Ayer,
Paul W [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In an effort to not have to have the Linux Admin staff do something in
VM I added the exec below to the boot process.
I'm still fine tuning it but over all it works rather well.
Why would
21 matches
Mail list logo
