Went to see if there were any samba3 package updates for s390 today
and
found the following link no longer valid:
ftp://ftp.suse.com/pub/people/gd/samba3
Anyone happen to know if that's officially gone or just maybe moved to
another location on their site?
I don't know what became of
I'm in the begining stages of loading Linux a separate lpar. I have
IPL'd off the the tape and went through the process to ipl off dasd.
When I IPL of dasd I receive the following error message:
The Load control unit or device is busy .
Yes, dasd address is defined as being shareable to
Does RedHat support SAN (open fcp) on zSeries and crypto card? We also are being
pressured to standardize on RedHat now that we have
some RedHat servers on intel. It doesn't matter than we've been running SuSE a couple
of years.
Cameron, Thomas wrote:
Answers inline, below:
-Original
Please see the What's New page at:
http://www10.software.ibm.com/developerworks/opensource/linux390/whatsnew.shtml
for a change summary of the 2004-05-28 additions and changes to the
Linux for zSeries and S/390 developerWorks Web pages.
April 2004 stream:
o Recommended kernel 2.6.5 bug fixes
I don't know about yesterday, but it just worked for me.
Mark Post
-Original Message-
From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Dave MYERS
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2004 12:50 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: SuSE Support Portal up
Anyone else having problems
In the latest kernel SRPM, I see these:
linux-2.4.20-s390-aio.patch
linux-2.4.20-s390-common.patch
linux-2.4.20-s390-compat.patch
linux-2.4.20-s390-elfper.patch
linux-2.4.20-s390-lcs.patch
linux-2.4.20-s390-make390x.patch
linux-2.4.20-s390-maxargs25.patch
Any status codes that got reported?
Mark Post
-Original Message-
From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Robert Kippers
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2004 9:31 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Linux install
I'm in the begining stages of loading Linux a separate lpar. I
Sorry it took me so long to reply. I'm the author of z90crypt, and I was
just double-checking my references before I replied. I'm going to second
Alan's suggestion of getting the hardware folks involved. I had never
seen that failure in any of my testing and my reference material indicates
that
Robert,
Is there any chance that the DASD device is *reserved* to another
system? Personally, I'd make sure that it was OFFLINE to all other
systems (z/OS, z/VM, ...).
The reason that I say this is that we had something similar (too long
ago to be sure) happen when one system was backing up the
To preface this, this all started when our z/OS tcp/ip person tested z/OS
to z/OS hipersocket performance and found it nearly the same as using GBE
osa connection. I immediately went 'huh' and went on to get hipersockets
configured in the z/VM Linux guests.
I then ran some testing after doing so,
This brings me to a question.
We have 16 volumes allocated for the Linux LPAR (we are running OS/390
R2.10) . I wonder how we would do volume backups on the MVS side for
these volumes. I am told that we need to shutdown the Linux LPAR, do the
backup and then bring it back up. I am not happy with
125 Storing data set /it/public/Su810_001.iso
100% |*| 595 MB2.68
MB/s--:--
ETA
250 Transfer completed successfully.
624885855 bytes sent in 03:41 (2.68 MB/s)
Depressing isn't it? I've never been able to get much (or any) better than
what you
Just a thought.
Do you have to change the MTU size at all? I think it
defaults on linux to 1500.
Just a thought. Does the MTU size even play into the
hipersockets at all?
Yepper, it does. I'm currently running with a 56KB MTU (on z/OS side) and have tried
lower. Never could get the
On Friday, 05/28/2004 at 12:13 EST, Lucius, Leland
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yepper, it does. I'm currently running with a 56KB MTU (on z/OS side)
and have
tried lower. Never could get the FTP up very high. I even transferred
files
between a TFS under z/OS and an ram disk under Linux.
FYI the MTU size being used was 8192
Seader, Cameron
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
er.comTo
Sent by: Linux on [EMAIL PROTECTED]
390 Port
I wonder if for some reason the 192.x address is NOT being used during
FTP. Is there a confirmation that the transfer is actually going through
the hipersocket?
Alan Altmark [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent by: Linux on 390 Port [EMAIL PROTECTED]
05/28/2004 10:41 AM
Please respond to Linux on 390 Port
Well to check THAT particular item (on the z/linux to z/linux transfers
anyway) I ipl'ed both guests to set the hsi1 tx/rx numbers back to 0, and
then ran the test. When I did an ifconfig against each guest, the eth0
interface showed a few K of traffic, whereas the hsi1 interface showd 593
MB of
Ummm...you have to have the same MTU on both sides. Make
sure you have
MFS (OS= in IOCDS) at 64K.
Oops, I did mislead with that didn't I? Sorry, 'bout that.
Here's the interface:
hsi0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:00:00:00:00:00
inet addr:10.2.32.30 Mask:255.255.255.0
So, what you're saying is that the problem isn't with Linux, or
HiperSockets, or TCP/IP (as such) on z/OS, it is the z/OS implementation of
FTP. Perhaps we just need a different/better tool to test transfer speeds.
And perhaps someone needs to open up a PMR with z/OS support about the FTP
Since there's only two ends on that pipe, I think you can safely assume that
the other end of it saw as much traffic as you did on the Linux side. :)
Mark Post
-Original Message-
From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of James
Melin
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2004 2:00
Maybe someone could try with NFS instead of FTP
Is anyone running NFS over HiperSockets to z/OS???
Scott Ledbetter
StorageTek
-Original Message-
From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Post,
Mark K
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2004 12:13 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Maybe someone could try with NFS instead of FTP
Is anyone running NFS over HiperSockets to z/OS???
I tried that as well. Unfortunately, I can't remember (and didn't write
it down) the throughput. Let me see if I can get some #s real quick.
Leland
That's definitely going to be a problem. Get that changed to something more
reasonable and see what things look like.
Mark Post
-Original Message-
From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of James
Melin
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2004 1:53 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Maybe someone could try with NFS instead of FTP
Is anyone running NFS over HiperSockets to z/OS???
I tried that as well. Unfortunately, I can't remember (and
didn't write
it down) the throughput. Let me see if I can get some #s real quick.
Okay, I NFS mounted an HFS directory
The reason I say that is because the message I got from the FTP connect.
Specifically: FTPD1 IBM FTP CS V1R4 at OWL0.CO.HENNEPIN.MN.US, 13:46:49 on
2004-05-28
I don't know if the FTP daemon is programmed to spit out the machine name,
but the hipersocket address does NOT resolve to a DNS entry.
I fear I'm gonna start a flame war here, but here goes anyway.
WARNING: I am NOT speaking for IBM here ... this is all personal
experience. I also want to apologize in advance for the length
of this post.
Network bandwidth is measured point-to-point. Leland's test using
netpipe is probably the
Rob van der Heij pointed me to some Linux/390 presentations from the zSeries
Conference in the Netherlands this month. They look pretty good.
Presenter Title
Daniel Baud Linux on the Mainframe customer
experience at University of Grenoble
Rob van der Heij The
That's like saying you put a rate limiter on your Ford Escort and your
Ferrari, so what difference does it make?
Mark Post
-Original Message-
From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of James
Melin
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2004 2:50 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re:
Rob van der Heij The Art of Squeezing Penguins
How much juice do you get out of one of those. I'm pretty lazy...could
I just use one of these?
http://www.jackspowerjuicer.com/
Leland
(Rob's been a busy little beaver lately)
I haven't tested zLinux-z/OS, but a few months ago I did some testing with
zLinux-zLinux hipersockets and GBe with both ftp and NFS. I tried various z990
chpids:
CHP Frame MTU
FA 16KB8KB
FB 24KB16KB
FC 40KB32KB
FD 64KB64KB
These tests were done during
Consider that a single TCP/IP instance can have many IP addresses.
Mark Post
-Original Message-
From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of James
Melin
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2004 2:49 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Did some extensive hipersocket
3.82KB/s??? Is that supposed to be MB/s
Uh, can we all say...oops! ;-) Yes, that was supposed to be MB/s.
Leland
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail communication and any attachments may
contain proprietary and privileged information for the use of the designated
recipients named
We had a TCPIP performance issue when we upgraded from
OS/390 2.7 to 2.10. The conclusion of that the problem is attached
below (from an IBM ETR record).
This could be another lead to follow
... from looking at the trace and the dump, we see that
Optimal max segment size is 65,495 bytes,
As many/most of you have noticed, I've not been able to keep the main page
of the web site updated for quite a while. Other parts have been a little
better, but could be better as well. My apologies for that, and I will try
to do something about it. I do have a reason (although not an excuse)
All I'm saying is that it was consistent across the tests. I may open a
PMR on it, because the numbers are not just wonky, they're mega wonky. I am
gonna do one more run to z/os in binary, as I don't think I ever set it.
EBCDIC/ASCII translations could have been happening.
Post,
Mark,
It is certainly a herculean effort on your part to attempt to keep that
up and frankly I've often wondered how you found the time to do so. I
want to say that your efforts are greatly appreciated, it is a great
reference. For my opinion, I don't think it is necessary to summarize
the
Mark,
I would say put the .../present/ directory on the front page. I'd
recommend sorting the presentations/papers in reverse chronological order
and perhaps adding a date to each entry (perhaps a small script/app to gen
the Web page is worth looking into). Keeping the presentations up to date
Mark,
Rich certainly hit the nail on the head...it's a great deal of work on
your part and your efforts are indeed greatly appreciated by the group.
I don't think the front page needs to carry a summary of the list.
IMHO, the front page should have:
1) pointers to recent major announcements of
On Friday, 05/28/2004 at 03:19 EST, Lucius, Leland
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I can live with that. What is the theoritical maximum for a
hipersocket?
It's a function of microcode. The faster the processor, the faster it
runs. Theoretically, of course.
Alan Altmark
Sr. Software Engineer
IBM
What is the theoritical maximum for a hipersocket?
To be honest (and embarassed), I have no clue. Maybe someone else
does. Alan?
--Jim--
James S. Tison
Senior Software Engineer
TPF Laboratory / Architecture
IBM Corporation
If dogs don't go to heaven, then, when I die, I want to go where they
Alan,
It's a function of microcode. The faster the processor, the faster it
runs. Theoretically, of course.
That sounds a lot like an 'It depends' answer.
Hummm ... Maybe Bill is rubbing off on you ...
;
Regards,
Jeff
--
Jeffrey C Barnard
Barnard Software, Inc. http://www.bsiopti.com
Phone
I've uploaded Linux/390 source code patches for the 2.4.26 kernel to the
linuxvm.org website. This file has the equivalent of all the IBM patches
for their 2.4.21 June 2003 stream, plus a couple of patches to fix
compilation errors. Most of the work was done by the Debian folks, so thank
them
42 matches
Mail list logo
