At 10:04 16-10-02, Mark Perry wrote:
>It would seem to me that LVM is really the way to go to avoid the headaches
>Jim spoke of earlier, as it also allows FS's to span DASD too giving 3390-x
>model independence (plus stripping etc.).
... maybe the way to go, but not very far I believe ...
When I
he floor is now open to comments ;-)
Ciao
Mark
-Original Message-
From: Mark Perry
Sent: 16 October 2002 09:28
To: Linux on 390 Port
Subject: RE: Antwort: Max number of dasd devices
Hi John,
no one every pointed that out to me before I just looked it up and according
to the docs your right
Ciao
Mark
-Original Message-
From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
John Summerfield
Sent: 15 October 2002 23:22
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Antwort: Max number of dasd devices
On Tue, 15 Oct 2002, Mark Perry wrote:
> I've been trying to understand the headache
World hunger comes to mind.
Romney
On Wed, 16 Oct 2002 05:21:43 +0800 John Summerfield said:
>On Tue, 15 Oct 2002, Mark Perry wrote:
>
>> I've been trying to understand the headache that Jim mentions relating to
>> the lack of devfs support in SuSE zinux. All that devfs buys you is the
>> abilit
On Tue, 15 Oct 2002, Mark Perry wrote:
> I've been trying to understand the headache that Jim mentions relating to
> the lack of devfs support in SuSE zinux. All that devfs buys you is the
> ability to refer to the device address rather than some drive letter in
> non-devfs, and the fact that dri
ays available)
Ciao
Mark
-Original Message-
From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
John Summerfield
Sent: 15 October 2002 03:30
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Antwort: Max number of dasd devices
On Tue, 15 Oct 2002 08:51, you wrote:
> Just as I thought - Linu
At 11:06 14-10-02 +0100, Malcolm Beattie wrote:
>For the userland issue, I've often wondered why someone hasn't done
>a version of scsidev for z/Linux (presumably "dasddev" would be the
>obvious name). It would simply go look at all the DASD information
>available via /proc/dasd/devices, /proc/pa
On Tue, 15 Oct 2002 08:51, you wrote:
> Just as I thought - Linux is more interested in some notion of
> "cleanliness" rather than real user problems! devfs has already been
> coded and is available for zSeries users who need some relief. I've
> been struggling with this idiotic dev node system fo
Just as I thought - Linux is more interested in some notion of
"cleanliness" rather than real user problems! devfs has already been
coded and is available for zSeries users who need some relief. I've
been struggling with this idiotic dev node system for 2 years on up to
40 linux LPARS and I can te
Jim Sibley writes:
> When will SuSE have the devfs as the default for zSeries so we don't
> have to compile the kernel to use it and get away from the double
> mapping we have to do between device and device node? It is a real
> nuisance to try and map 100 devices per LPAR for 7 or 8 LPARs. Then t
Ihno wrote:
>According to /usr/src/linux/Documentation/devices.txt the numbers from
>231
>.to 254 are allocatet the following way:
>
>231-239 UNASSIGNED
>
>240-254 LOCAL/EXPERIMENTAL USE
There is a discrepancy between the doc and the code that was
implemented for the dasd d
On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 04:11:28PM -0700, Jim Sibley wrote:
> Udo wrote:
>
> >so additional major numbers (typically descending from 254) are
> >allocated
>
> Doesn't this conflict with the tape major numbers? What is their range?
>
According to /usr/src/linux/Documentation/devices.txt the numbers
Udo wrote:
>so additional major numbers (typically descending from 254) are
>allocated
Doesn't this conflict with the tape major numbers? What is their range?
Regards,
Jim
*** grace happens ***
Hi James,
here is an extract from "Device Drivers and Installation Commands, July 31,
2002, Linux Kernel 2.4"
==
The DASD device driver is capable of accessing an arbitrary number of
devices.
The default major number for DASD (94) can only address 64 DASD (see below
for
details), so
14 matches
Mail list logo
