Emulation would be a non-starter for a production environment. I would
describe this system as a single pass code segment translation system with
conditional block invalidation.
We have been using VM for 20 of our 27 years in business. A development
environment without it has never been considered
I just realized you mentioned the target category specified on the
mount command was VOLSPECIFIC.
Check out PMH 84921,004,000 as this is a known problem being worked.
Check with your CE on a timeframe when the fix will be available.
Best Regards,
Les Geer
IBM z/VM and Linux Development
>You are
Jr,
Unfortunately, I have no weight to make the hardware change his position on
this. I suppose I could use 'RMS supports PtP as a single node VTS' as a new
argument to reopen an issue. But I think I found people more stubborn than
me.
Alain
Le 25/03/08 23:08, « Imler, Steven J » <[EMAIL PRO
Are you attempting to write a windows emulator that runs under VM?
Looking at your companies web site it looks like you mostly sell products that
run under z/OS.
If you can do this there will be a lot of interest.
Gary M. Dennis wrote:
Months ago. The development team was so focused on instru
Months ago. The development team was so focused on instruction result
fidelity, machine state, and segment translation bypass issues that I/O
subsystem did not receive the necessary attention. At least the tough part
is done.
Gary Dennis
Mantissa
On 3/25/08 4:17 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL
Hi Alain,
I thought your finally got this ironed out and the problem was resolved?
As Les states, that restriction was removed and this should not be a
problem. We have several customers who run P2P configurations and do
not have this problem. VM:Tape was changed (back) to use the TARGETCAT
VOL
Ummm, I may have missed something, but since when can you run Windows on
an IBM mainframe?
Peter
-Original Message-
From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Gary M. Dennis
Sent: March 25, 2008 17:14
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: z/VM - Lightwei
The callable services benchmarks we conducted with BFS ran between 8 and 10
times longer than the test set running with the CMS file system.
Assuming a cluster of 125 Windows® 2K z/VM guests and using I/O counts
generated by Win 2K on native Intel hardware the results of extrapolating
the I/O over
It might help if you included the error message. :)
Gentry, Stephen wrote:
Rob do you know what might be causing the errors below?
--
Stephen Frazier
Information Technology Unit
Oklahoma Department of Corrections
3400 Martin Luther King
Oklahoma City, Ok, 73111-4298
Tel.: (405) 425-2549
Les,
You are referring to the z/VM530 documentation, aren't you ?
With or without target parameter in the MOUNT cmd, the targetcat is not
changed under z/VM440 when asking for a scratch in P2P. Did the test with
z/VM530, no change.
This hardware situation is a major regression.
We could not live
>I suppose you would be aware of our peer-to-peer problem.
>
>When we got a 2nd 3494 in 2004, we decided to make them talk each other
>as P2P mode. This situation revealed a major problem related to the target
>category. In basic mode, asking to mount a scratch through vmtape, rmsmastr
>changed th
Rob do you know what might be causing the errors below?
I suppose you would be aware of our peer-to-peer problem.
When we got a 2nd 3494 in 2004, we decided to make them talk each other a
s
P2P mode. This situation revealed a major problem related to the target
category.
In basic mode, asking to mount a scratch through vmtape, rmsmastr changed
the ca
>I'm sure the people planning for the new hardware have considered it.
>I was just concerned that in their plan they had no native physical
tape
>for VM.
Ann,
You should check. Our storage people brought in a remote VTS to replace
tapes that were being physically moved offsite. They were complet
Well, I tend to disagree about your statement that it will not be the
same the next time. We have a tendency to keep the dump disks clean by
processing dumps in a timely manner. Do not forget that the type of
change I am considering is a planned outage/IPL for the purpose of
rearranging things. It
Another possibility would be to exploit the infrastructure that the RSK
provides..
DJ
Alan Altmark wrote:
On Tuesday, 03/25/2008 at 04:26 EDT, "Gary M. Dennis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Is anyone aware of a VM open source file system port with some of the
characteristics listed below.
On Tuesday, 03/25/2008 at 04:26 EDT, "Gary M. Dennis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is anyone aware of a VM open source file system port with some of the
> characteristics listed below. Such a system might enable us to add the
> functionality needed to support these guests without starting at zero
I'm sure the people planning for the new hardware have considered it.
I was just concerned that in their plan they had no native physical tape
for VM.
Original Message-
From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Stephen Frazier
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008
We need a lightweight file system to support z/VM i86 guest operating
systems. A high speed garbage can of sorts.
Is anyone aware of a VM open source file system port with some of the
characteristics listed below. Such a system might enable us to add the
functionality needed to support these guest
19 matches
Mail list logo
