:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 2:48 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Mach in user direct
Mark:
Maybe it was incorrectly defined as an XC-mode guest.
Romney
On Thu, 2 Oct 2003 13:38:37 -0400 Post, Mark K said:
Something about this rings a bell. Someone recently had
We are running linux images with 31 bit addressing under z/VM. The
machine arch for our linux images has been defined by our VM sysprog as
XA. Is there any disadvantage/advantage of this vs. ESA or some other
architecture as far as the linux images are concerned? My initial
thought was that the
Nix, Robert P. wrote:
Except for the CP QUERY SET command which will return machine XA or machine ESA.
And because some program product only could cope with either 370 or XA
in there, running CMS in ESA rather than XA machine was/is unsupported.
Rob
-Original Message-
From: Rich Smrcina [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 11:11 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Mach in user direct
According to z/VM 4.3 CP Planning and Administration under the MACHINE
statement of the user directory:
XA
designates an XA virtual
remember if that came up on this list, or in a private email. I'll do some
poking around and see if I can find the note.
Mark Post
-Original Message-
From: Rich Smrcina [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 11:11 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Mach in user
up on this list, or in a private email. I'll do some
poking around and see if I can find the note.
Mark Post
-Original Message-
From: Rich Smrcina [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 11:11 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Mach in user direct
According to z
White [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 2:48 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Mach in user direct
Mark:
Maybe it was incorrectly defined as an XC-mode guest.
Romney
On Thu, 2 Oct 2003 13:38:37 -0400 Post, Mark K said:
Something about this rings a bell. Someone
