Not that I want to bring this subject back up, but I think there were
a few unanswered questions.
You can find the device queueing on Performance Toolkit FCX108 DEVICE
report under the Req. Qued field. Also is reflected in difference
between Serv Resp (Service Time and Response Time). Shown in
Alan wrote:
The primary reason PAVs exist is to provide relief to
fully-populated z/OS systems with 256 chpids and 64K
devices.
That assumes an even access density on 256 chpids and
64k devices. Real world experience suggests that 80%
of your devices have low access densities and you
don't care
Re: Latest on PAV's?
04/05/2005 01:55
PM
Please respond to
Linux on 390 Port
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
IST.EDU
Jim, Linux on zSeries running as a guest supports PAV if the dasd device
PROTECTED]
James Melin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent by: Linux on 390 Port LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU
06/04/2005 09:36
Please respond to
Linux on 390 Port
To
LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU
cc
Subject
Re: Latest on PAV's?
I presume then, that if a PAV device is dedicated to a linux guest then
the
LVM of all
Sent by: Linux on cc
390 Port
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject
IST.EDU Re: Latest on PAV's?
04/06/2005 09:18
AM
Please respond
Please respond to
Linux on 390 Port
To
LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU
cc
Subject
Re: Latest on PAV's?
So LVM integration of PAV devices would not be a good way to do shared
dasd
amongst many guests, such as sharing /usr read only. My understanding is
that Dedicate locks the device to one guest
. Is this preventative planning or a problem in your
current environment?
Jay Brenneman
James Melin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent by: Linux on 390 Port LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU
06/04/2005 10:26
Please respond to
Linux on 390 Port
To
LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU
cc
Subject
Re: Latest on PAV's?
So LVM integration
of James Melin
Sent: Wed 4/6/2005 11:20 AM
To: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: Latest on PAV's?
Preventative 'what if' thinking mostly. If I share out /usr amongst guests,
the disk that it is on is x many times more likely to have I/O. As x
becomes a larger number, that I/O increases. At some
I doupt we have device queuing on CP-owned volumes.
Minidisks? Is there anything other than minidisks?
Everything is on minidisks or full pack minus one cylinder minidisks.
Just wait until you have some idiot (me) relabel VSE packs which happen
to cover cylinder 0 and then months later, IPL VM
What about PAV's for page/spool volumes? We're trying
to decide what size shark volumes to use in a new VM installation.
Jim Sibley
Computers are useless.They can only give answers. Pablo Picasso
(The NSHO's expressed here represents no-one but myself).
On Apr 6, 2005 7:50 PM, Jim Sibley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What about PAV's for page/spool volumes? We're trying
to decide what size shark volumes to use in a new VM installation.
If you plan to run a lot of large Linux virtual machines without a bag
of tricks, then eventually you will need
I've been watching all day and no queuing so far.
Alan Altmark wrote:
On Tuesday, 04/05/2005 at 07:41 EST, Rich Smrcina [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Devil,
Minidisks here.
I did not mean to imply that no one uses mindisks and I certainly was not
suggesting a poll! After all, some of my best friends
and delete this message.
Thank you for your cooperation.
-Original Message-
From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rich
Smrcina
Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 11:33
To: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: [LINUX-390] Latest on PAV's?
I've been watching all day
the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete this message.
Thank you for your cooperation.
-Original Message-
From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rich
Smrcina
Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 11:33
To: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: [LINUX-390] Latest on PAV's
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rich
Smrcina
Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 11:33
To: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: [LINUX-390] Latest on PAV's?
I've been watching all day and no queuing so far.
Alan Altmark wrote:
On Tuesday, 04/05/2005 at 07:41 EST, Rich Smrcina [EMAIL PROTECTED
On Wednesday, 04/06/2005 at 11:36 EST, Tom Duerbusch
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I doubt we have device queuing on CP-owned volumes.
If you aren't getting queues, then PAV will provide no benefit.
The primary reason PAVs exist is to provide relief to fully-populated z/OS
systems with 256 chpids
What's the latest support for PAV's for VM? To support
Linux volumes under VM? Our MVS people want to jump
from 3390-3 to 3390-12 images. No problem for them,
they have PAV's. But we have to share the shark. Our
preference would be to go to 3390-12 if there is PAV
support, otherwise a smaller
and can provide relief
from device contention in I/O intensive environments.
Jay Brenneman
Jim Sibley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent by: Linux on 390 Port LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU
05/04/2005 14:34
Please respond to
Linux on 390 Port
To
LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU
cc
Subject
Latest on PAV's?
What's
to IBM for PAV support in zVM
and
for VM minidisk.
-
What's the latest support for PAV's for VM? To support
Linux volumes under VM? Our MVS people want to jump
from 3390-3 to 3390-12 images. No problem for them,
they have PAV's. But we have
but it does work and can provide
relief from device contention in I/O intensive environments.
Jay Brenneman
Jim Sibley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject
Latest on PAV's?
What's the latest support for PAV's for VM? To support
Linux volumes under VM? Our MVS people want to jump
from 3390-3 to 3390-12
On Tuesday, 04/05/2005 at 12:51 PDT, Barton Robinson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Has anyone outside of ibm actually implemented PAV
for Linux? From everything i've seen, the requirement
is in VM, not Linux.
Are folks getting excessive device queuing on CP-owned volumes in their
production
Devil,
Minidisks here.
Alan Altmark wrote:
On Tuesday, 04/05/2005 at 12:51 PDT, Barton Robinson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Has anyone outside of ibm actually implemented PAV
for Linux? From everything i've seen, the requirement
is in VM, not Linux.
Are folks getting excessive device queuing on
cooperation.
-Original Message-
From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rich
Smrcina
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2005 17:42
To: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: [LINUX-390] Latest on PAV's?
Devil,
Minidisks here.
Alan Altmark wrote:
On Tuesday, 04/05/2005 at 12:51 PDT
On Tuesday, 04/05/2005 at 07:41 EST, Rich Smrcina [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Devil,
Minidisks here.
I did not mean to imply that no one uses mindisks and I certainly was not
suggesting a poll! After all, some of my best friends use minidisks!
:-)
Of those using mindisks in production, I am
For curiousity's sake, where should we look for evidence of 'queuing'
on the minidisks defined to linux guests?
RTMESA? VMPRF? Some CP command? Displaying control blocks?
/Tom Kern
--- Alan Altmark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Of those using mindisks in production, I am curious to know if you
are
25 matches
Mail list logo
