On Feb 10, 2005, at 4:10 PM, Nix, Robert P. wrote:
The two zOS images can ping each other. Traceroute shows a direct
connection. Pinging to the linux image from a zOS LPAR times out, as
does pinging to the zVM TCPIP stack.
Now it gets fun. On the Linux image, ping works to zVM. Traceroute
shows a d
I'm trying to set up a hipersockets link between our zOS LPARs and a linux
image. The hipersockets devices are defined as 7a00-7a0f, on CHPid FA. zOS
development is supposed to be using IP address 192.168.29.25, zOS techsupt is
supposed to be using 192.168.29.30. The linux image is
Follow-up:
I used YaST2 to configure hiperchannel, sort of. It is a bit confusing.
However it did not bind the IP to the interface. I had to manually do it.
In that process it cycled "eth0" as well!
I am not sure if the IP that I bound to "hsi1" hipersockets will survive a
re
I am trying to birng up hipersockets on our Linux LPAR to provide
alternate connection from our z/VM environment so I can change IP on eth0
and still be able to connect via hipersockts.
[ I have set up hipersockets on z/VM guests running SLES9 without any
problem!]
This LPAR is running SLES8 and
r off to give them a virtual
NIC instead.
You can then either use a virtual machine to transfer traffic between
the Hipersockets and the VSWITCH (as Alan suggests - which will cost
you CPU resources in the virtual router) or go through a shared OSA to
the other LPAR. I expect that when z/VM is busy
rying to do. We have a number
of VSWITCH LINUX instances running under one z/VM LPAR. We have a production VM
TCP/IP stack that we use for 'older' VCTC connections until we get them
switched over to VSWITCH. I would like to communicate from the LINUX instances
on the VSWITCH with an z
UX instances running under one z/VM LPAR. We have a
production VM
> TCP/IP stack that we use for 'older' VCTC connections until we get them
> switched over to VSWITCH. I would like to communicate from the LINUX
instances
> on the VSWITCH with an z/OS LPAR using HIPERSOCKETS. I do
7; VCTC connections until we get them
switched over to VSWITCH. I would like to communicate from the LINUX instances
on the VSWITCH with an z/OS LPAR using HIPERSOCKETS. I don't want to
'experiment' with the production TCP/IP stack, so I am configuring a second
stack to do the HIPER
I backed out the kernel from 2.4.21.266 to 2.4.21.261 and hipersockets are
now working fine. Thanks to all who assisted.
Peter
--
For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED
I tend to agree at this point. I thought I was immune to this problem
since I wanted native hipersockets. I have re-reported the problem to SuSE
to see if a fix is available yet or a timeline. How do I go about getting
the backout rpm k_deflt-2.4.21-261.s390.rpm as suggested in Joerg?s email
are part of a HiperSockets CHPID
installed in your processor, then you are probably encountering the same
problem Michael Lambert and others have reported with Virtual HiperSockets.
During initialization, the latest network driver uses a hardware feature
that might not be available on your processor
600-602 and 610-612 are QDIO OSAs connected to a VSWITCH. Those work fine.
620-613 are my hipersockets virtual UCBs. I have them defined in z/VM as
follows where FE04-FE06 are the real addresses:
USER LINUXM01
INCLUDE LINDFLT
DEDICATE 0620 FE04
DEDICATE 0621 FE05
DEDICATE 0622 FE06
Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Peter
E. Abresch Jr. - at Pepco
Sent: Friday, January 07, 2005 10:46 AM
To: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Linux Hipersockets under z/VM
I am having problems with hipersocket. I have hipersockets working fine on 2
native Linux LPARs however, this is my f
Thanks for responding. Unfortunately changing
"noauto;qeth0,0x0620,0x0621,0x0622,0,0,0"
with:
"noauto;qeth2,0x0620,0x0621,0x0622,0,0,0".
in /etc/chandev.conf did not change anything. qeth0 should be fine anyway.
Do I need to do anything special under z/VM for Linux guest for
Friday 07 January 2005 16:45, You wrote:
> I am having problems with hipersocket. I have hipersockets working fine on
> 2 native Linux LPARs however, this is my first attempt under z/VM.
>
> linuxm01:/etc/sysconfig/network # ifconfig hsi0
> hsi0: error fetching interface informat
I am having problems with hipersocket. I have hipersockets working fine on
2 native Linux LPARs however, this is my first attempt under z/VM.
linuxm01:/etc/sysconfig/network # ifconfig hsi0
hsi0: error fetching interface information: Device not found
linuxm01:/etc/sysconfig/network # ifconfig
On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 04:30:12PM -0600, Nix, Robert P. wrote:
> ... wait a minute... It's all confusing.
> I've found the statement in the book that "Direct connectivity
> between the four Hipersockets is not provided; however, connecting
> them via routing of
On Tuesday, 12/14/2004 at 04:30 CST, "Nix, Robert P."
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've found the statement in the book that "Direct connectivity between
the four
> Hipersockets is not provided; however, connecting them via routing of
any
> TCP/IP stack th
range is 7A00-7A0F, in both LPARs. The zOS folks used
7A00-7A02, and are able to talk to it from other LPARs on the OSA (not via the
Hipersockets; I'm not sure how that works...)
I dedicated 7A00-7A02 to a zLinux image, and 7A04-7A06 to TCPIP. I defined the
device and link to zVM's
>Is there some way to define virtual hipersockets without real addresses?
That is exactly what a TYPE HIPER guest LAN is.
> What can we do? I can't setup a Guest lan, because i need all of my guests
to talk to z/OS
> since we have an LDAP server we authenticat to over on that s
;From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
>Martha McConaghy
>Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 09:03
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: 127 device limitation for hipersockets
>
>
>You might want to also consider using VSWITCH or hipersocket guest lans
>that
in its LPAR. There is one OSAD (unneeded
> for Hipersockets) defined on each LPAR. This is 240 "interfaces", if I
> may use that word. This is the limit for OSA "interfaces" on a single
> OSA-Express on a 2066-0A2 (z800) running z/OS 1.4. At least if I try to
> exceed 24
Message-
From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Martha McConaghy
Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 09:03
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: 127 device limitation for hipersockets
You might want to also consider using VSWITCH or hipersocket guest lans
that do not have these
> -Original Message-
> From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Seader, Cameron
> Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 10:09 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: 127 device limitation for hipersockets
>
>
> Here is where the limita
> -Original Message-
> From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Alan Altmark
> Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 10:21 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: 127 device limitation for hipersockets
>
>
> On Thursday, 12/02/2004 at
> To cross the partition border from VM LPAR to z/OS LPAR you can use
hipersockets, which you are doing, or
> OSA devices (they can be shared), or real CTCAs - different types of
chpids can be configured as CTCAs - and
> you can get a bunch of CTCAs from one channel. If you are run
I'd use a VSWITCH for the small packet traffic. The OSAs would internally
switch things between partitions. I'd use real hipersockets for the big packet
stuff to directly connect partitions/machines. That way you're not relying on a
single machine being up and acting as a ro
On Thursday, 12/02/2004 at 09:09 MST, "Seader, Cameron"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> IBM has told us also that this limitation also applies to z/VM, This is
per
> LPAR. so i am limited to 127 devices online at one time. How have people
> overcome this limit, If i want to
sider using shared OSAs or CTCAs.
David
From: Linux on 390 Port on behalf of Seader, Cameron
Sent: Thu 12/2/2004 11:09 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: 127 device limitation for hipersockets
Here is where the limitation is comeing from on the 127 devices. I
You might want to also consider using VSWITCH or hipersocket guest lans
that do not have these limits. We have nearly 600 Linux guests running
on 2 guest lans with no problems. We have several hundred VM and Linux
guests running on another and are pushing large amounts of data through them,
again
an be freed and the offline IQD devices can be brought online."
IBM has told us also that this limitation also applies to z/VM, This is per
LPAR. so i am limited to 127 devices online at one time. How have people
overcome this limit, If i want to have hipersockets on all of my linux guests
Cameron,
I just set up real hipersockets myself recently. Initially, 256 devices on
chpid xx cuadd 0. I should be able to add another 256 on cuadd 1
eventually, and another 256 on cuadd 2, etc.
I dedicate 3 addresses per Linux guest, allocated sequentially (potential
for 85 servers over 255
On Thursday, 12/02/2004 at 07:19 MST, "Seader, Cameron"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Where is some good documentation on setting this up? Currently I have
real
> devices defined for each guest for hipersockets, so I am losing 4
addresses per
> guest. Is there another way
OK - I see where you could have gone awry. Unless the limit has changed: you
may have 4 CHPIDs type IQD for hipersockets. You can still have up to 1024
usable hipersockets.
If CHPID FE is IQD and CHPID FD is IQD and both have usable hipersockets you
CANNOT directly connect devices on
FE to FD
Unless the limit has changed: Hipersockets: device limits: 3072 yielding 1024
usable hipersockets.
Must define CHPIDs as type IQD.
David
From: Linux on 390 Port on behalf of Seader, Cameron
Sent: Thu 12/2/2004 10:36 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: 127
sorry for any confusion - but there are limits on the am
From: Linux on 390 Port on behalf of Seader, Cameron
Sent: Thu 12/2/2004 10:36 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: 127 device limitation for hipersockets
Yeah somewhere our IODF is messed up i think
Yeah somewhere our IODF is messed up i think, and we need to take a look at it.
It does not make sense that we can only have 127 devices. This would limit us
on how many of our guests could have hipersockets, and we want all of them to
have hipersockets, and we want to go well over 50, and 127
behalf of Seader, Cameron
Sent: Thu 12/2/2004 9:19 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: 127 device limitation for hipersockets
Where is some good documentation on setting this up? Currently I have real
devices defined for each guest for hipersockets, so I am losing 4 addresses per
guest. Is the
Where is some good documentation on setting this up? Currently I have real
devices defined for each guest for hipersockets, so I am losing 4 addresses per
guest. Is there another way of doing this? Which ways are there of doing this?
I have read documentation that seems to indicate that you
f only the locked buffers under the bar).
When you get close to such a limitation, I would not suggest the
approach that Adam suggests. Unlike what was hinted at before, we
don't have a HiperSockets version of VSWITCH, but an OSA Express
shared between the two LPARs does get close. The OSA microcode
On Dec 1, 2004, at 8:07 PM, Ranga Nathan wrote:
I am losing you. For each Linux guest we had to allocate distinct
addresses and aliased them like so, for hipersockets to work:
'ATT EC08 * EC00 '
'ATT EC09 * EC01 '
'ATT EC0A * EC02 '
'ATT ED08 * ED00 &#x
To cross the partition border from VM LPAR to z/OS LPAR you can use
hipersockets, which you are doing, or
OSA devices (they can be shared), or real CTCAs - different types of chpids can
be configured as CTCAs - and
you can get a bunch of CTCAs from one channel. If you are running into
004 05:16 PM
Please respond to Linux on 390 Port
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject:Re: 127 device limitation for hipersockets
On Dec 1, 2004, at 7:09 PM, Ranga Nathan wrote:
> currently we have two hipersockets defined per guest, one with 64k mtu
> block si
On Dec 1, 2004, at 7:09 PM, Ranga Nathan wrote:
currently we have two hipersockets defined per guest, one with 64k mtu
block size and one with 8k mtu block size. We use the one smaller mtu
size
hipersocket to talk among the other guests from guest to guest and to
do
authentication to a USS LDAP
t;
12/01/2004 01:57 PM
Please respond to Linux on 390 Port
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject:127 device limitation for hipersockets
I am currently running into an issue, so i'm posting to this group to see
if anyone has any solution for me on this issue.
I am currently running into an issue, so i'm posting to this group to see if
anyone has any solution for me on this issue.
I am running z/VM 4.4, SLES 8 and SLES 9 64 bit, with hipersockets on each
guest.
currently we have two hipersockets defined per guest, one with 64k mtu block
size an
On Thursday, 11/25/2004 at 05:21ZE10, Vic Cross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> The MTU size must be set appropriately with respect to the definition of
the
> Hipersockets CHPID in HCD. This definition in effect determines the
maximum
> 'block size' that can be sent on
> It would be nice to have some DWIMity built into computers.
>
> DWIM = Do What I Mean (geekspeak)
I still have my Xerox Dandetiger. It has DWIM functions...8-)
--d b
--
For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instru
Mark K" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent by: Linux on 390 Port <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11/25/2004 10:01 AM
Please respond to Linux on 390 Port
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject: Re: Hipersockets and z/VM access
Well, no. A computer actually does exactl
22 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Hipersockets and z/VM access
-snip-
> It is like dealing with teenagers!
I would describe everything about working with computers that way! ;)
--
For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff /
Ranga Nathan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Changing the MTU to 8192 made TCP/IP force it to 16384 and everything
> started working!
The MTU size must be set appropriately with respect to the definition of the
Hipersockets CHPID in HCD. This definition in effect determines the maximum
'
After some considerable difficulty tracing why I can not connect to z/VM
from outside, I figured out that specification of correct (!) MTU on
hipersockets caused the problem.
I set the MTU to 16384 but TCP/IP did not like it. TCP/IP was partially
paralysed. Hipersockets did not work.
We could go
On Wed, Nov 24, 2004 at 05:15:16PM -0500, Peter E. Abresch Jr. - at Pepco
wrote:
> Yes, QDIO and hipersockets (iQDIO) require VTAM which is part of z/OS's
> Communication Server.
To expand on this slightly...
For several releases of Comms Server (since about OS/390 2.5, ISTR) VT
Yes, QDIO and hipersockets (iQDIO) require VTAM which is part of z/OS's
Communication Server.
Ranga Nathan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]
l.com> To
Sent by: Linux on [EMAI
Firstly let me say that the Hipersockets redbook was an excellent source
of reference.
I have a question. On the z/OS side, it seems VTAM's TRLE is used by
hipersockets. It is VTAM that reserves the addresses. Is VTAM absolutely
essential? Or is there some other way to
Linux/390 can communicate over an arbitrary number of network interfaces.
HiperSockets are no different in that regard. Two interfaces can be in the
same subnet, as long as the routing is set up to handle that properly. Just
guessing, but it sounds like that wasn't done.
Mark
For sometime I could not get the z/VM and a Linux guest to ping each other
via hipersockets.
I found that this was because the Linux guest had attached two sets of
addresses for two hipersockets. Although the IP's were different
(192.168.1.101 and 192.168.1.102) there was no connection. Af
Greetings,
Having troubles getting hipersockets working on SLES 9 2.6 kernel. Here are the steps
im taking and they are not working.
1. First issue this command below to add the hipersocket devices to a
group device
# echo 0.0.,0.0.,0.0. >
/sys/bus/ccwgroup/drivers/qeth/gr
I have just completed setting up a hipersocket connection to zVM on a Z800. We are not
running Linux under VM, we have an IFL processor and Linux running in an LPAR. I have
some documentation that I created for myself. I also setup an explicit route on Linux
so that I can bypass the intranet and
You configuration looks : world - qdio osa card - vm/TCPIP - hypersocket
- LINUX.
Mark , Pieter and Alan already outlined that hipersocket is not a p2p (but
this is probably not the problem in this case) and pointed to verify
routing problem both from linux to the world and viceversa.
I only sug
On Thursday, 10/21/2004 at 04:17 AST, GWillis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am having a spot of trouble configuring virtual hipersockets. I have
it
> working to the extent that I can communicate between z/VM 4.3.0 and
Debian
> Linux s390 (kernel 2.4.19) however, I cannot comm
: 10.8.1.93 mask: 255.255.255.255
> UP MULTICAST POINTOPOINT MTU: 1500
>
>Hipersockets are in no way a point-to-point connection.
I agree Hipersockets probably shouldn't be point-to-point, but that is
what is in the PROFILE TCPIP:
GATEWAY
10.8.1.93 =
Hipersockets are in no way a point-to-point connection.
Mark Post
-Original Message-
From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
GWillis
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004 4:17 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: virtual hipersockets
Hello,
I am having a spot of trouble
Hello,
I am having a spot of trouble configuring virtual hipersockets. I have it
working to the extent that I can communicate between z/VM 4.3.0 and Debian
Linux s390 (kernel 2.4.19) however, I cannot communicate between Linux, and
the outside network. I'm hoping someone can point me i
This actually turned out to be related to my problem. Apparently, when you
use YaST2 to configure hipersockets, it touches everything it is supposed
to EXCEPT /etc/chandev.conf
As soon as I looked at that file on the working system, I saw entries in it
for the ethernet device ID's as well a
cc
390 Port
<[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject
IST.EDU> Re: Hipersockets weirdness
08/26/2004 01:55
PM
Please respond to
Linux on 390 Port
Sure - you can have hsi0 and eth0 at the same time - it is the same driver
but the adapters have different types. I have this on SLES8 and SLES9
systems.
Here examples for SLES8:
in /etc/chandev.conf specify:
#
noauto;qeth0,0xff00,0xff01,0xff02
noauto;qeth0,0x3100,0x3101,0x3102;add_parms,0x10,0x310
ert J Brenneman
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2004 2:56 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Hipersockets weirdness
Try hsi1 - since hipersockets and osa-express use the same driver, it
appears as another instance of the same type of device.
It could also be that youre starting the address sequence
Try hsi1 - since hipersockets and osa-express use the same driver, it
appears as another instance of the same type of device.
It could also be that youre starting the address sequence on an odd
number, try devices 0ED4-ED6
Jay Brenneman
Linux Test and Integration Center
T/L: 295 - 7745
I thought I Had this down, but apparently not.
I built a new Linux guest and I'm trying to get the thing to talk to a
hipersocket.
The devices 0ED3,0ED4,0ED5 , show up in /proc/chandev and /proc/subchannels
The Chandev entries:
Initialised Devices
read write data read write data c
essage-
From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of James
Melin
Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 2:31 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Attempting to get hipersockets configured in Linux - point to
point working!
-snip-
I cannot seem to find any documentation on exactly how to te
*** Reply to note of Thu, 27 May 2004 13:31:06 -0500 (EST/CDT)
*** by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Do you have an entry for the hipersocket device in
/etc/sysconfig/network/routes? For example:
192.168.252.0 0.0.0.0255.255.255.0 hsi1
default 137.70.100.3 0.0.0.0 eth0
James Melin <[E
On Thursday, 05/27/2004 at 01:31 EST, James Melin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've done some testing. and I don't see a speed improvement for FTP
of
> a large file via FTP to a hipersocket address vs a GBE ethernet
connection.
>
> I did an ftp to the IP address of a Linux guest, and then repea
I've done some testing. and I don't see a speed improvement for FTP of
a large file via FTP to a hipersocket address vs a GBE ethernet connection.
I did an ftp to the IP address of a Linux guest, and then repeated the send
of that file to the same guest via the hipersocket defined for it. The
ot;add_parms,0x10,0x0ed9,0x0edb,portname:blah". You're not setting a
portname though (which is fair enough now that it's no longer required) so
YMMV -- and indeed did, because the output of the driver loading that you
posted indicated that it loaded successfully and found the Hipersock
I have made myself some how-to doc on this, and i have SLES 8 running on s390x. Here
is my Doc, it is very short really.
of course you will have to change the device id's and such to fit your configuration.
Hipersockets Configuration
1. First add an alias to the hipersock
Are there any SLES-8 specific hipersockets documentation out there?
"Lucius, Leland"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]
olab.com> To
Sent by: Linux on [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> in /etc/rc.config (which was blank)
>
>
> pepin:/ # more /etc/rc.config
> NETCONFIG="_0 _1"
> IPADDR_1="192.168.252.13"
> NETDEV_1="hsi1"
> IFCONFIG_1="192.168.252.13 netmask 255.255.255.0"
>
> For this linux guest the hipersocket address assigned is
> 192.168.252.13 as opposed to the exam
On Thu, 2004-05-27 at 08:24, James Melin wrote:
> in /etc/rc.config (which was blank)
DANGER WILL ROBINSON.
SLES8 doesn't use /etc/rc.config.
You want /etc/sysconfig/network/ifcfg-hsi1
Adam
--
For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff
I am working with two documents that cover this:
The z/Series Hipersockets redbook (may 2002), SG2406816-00 and the share
presentation Hipersockets in the Round a z/OS, z/VM, zLinux Perspective by
Frank J. De Gilio from IBM.
We have tested hipersockets from z/os to z/os and foudn that to work
Sent by: Linux on [EMAIL PROTECTED]
390 Port cc
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]
IST.EDU> Subject
Re: Hipe
To
Sent by: Linux on [EMAIL PROTECTED]
390 Port cc
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]
IST.EDU> Subject
Re: Hipe
If you've loaded the appropriate driver modules, yes. Nothing shows up
there without a driver.
Mark Post
-Original Message-
From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of James
Melin
Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 2:37 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Hiperso
> Even if I have not defined them to the linux guest itself, if they've
> been dedicated to the VM guest ID, a cat of /proc/chandev should show
> me the devices right?
Yes, they should. In use and chandev reg will be no.
Are they not there? Do they show up in /proc/subchannels?
~ Daniel
-
> Even if I have not defined them to the linux guest itself, if they've
been
> dedicated to the VM guest ID, a cat of /proc/chandev should show me
the
> devices right?
/proc/subchannels?
~ Daniel
---
This message i
Even if I have not defined them to the linux guest itself, if they've been
dedicated to the VM guest ID, a cat of /proc/chandev should show me the
devices right?
--
For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
To
> Sent by: Linux on [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 390 Port cc
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> IST.EDU> Subject
>
On Tuesday 18 May 2004 16:11, you wrote:
>
> If we're in 31 bit mode on z/VM we should do 2 real and 1 expanded?
> We change the config on the 23rd of this month, so I want to get it
> right. The next time we can change the config is july 18th but the
> POC will be over by then.
>
Steve Wehr recom
for zvm cp: do q cplevel it will report if your are using "32 bit" or "64 bit" CPLOAD
module.
David
From: Linux on 390 Port on behalf of James Melin
Sent: Tue 5/18/2004 4:11 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Hipersockets. a couple of
cc
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]
IST.EDU> Subject
Re: Hipersockets. a couple of
questions
05/1
To
Sent by: Linux on [EMAIL PROTECTED]
390 Port cc
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]
IST.EDU> Subject
igs of ram for the VM environment. (2.5 real, .5
> expanded) and we'll be setting up hipersockets
>
> One thign we noticed when we moved fromhaving WAS used the DB2 Connect
> Client talking to DB2 connect EE in another LPAR that in turn was talking
> to DB2 on Z/os, to a WAS/DB2 on t
: Tuesday, May 18, 2004 3:39 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Hipersockets. a couple of questions
So you would have Linux set up with two QDIO devices how do you
configure it so that that the LDAP/DB2 traffic goes into hipersocket devices
address and the rest of it goes to the real
Subject
Re: Hipersockets. a couple of
questions
05/18/2004 02:18
PM
Please respond to
Linux on 390 Port
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]
IS
You can most definitely use the HiperSockets. They look like one big
Ethernet pipe to the systems on both sides.
Mark Post
-Original Message-
From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of James
Melin
Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2004 3:14 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject
We're continuing in our pilot, and as of the 23rd, we're going onto the
z900 with 2 IFL's and 3 Gigs of ram for the VM environment. (2.5 real, .5
expanded) and we'll be setting up hipersockets
One thign we noticed when we moved fromhaving WAS used the DB2 Connect
Client talki
On Friday, 03/26/2004 at 03:13 PST, "Richard W. Lauck, Cornerstone
Systems, Inc." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You are going to need a zSeries machine, z/800, z/900 or z/990 as
> Hipersockets is a zArchitecture microcode LIC feature. On the operating
> systems, you wi
You are going to need a zSeries machine, z/800, z/900 or z/990 as
Hipersockets is a zArchitecture microcode LIC feature. On the operating
systems, you will need at least z/OS 1.2.You can simulate Hipersockets
on G5/G6 or MP3000 machines with z/VM 4.2 and above with VLAN.
Richard W. Lauck
IBM have made the workaround below (to get around the mvslogin and mvslogout not
compiling problem) part of Info APARs II11447 and II13061.
--Harold
-Original Message-
From: Kubannek, Harold
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2004 09:41
To: 'Linux on 390 Port'
Subject: RE: Hi
We used Debian at 2.4.21 in the test cases. As long as it's a reasonably
modern kernel, it should work.
And, yes, this is an ideal use for hipersockets. You want a fast low-latency
pipe for the Amanda server to z/OS piece -- NFS isn't very bright about
retrying timeouts. The Amanda
301 - 400 of 492 matches
Mail list logo
