P.S. For some unknown reason, I was consistently misspelling DETACH
On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 10:17 PM Don Williams donbwms.foru...@gmail.com
wrote:
Ouch. I typically work in the z/OS world where there is only VARY.
Multiple systems (including systems that are not local VM guests) could
have
Ouch. I typically work in the z/OS world where there is only VARY. Multiple
systems (including systems that are not local VM guests) could have the
same DASD device online. Those other systems could re-label the volume
while the volume was online to VM but not attached. Then hours later I
could
on to the guest I get the not linked message. When I log back into MAINT
and q dasd free, the disks in question are showing free again. This says to
me I am not attaching them correctly. Am I on the right track?
On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 1:12 PM, Don Williams donbwms.foru...@gmail.com
wrote:
ATTACH
Glad we could help.
On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 1:57 PM Cameron Seay cws...@gmail.com wrote:
Worked like a charm. Problem solved! Thanks folks!
On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 1:52 PM, Don Williams donbwms.foru...@gmail.com
wrote:
When you ATTACH w/o keyword SYSTEM, you are ATTACHing to your guest
P.S. In order to do the format you need to attach to your guest. Then
reattach to SYSTEM to allow LINKs to be processed.
On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 1:58 PM Don Williams donbwms.foru...@gmail.com
wrote:
Glad we could help.
On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 1:57 PM Cameron Seay cws...@gmail.com wrote
ATTACH to SYSTEM would be the logical time to read the label, since VM
would need to validate the label in order to securely process LINK
requests. ATTACH to guest would not require validating label.
I use to get confused between ATTACHing devices and LINKing minidisks. And
the difference between
I thought vol1 labels were read when to ATTACH dev TO SYSTEM. Once ATTACHed
to SYSTEM, then minidisk on that volume would be available to LINK to
guests.
On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 12:31 PM Mark Post mp...@suse.com wrote:
On 8/15/2015 at 11:56 AM, Cameron Seay cws...@gmail.com wrote:
Any ideas
Is using System z MIPS for office applications a good use? I'm not sure
one way or the other.
Could the cost of running office applications on System z be cheaper than
running them on a PC?
When more types of applications run on System z, IBM could sell to more
customers. IBM would need to make
There are hardware architecture differences (e.g., the way numbers are
stored, etc.) between Intel and System z.
Of course, applications can be written to handle these differences, but they
would need to tested in both types of environments.
Since they probably don't have free access to System z,
Agreed.
-Original Message-
From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU] On Behalf Of
Alan Altmark
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 10:29 AM
To: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: Who's using execute in place?
On Tuesday, 02/12/2013 at 09:57 EST, David Boyes
LOL, it helps me not make that mistake again.
-Original Message-
From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU] On Behalf Of David
Stuart
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 2:59 PM
To: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Adding a Volume to a LV
Morning again,
Never mind. I figured
Sadly, multi-platform viruses have been created. It all depends on the
hacker's intentions and abilities.
-Original Message-
From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU] On Behalf Of Dean,
David (I/S)
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 9:27 AM
To: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU
A few days ago, our IBM sales support surveyed us, asking if we used CMMA. I
had to tell him that I did not even know what it was. He said that it was a
memory management process. Being a gray haired z/OS systems programmer, but
newbie to z/VM zLinux (inherited responsibility for z/VM and SUSE
13 matches
Mail list logo
