Well, Alan has 13 days before we have to pay him per question :). Where are
you Alan???!
Counts are incrementing:
About 8 seconds between these 2 commands:
q islink
Link: FD10 Type: CTCA
Node: TD6VM Bytes Sent: 852
State: Up Bytes Received: 852
Buffer Count: 16 Status: Idle
Link: FDA0 Type: CTCA
Node: Bytes Sent: 355
State: Down Bytes Received: 213
Buffer Count: 16 Status: Idle
Link: FE10 Type: CTCA
Node: Bytes Sent: 284
State: Down Bytes Received: 355
Buffer Count: 16 Status: Idle
Link: FEA0 Type: CTCA
Node: TEFVM Bytes Sent: 568
State: Up Bytes Received: 568
Buffer Count: 16 Status: Idle
Ready; T=0.01/0.01 17:03:02
q islink
Link: FD10 Type: CTCA
Node: TD6VM Bytes Sent: 923
State: Up Bytes Received: 923
Buffer Count: 16 Status: Idle
Link: FDA0 Type: CTCA
Node: Bytes Sent: 355
State: Down Bytes Received: 355
Buffer Count: 16 Status: Idle
Link: FE10 Type: CTCA
Node: Bytes Sent: 284
State: Down Bytes Received: 426
Buffer Count: 16 Status: Idle
Link: FEA0 Type: CTCA
Node: TEFVM Bytes Sent: 710
State: Up Bytes Received: 710
Buffer Count: 16 Status: Idle
Ready; T=0.01/0.01 17:03:10
We tried making it just 1 connection and kept getting cc=3.
This was an attempt suggested by the HW gen folks here.
But it does appear that it isn't really working. I'm getting a rc 99 on a
listdir.
Back to the drawing board I think...
Strange that it would allow it...
Marcy
-----Original Message-----
From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
Of Rob van der Heij
Sent: Friday, September 03, 2010 3:47 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [IBMVM] ISFC Ficon CTC question
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 9:12 PM, Marcy Cortes
<[email protected]> wrote:
> And while it says State: Down on the ones with a blank Node: , clearly it's
> not since the byte counts keep increasing...
Back then, when Alan was still among us, he'd ask to draw a picture ;-)
Are you sure the counts for the "down" links are still increasing, or
is this from before it went down? I know from experience that it is
best not to add redundant links that allow systems to communicate via
different paths. So if you have 3 systems, I would make just use 2
connections. CP does not like two routes to the same node, and race
conditions during link establishment do weird things. So
(A) ----- (B) ----- (C)
Obviously you would give the role of (B) to the system that is most
popular in conversations (eg where the SFS server runs). That avoids
overhead of the extra hop for most of the traffic. It appears less
robust, but the duplicate links don't prevent a short outage (and loss
of conversations) anyway. If you need that, get something done in your
programmable operator to activate the other ISLINK when you have an
outage.
| Rob
PS My experience is based on z/VM 5 and earlier. I can't comment on
what future z/VM levels will do.
