I can't think of any problems with using sysctl().
-Original Message-
From: John Summerfield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 3:37 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux390 + VM + Tape 3490
On Fri, 13 Jun 2003, Fargusson.Alan wrote:
Actually you hit
sysctl sounds like a good approach. It gets around the problem I mentioned
above correlating the OS device address with the device node. And it only
has to be used on tape drives that require the assign/unassign.
Whatever mechanism is used, it must prevent real I/O
(read/write/rewind/woef) to
I've watched threads here on how idle Linux guests chew on CPU because
Linux PC versions expect the whole system to be idle if they are idle.
That's because we push the limits. We get upset because an idle Linux uses
0.01% of a CPU, but for many installations this is not a show-stopper.
I've
: Re: Linux390 + VM + Tape 3490
So what happens when Linux is running in an LPAR or native?
Regards, Jim
Linux S/390-zSeries Support, SEEL, IBM Silicon Valley Labs
t/l 543-4021, 408-463-4021, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*** Grace Happens ***
Ward, Garry
[EMAIL
On Thursday, 06/12/2003 at 05:50 MST, Jim Sibley/San Jose/[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think we might be confusing several issues
I think everyone has a good understanding of the issues, Jim. A
requirment to unload/reload the device driver is a non-starter and voids
all of the dynamic device
: Linux390 + VM + Tape 3490
on 390 Port
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ARIST.EDU
13/06/2003
14:38
Please respond
to Linux on 390
Port
On Thursday, 06/12
On Friday, 06/13/2003 at 02:28 CET, David Goodenough
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This sounds a lot like the kind of processing that hotplug should do?
David
In 2.5/2.6, things will change because of the generalized Linux support
for dynamic I/O config changes, with automatic execution of device
On Fri, 13 Jun 2003, David Goodenough wrote:
This sounds a lot like the kind of processing that hotplug should do?
Not exactly, IMO.
Hotplug responds to plugging something in, and to pulling it out.
Equivalent of a VM attach/detach.
What we want is to have the tape drives attached
cc:
Sent by: Linux Subject: Re: Linux390 + VM + Tape 3490
on 390 Port
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ARIST.EDU
13/06/2003
15:00
Please respond
On Friday, 06/13/2003 at 03:35 CET, David Goodenough
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now on a mainframe this is more
difficult, and a slightly different approach may be required, but the
principle holds. You might for instance have the device named by its
label, so /dev/dasd/label rather than
]
|
| cc:
|
| Subject: Re: Linux390 + VM + Tape 3490
Parden the interruption. I would like to get some clairification about
just who is affected. I've been following these posts...
When I use tape directly from Linux (Suse), I attach/detach the tape
drives. (Of course, running under z/VM) I don't seem to have any of
the problems being
PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 5:50 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux390 + VM + Tape 3490
I think we might be confusing several issues: 1) there are dedicated tapes
to an OS host that can only be shared between the users on that hosts using
software locks, 2) there are shared tape
12, 2003 4:57 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux390 + VM + Tape 3490
In batch it happens at the allocate, which I think is at start of job in JES3, and
start of step in JES2.
In TSO you do an allocate command, although I doubt many people do this. Usually
they write
the user would like
this to work.
-Original Message-
From: David Boyes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 5:40 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux390 + VM + Tape 3490
On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 05:31:39PM -0700, Fargusson.Alan wrote:
The mt command is designed
On Friday, 06/13/2003 at 08:57 MST, Wolfe, Gordon W
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you're running under VM, and have VMTAPE in use, and have Neale's
cpint
package installed and working, it seems to me you should be able to do
something like
hcp sm vmtape mount volser 181
and have VMTAPE (with
Actually you hit on the problem with using mt. Before you can do an
ioctl() you have to open() the tape, but before you can open() the tape you
have to
allocate it. I don't see how you can use ioctl() to allocate the tape.
Take a peek at blockdev. It does a similar sort of thing to what I
even mean. Would you reserve by UID, or by process control
group, or something else?
-Original Message-
From: David Boyes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 9:38 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux390 + VM + Tape 3490
Actually you hit on the problem with using
Alan wrote:
I think everyone has a good understanding of the issues, Jim.
Based on the previous and subsequent posts to this thread after this
statement , based on Boeblingen's design of the tape390 driver, and based
on the restrictions on the Developer works pages for the tape staring, I
think
I am forking this particular item because mostly, my deep dark subconscious
floated a question up to my rational mind, and I have decided to ask it
here...
What would it take to allow/have/make z/Linux cooperate in a parallel
sysplex environment, so that tape devices in use by os/390, could also
All it takes is for Linux to issue the appropriate Assign and Unassign
channel commands to the shared tape. Sysplex would be serious overkill.
Romney
On Fri, 13 Jun 2003 12:46:28 -0500 James Melin said:
I am forking this particular item because mostly, my deep dark subconscious
floated a
Great...Thanks Jim
Tom Duerbusch
THD Consulting
What me worry?
To answer Tom's question about the extent of the problem:
2 - running under VM, using attach with the default of assigned, you
have
do not have the problem.
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 12:48 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: z/Linux and Parallel Sysplex [was Linux390 + VM
+ Tape 3490]
All it takes is for Linux to issue the appropriate Assign and Unassign
channel commands to the shared tape. Sysplex would be serious
Amen to the overkill comment. I'm an MVS guy, and even _I_ don't want to go
there.
Mark Post
-Original Message-
From: Romney White [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 1:48 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: z/Linux and Parallel Sysplex [was Linux390 + VM + Tape
3490
PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 3:00 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: z/Linux and Parallel Sysplex [was Linux390 + VM + Tape
3490]
Okay let me ammend that Paralell Sysplex commuinication in a NON-VM
environment. Otherwise, having tape drives does me hardly any good unless
I wanna
with the host.
Garry E. Ward
Senior Software Specialist
Maritz Research, Automotive Research Group
419-725-4123
-Original Message-
From: Tom Duerbusch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 11:41 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux390 + VM + Tape 3490
Parden
]To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
z.com cc:
Sent by: Linux onSubject: Re: Linux390 + VM + Tape 3490
390 Port
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
IST.EDU
06/13/2003 09:21
On Fri, 13 Jun 2003, Fargusson.Alan wrote:
Good points. I was confusing attach and allocate.
Given this, I think the discussion has gotten a bit confused about what problem we
are trying to solve.
Even if we invent a way for a user to reserve a tape, I think the driver will still
need
On Fri, 13 Jun 2003, Wolfe, Gordon W wrote:
If you're running under VM, and have VMTAPE in use, and have Neale's cpint package
installed and working, it seems to me you should be able to do something like
hcp sm vmtape mount volser 181
and have VMTAPE (with STAM if your tape drives are
On Fri, 13 Jun 2003, Fargusson.Alan wrote:
Actually you hit on the problem with using mt. Before you can do an ioctl() you
have to open() the tape, but before you can open() the tape you have to allocate it.
I don't see how you can use ioctl() to allocate the tape.
Any objection to
On Fri, 13 Jun 2003, Fargusson.Alan wrote:
This would reserve the tape to that machine, but would allow another user on the
same machine to use the tape. Maybe that is what you want, but that is not what
reserve implies.
Figuring out how to prevent other users from using the tape is a
On Fri, 13 Jun 2003, Post, Mark K wrote:
I just don't want to see that much junk stuffed into an OS that doesn't
need it. Sysplex code is heavy to radically understate the case.
Ok, so let's not have Linux joining a Sysplex -- to me, the processing
paradigms are just too different between
Alan Altmark wrote :
Perhaps the UTS drivers are better behaved? File open-to-close doesn't
sound like a very useful paradigm (but I don't know how Linux applications
use tape drives) and I don't know if one part of Linux can open a tape
file (tape management system, just to lock the drive
File open-to-close doesn't
sound like a very useful paradigm (but I don't know how Linux applications
use tape drives) and I don't know if one part of Linux can open a tape
file (tape management system, just to lock the drive and to request a tape
mount) and another part of Linux subsequently
Paul, have you physically verified that UTSG actually works this way on
s/390 in both LPAR or under VM? Does it apply to ECKD shared tapes, not
dedicated tapes? It the lock a UTSG lock or is it a hardware
assign/unassign. Without the hardware assign/unassign, it is not really
locked from other
on it, is
strictly prohibited.
-Original Message-
From: Jim Sibley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 12:05 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux390 + VM + Tape 3490
Paul, have you physically verified that UTSG actually works
this way on
s/390 in both
I'm sorry - you're right - there is no such thing as ECKD tape. Wrong term
- I hope you can write that off as a senior moment ;) What I meant was
ESCON subchannel tapes.
Regards, Jim
Linux S/390-zSeries Support, SEEL, IBM Silicon Valley Labs
t/l 543-4021, 408-463-4021, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***
The assign is done at open/close time, I suspect if one applicaiton
assigns
the drive and leaves it assigned, then another application uses the drive,
then the the assign would be dropped after the second app closes the file.
Methinks the Right Thing To Do would be to add function to mt to
Dave wrote:
Methinks the Right Thing To Do would be to add function to mt to allow
it
to reserve a drive (eg, mt reserve /dev/st0) when a application wants
on,
and provide a release function when you're done with it (eg mt release
/dev/st0). That would be generic enough to handle most of the
:
|
| Subject: Re: Linux390 + VM + Tape 3490
Since its really a zSeries notion, it seems to me putting the
assign/unassign in insmod/delmod tape390 initialization somehow would be
more appropriate. Also, the way the tapes have been implemented (by dev
node), there is no mount involved. Mounts in linux don't really mount
devices - they
Hi, Jim
Since Paul's on South African time and I'm here in California, I had a go.
The UTS Global Tape Subsystem includes the command tapevary(8), used
mainly to vary online a tape drive to the system. So, tapevary on
3028 varies drive 3028 online. It causes the UTSG tape driver to
perform an
On Thu, 12 Jun 2003, Jim Sibley wrote:
File open-to-close doesn't
sound like a very useful paradigm (but I don't know how Linux applications
use tape drives) and I don't know if one part of Linux can open a tape
file (tape management system, just to lock the drive and to request a tape
On Thu, 12 Jun 2003, Jim Sibley wrote:
Dave wrote:
Methinks the Right Thing To Do would be to add function to mt to allow
it
to reserve a drive (eg, mt reserve /dev/st0) when a application wants
on,
and provide a release function when you're done with it (eg mt release
/dev/st0). That
***
John Summerfield
[EMAIL PROTECTED]To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
afe.com.au cc:
Sent by: Linux on 390Subject: Re: Linux390 + VM + Tape
3490
Port
[EMAIL
On Thu, 12 Jun 2003, Richard Hitt wrote:
Hi, Jim
Since Paul's on South African time and I'm here in California, I had a go.
The UTS Global Tape Subsystem includes the command tapevary(8), used
mainly to vary online a tape drive to the system. So, tapevary on
3028 varies drive 3028 online.
]To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
afe.com.au cc:
Sent by: Linux on 390Subject: Re: Linux390 + VM +
Tape 3490
Port
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
EDU
06/12/2003
On Thu, 12 Jun 2003, Jim Sibley wrote:
John,
insmod tape390 tape=xxx,xxx - only list the tapes you want to use are
specified. Obviously, putting them in the zipl.conf would lock them for the
duration of the IPL - not good for shared tapes.
Having loaded tape390 once, can you then load it
, since it would
be about the same as TSO. I think that the mt command is not the right place to do
this though.
-Original Message-
From: John Summerfield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 4:35 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux390 + VM + Tape 3490
On Thu
On Thu, 12 Jun 2003, Fargusson.Alan wrote:
In batch it happens at the allocate, which I think is at start of job in JES3, and
start of step in JES2.
In TSO you do an allocate command, although I doubt many people do this. Usually
they write some JCL, and submit it.
I think an allocate
:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 5:25 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux390 + VM + Tape 3490
On Thu, 12 Jun 2003, Fargusson.Alan wrote:
In batch it happens at the allocate, which I think is at start of job in JES3, and
start of step in JES2.
In TSO you do an allocate
: Linux390 + VM + Tape 3490
390 Port
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
IST.EDU
06/12/2003 04:57
PM
Please respond to
Linux on 390 Port
In batch it happens
On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 05:31:39PM -0700, Fargusson.Alan wrote:
The mt command is designed to control a tape drive. An allocate
command would be used to gain access to a tape drive, and prevent
others from using it. Perhaps this seems like a fine point, but I
prefer to separate the
Hello :
I have 6 Linux machines running on a VM environment and I have only one
tape 3490.
How can I share this Tape Unit between all these Linux machines?
In which way can I make these all Linux machines to see and share the
tape unit?
Regards from Ariel, and please
The UTS Global Tape Services Suite (TSS) for Linux/390 will
accomplish this task, specifically the Tape Management
Subsystem and Distributed Tape Subsystem products.
Please see http://www.utsglobal.com/linuxprod.html for details.
Feel free to contact me/us off-list if you require any further
On Wednesday, 06/11/2003 at 08:50 ZE2, Paul Wilkinson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The UTS Global Tape Services Suite (TSS) for Linux/390 will
accomplish this task, specifically the Tape Management
Subsystem and Distributed Tape Subsystem products.
Please see
Please, Alan, could you explain me, what do you mean in a reasonable
way? I don't understand the difference between Tape usage and drive
usage.
And sorry, I don't want to spend your time.
Ariel
El mii, 11 de 06 de 2003 a las 16:33, Alan Altmark escribis:
On Wednesday, 06/11/2003 at 08:50 ZE2,
Alan, shared tapes may have a problem under VM. I know they do when running
in an LPAR (see the disclaimer on the IBM under restrictions at
http://www10.software.ibm.com/developerworks/opensource/linux390/index.shtml
). The assign/unassign function is not implemented the same way in Linux as
in
On Wed, 11 Jun 2003, Kennedy Ariel wrote:
Hello :
I have 6 Linux machines running on a VM environment and I have only one
tape 3490.
How can I share this Tape Unit between all these Linux machines?
In which way can I make these all Linux machines to see and share
59 matches
Mail list logo
