On Thu, 2005-10-06 at 07:58 +0200, Waite, Dick wrote:
We read, Because IBM's lawyers forbids IBM employees to sign
off on code that they did not write. At the moment, Martin Schwidefsky
of IBM is considered the architecture maintainer for mainframe Linux.
This makes him the only person
On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 11:14:42AM -0400, Post, Mark K wrote:
Because IBM's lawyers forbids IBM employees to sign off on code that
they did not write. At the moment, Martin Schwidefsky of IBM is
considered the architecture maintainer for mainframe Linux. This makes
him the only person from
Don't get me started. Despite the best (and continual) efforts of our
many friends in Boeblingen it appears there's resistance elsewhere to
including anything which is Not Invented Here. Despite it's 5 year
pedigree and widespread use cpint couldn't make it past 1st base. I'm
not looking forward
Technically, having the command fail or truncate output because the user
didn't anticipate the size of the response correctly seems a major step
backwards. Principle of Least Astonishment dictates that the command
shoulb do the Right Thing w/o user intervention. Hcp does, vmcp does not,
forcing
There will be little need for [E]CKD emulation once z/OS groks SCSI.
-- R;
I disagree. There are enough shops still running older releases that will
never have SCSI support that argue that ECKD is still necessary for a goodly
period. Also, z/OS SCSI support isn't scheduled until a future
On Wednesday, 10/05/2005 at 10:03 EST, Rick Troth
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There will be little need for [E]CKD emulation once z/OS groks SCSI.
Does SCSI do PPRC- and FLASHCOPY-esque functions?
Well, it does if a) the vendors choose to expose the necessary APIs and b)
the underlying hardware
Well, from my viewpoint, there is one very big minus to doing the ECKD
emulation on the host (mainframe). How much CPU will it cost me? How
does the cost of the host CPU compare to the cost of the CPU in the dasd
box? Can this processing be done in some other special purpose CP
(like an IFL or
Does SCSI do PPRC- and FLASHCOPY-esque functions?
Sure. We do PPRC and Flashcopy for in our SCSI environments
all the time. (To be more precise, this is usually where the fun
part starts as to device qualification testing ;)
We don'nt do it inband, of course. Certainly, all our proprietory
See the following url (watch for text wrap, please) for more details
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20051006/tc_afp/japanitsoftwarelinuxcompanymicrosoft;_ylt=AvzBbei6.mylfAzxbGmLYwqs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3cjE0b2MwBHNlYwM3Mzg-
DJ
On 10/6/05, Christian Borntraeger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
vmcp shows at least the same amout of information as cpint if you use
the default settings. But if 64kbytes are not enough you can force vmcp
to try allocation lets say 180kb of buffer - which is not possible with
cpint.
You could
I understand that all 31-bit hosts must utilise storage below the 2G
line, and consequently if you have many active hosts and you over commit
storage, your VM system will page, even if the sum of the working sets
of all hosts is say 50% (or less) . What I'm not so sure about, is
whether
Another reason for implementing the above emulated tape, and adding
ECKD emulation over SCSI in VM ...
Well, I don't see why we would need to run SCSI over IP for that.
z/VM is capable of doing SCSI of FC, at least disk; not sure,
though, what their status regarding SCSI tape is.
Anyway, my
On 10/6/05, John P Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I understand that all 31-bit hosts must utilise storage below the 2G
line, and consequently if you have many active hosts and you over commit
storage, your VM system will page, even if the sum of the working sets
of all hosts is say 50% (or
One of the most visible things is disk I/O where CP needs to
put the guest data pages under the bar and Linux decides to
use different pages for I/O all the time. The recent
distributions have options in the to prevent that from happening.
True for ECKD, but nor for SCSI - though this z/VM
Neale Ferguson wrote:
Don't get me started. Despite the best (and continual) efforts of our
many friends in Boeblingen it appears there's resistance elsewhere to
including anything which is Not Invented Here. Despite it's 5 year
pedigree and widespread use cpint couldn't make it past 1st base.
Please don't patronise me. I and several others from the VM/Linux
Technical Steering committee of SHARE have been working hand-in-hand
with the lab people since SHARE was in San Francisco a few years ago to
work out a means of doing co-operative development. Those involved
determined it would be a
Since when has U*ix ever followed the Principle of Least Astonishment?
Well, anyone who's ever been conscious while reading Kernigan and Plauger
has no excuse not to. Certainly, the classic Unix commands obey it. Later
additions are less well-designed.
Software development is like any other
DB seems to have taken my jest a bit too seriously:-)
David Boyes wrote:
Since when has U*ix ever followed the Principle of Least Astonishment?
Well, anyone who's ever been conscious while reading Kernigan and Plauger
has no excuse not to. Certainly, the classic Unix commands obey it.
On releases of VM prior to 5.2, there won't be much difference -- I/O still
has to move below the 2G line. z/VM 5.2 has dramatic improvements in this
area (according to the presentations at zExpo a few weeks ago).
-Original Message-
From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Another reason for implementing the above emulated tape, and adding
ECKD emulation over SCSI in VM ...
Well, I don't see why we would need to run SCSI over IP for that.
You don't. Different discussion, different problem space. iSCSI solves a
device sharing problem. The problem with 34xx
Stop bitching. Your problem is that you even think about such
non-problems instead of getting work done. Submit patches to lkml and
forget about all the legal crap. Or as Theo de Raat would say it:
Shut up and code
--
For
As we say back in Oz, go and get a big black dog up ya. I was
explaining why things are as they have become. I'm now going down the
path you suggest.
-Original Message-
Stop bitching. Your problem is that you even think about such
non-problems instead of getting work done. Submit
James,
I am getting a failure when I try to set up a cloning server per the
book ...
So this is just the first install of the controller?
Device 0.0.9000 configured
qeth: received an IDX TERMINATE with cause code 0x4e
qeth: Initialization in hardsetup failed! rc=-5
Do you have the user ID to
Hey, this is better than Comedy Central.
--
For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit
http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
This use to be a nice place to come and not worry about Flames all over
the place.
-Original Message-
From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Christoph Hellwig
Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 13:45 PM
To: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: 2005-10-04 Recommended
On Oct 6, 2005, at 12:54 PM, Peter Rothman wrote:
Hey, this is better than Comedy Central.
Go and get a big black dog up ya.
http://www.fsf.net/~adam/BC-200509/BC-200509-Pages/Image23.html
(that's Golem, here dressed up as O.G. Doggy Dogg)
Adam
What's in the bottle?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/6/2005 2:02 PM
On Oct 6, 2005, at 12:54 PM, Peter Rothman wrote:
Hey, this is better than Comedy Central.
Go and get a big black dog up ya.
http://www.fsf.net/~adam/BC-200509/BC-200509-Pages/Image23.html
(that's Golem, here dressed up as O.G.
I thought flame wars were for game playing teenagers, not adult
professionals. Ah another myth down in flames. Pun definitely intended.
Mark D Pace
Senior Systems Engineer
Mainline Information Systems
1700 Summit Lake Drive
Tallahassee, FL. 32317
Office: 850.219.5184
Fax: 888.221.9862
On Oct 6, 2005, at 1:11 PM, Richard Pinion wrote:
What's in the bottle?
That's his VSOP (don't tell anyone, especially Golem, but it's really
just VO). Notice his bling, too. That's 'cause he's not just any
dog, he's O.G. Doggy Dogg, chillin' in his crib.
This is what happens when you
On Thursday, 10/06/2005 at 12:13 EST, James Melin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am getting a failure when I try to set up a cloning server per the
book
qeth: received an IDX TERMINATE with cause code 0x4e
qeth: Initialization in hardsetup failed! rc=-5
Make sure you don't have a layer 2
Christoph Hellwig and others:
[... Meow, hiss, hiss, spit...]
Neale:
[... Bark, bark, woof, bark...]
Calm down, folks -- we can disagree politely here. Both sides have points.
There is something that needs to be discussed here, though. One of the
observations early on in the project of
Hmm.. I'm not sure the Intel analogy is a fair comparison. Intel could
care less about the specifics of what is being done at a software level
with Linux. At the end of the day they are just happy that it is running
on their chips. IBM on the other hand is in a very interesting position
when it
And considering that it is not
unfeasible that technology could be incorporated into Linux
(i.e. Xen) that could devalue the proposition of running
zLinux altogether or at the very least running it under VM.
This will happen regardless of whether IBM is the gatekeeper for the 390
On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, McKown, John wrote:
Well, from my viewpoint, there is one very big minus to doing the ECKD
emulation on the host (mainframe). How much CPU will it cost me?
...
Yes! yes.
I acknowledge David's points in rebuttal to my comment.
But YOUR point is a big part of why I don't
On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
...
That's bullshit. I've many ACKs for my patches touching arch/s390 from
IBM people. Nevermding, cpint is not only doing the split wrong, it's
also utter crap code. I haven't actually looked at the replacement, but
I doubt it can be worse.
On Thursday, 10/06/2005 at 04:22 EST, Rick Troth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The day will come with z/OS will bear the burden for its own ECKD
emulation.
Objection, Your Honor! Assuming facts not in evidence. If/When z/OS
supports SCSI, you may rest assured that it will do it in a way that
Had a funeral today.
First cousin to my father-in-law.
The departed did not want the formalities we normally have, so there
was no clergy tapped. But in celebrating a life, it often turns into
a good sized party, so they tapped my father-in-law to officiate.
There's something to that
On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, Alan Altmark wrote:
Objection, Your Honor! Assuming facts not in evidence.
If/When z/OS supports SCSI, you may rest assured that it will
do it in a way that makes business sense to the consumers ...
You work for IBM. I don't. Care to submit facts for evidence?
I can
Hello from Gregg C Levine
Mark, the way people argue, won't change much when they get older,
when it covers technology.
I am convinced however. This is far more restrained then the usual
flame war, Why do this, this way?, as opposed to Do this, this
way?.
---
Gregg C Levine [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
On Thursday, 10/06/2005 at 05:17 EST, Rick Troth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, Alan Altmark wrote:
Objection, Your Honor! Assuming facts not in evidence.
If/When z/OS supports SCSI, you may rest assured that it will
do it in a way that makes business sense to the consumers
40 matches
Mail list logo
