The corollary to that is that the only dumb question is the one that goes
unasked, because it will probably go unanswered. There is a wealth of
talent and experience connected to this list that far outstrips the talents
contained within any one company, or any one discipline. You guys have
saved my sorry butt so many times I'm probably never going to be able to
foot the bill.
|---------+---------------------------->
| | "Post, Mark K" |
| | <[EMAIL PROTECTED]|
| | m> |
| | Sent by: Linux on|
| | 390 Port |
| | <[EMAIL PROTECTED]|
| | IST.EDU> |
| | |
| | |
| | 08/27/2002 09:55 |
| | AM |
| | Please respond to|
| | Linux on 390 Port|
| | |
|---------+---------------------------->
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|
|
| To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|
| cc:
|
| Subject: Re: Enlarging Root File System
|
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
You're both right. Willem is right in pointing out when and where the
various system components are executed, and when their outputs are used,
and
how that led to the failure. It's helpful for people to understand the
details in that manner. You're right in that essentially William was
trying
to outsmart the system, and wound up outsmarting himself. :) (Please
don't
think I'm beating up on William, I'm not. I have a tendency towards those
kinds of mistakes myself, so if anything I empathize with him.) Now that
William knows more about the details, he's not likely to repeat the
mistake.
(Hopefully, new people that read the archives won't either.)
I'm just glad that people are willing to post their problems and ask for
help. Every one of them is taking the chance of being told they did
themselves in, and post the question anyway.
Mark Post
-----Original Message-----
From: Ihno Krumreich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 3:41 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Enlarging Root File System
-snip-
No, thats not true.
The dasd-driver is called with a range of numbers (200-21f). So these
numbers
are reserved and assigned to the corresponding letters (200 -> a, 201 -> b
...).
This is independent from the fact that only 201 and 20E are currently
present.
The problem from my point of view was, that the dasds where exchanged
two times. one time in the zipl.conf and the second in the
dasd-configuration.
Ihno
--
Ihno Krumreich [EMAIL PROTECTED]
SuSE Linux AG S390 & zSeries
Deutschherrnstr. 15-19 +49-911-74053-439
90429 N|rnberg http://www.suse.de
