You should all be ashamed of yourselves!!. Even the thought of an IPL would induce nightmares / foaming / delirium. Maybe with the new generation, it is the "in" thing to boot the Mainframe.... hehehehe
John D. Cassidy Dipl.-Ing (Informatique) S390 & zSeries Systems Engineering Schleswigstr. 7 D-51065 Cologne EU Tel: +49 (0) 221 61 60 777 . GSM: +49 (0) 177 799 58 56 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] HTTP : www.jdcassidy.net -----Original Message----- From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Peter Webb, Toronto Transit Commission Sent: 24 October 2003 17:24 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: suse 8 guestlan poor response, dropped packets We usually IPL VM once a month, mostly just to keep the operators in practice, although we IPLed last weekend during one of our three times a year maintenance windows, and we will IPL for the time change this weekend. Running RHL 7.2 with IUCV to VM TCP/IP, no connection problems. > -----Original Message----- > From: Alan Schilla [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 10:20 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: suse 8 guestlan poor response, dropped packets > > My problems are huge at this time. I have problems editing a file within > my > Linux SLES8 environment without having my putty connection drop. I can try > cycling zVM and/or also my Linux guests. Cycling Linux is pretty drastic, > even though it can be completed quickly cycling zVM and all guests could > be > catastrophic in a large, high used environment. That isn't my case today > but it is sure a place I would like to be. If no one else is experiencing > this I would suspect a configuration error within my environment although > I > have not cycled VM in some time. We are planning a cycle this weekend. Do > people concer a good place to start is IPL? My problems seem to be guest > lan > / SLES8 qeth, qdio only. I have SLES7 running on VCTC and these run fine. > How often are people IPL'ing VM? What types of changes mandate VM IPLs in > your environment? Major hardware adds/moves? Network infrastructure? Poor > performance? > Thanks For the Info, > Al Schilla > State of Minnesota > > -----Original Message----- > From: Hall, Ken (IDS ECCS) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 1:52 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: suse 8 guestlan poor response, dropped packets > > > We're in the middle of analyzing something like this with IBM now. We > don't > see connection drops on anything but Samba, but ping times (normally .4 > ms.) > go to 5-10 ms. with spikes up to 1000. This > seems to require a VM IPL to correct. > > Periodically, a single Linux instance will start experiencing ping times > of > 600-3000 ms. until the instance is rebooted. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of > > Alan Schilla > > Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 2:48 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: [LINUX-390] suse 8 guestlan poor response, dropped packets > > > > > > We are running a number of qdio qeth guest lans that are > > experencing very > > poor response. While accessing these servers via putty SSH I will drop > > connection often. Sometimes within 5 minute intervals. I when > > so far as to > > try ping 1000 from an iptables guest lan server that > > front-ends an apache > > webserver guest lan and this ping received multiple > > multi-second responses > > (as high as 59 seconds) as well as a 48% packet loss 516 out > > of 1000 packets > > accepted. I have been following this listserv and noticed > > Micheal Lambert's > > zVM 4.4 guestlan problems thread and thought this may be > > related but we run > > zVM 4.3 planning to upgrade to 4.4 shortly. Has anyone seen > > this type of > > response from guestlan on zVM 4.3 for qeth, qdio? Any > > thoughts on how I > > should troubleshoot? > > Environment: > > osa-2 100m > > | > > zvm tcpip > > | > > guest lan firewall > > | > > guest lan apache server > > > > Al Schilla > > State of Minnesota > > ______________________________________________________________________ The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient or delegate is strictly prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. The integrity and security of this message cannot be guaranteed on the Internet. The Sender accepts no liability for the content of this e-mail, or for the consequences of any actions taken on the basis of the information provided. The recipient should check this e-mail and any attachments for the presence of viruses. The sender accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail. This disclaimer is the property of the TTC and must not be altered or circumvented in any manner.
