On Thursday, 08/07/2008 at 11:00 EDT, Robert J Brenneman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The vswitch counts as 1 stack on the OSA, no matter how many systems are
behind
> it. So yes - it gets you around the 640 stacks per OSA issue. That
limitation
> came from the number of subchannels you could
I see this update in the online version of
http://publibz.boulder.ibm.com/epubs/pdf/ioa2z150.pdf (see p. 12):
"Beginning with the May 2006 version of Licensed Internal Code on
z890, z990 and z9 systems only, this restriction has been lifted. With
this version of Licensed Internal Code, a layer 2 h
> The z9, with updated OSA microcode, can also run the OSA port in
> "shared" layer 2 and layer 3 mode..
Nifty. Thanks -- one of these days I'll get my brain upgraded for more
short term storage. 8-)
--db
On Aug 7, 2008, at 10:10 AM, Bruce Hayden wrote:
The z9, with updated OSA microcode, can also run the OSA port in
"shared" layer 2 and layer 3 mode..
Bruce;
This would be an important feature for us. Do you know the specific
OSA microcode level which is known to support it?
Thanks.
ok
be
The z9, with updated OSA microcode, can also run the OSA port in
"shared" layer 2 and layer 3 mode..
On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 11:16 AM, David Boyes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Downside is that unless you have a z10, I don't think you can have a OSA
> card in layer 3 and layer 2 mode simultaneously
> Does this approach get around the stack limit some way? If we try to
put
> 800
> machines on a VLAN, will this blow the limit referenced below?
The layer 2 TYPE ETHERNET VSWITCH gets the OSA limits out of the line of
fire entirely -- the OSA(s) (note multiple) servicing the VSWITCH just
forward
The vswitch counts as 1 stack on the OSA, no matter how many systems are
behind it. So yes - it gets you around the 640 stacks per OSA issue. That
limitation came from the number of subchannels you could generate on the OSA
chpid itself. I think it's even higher than 640 for the recent z10 and the
On 8/6/08 3:48 PM, "Alan Altmark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, there is (the PRIROUTER option), but who cares? Define the VSWITCH
> as ETHERNET (layer 2), not IP.
Does this approach get around the stack limit some way? If we try to put 800
machines on a VLAN, will this blow the limit refere
On Wednesday, 08/06/2008 at 04:42 EDT, Rob van der Heij
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 8:35 PM, Mark Post <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> >> Is that stack association limit correct? If this is the case, is
there a
> >> circumvention? Can multiple OSA adapters be associated
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 8:35 PM, Mark Post <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Is that stack association limit correct? If this is the case, is there a
>> circumvention? Can multiple OSA adapters be associated with a single VLAN?
>
> Use a VSWITCH, since you've already decided this is going to be run on
Will using VSWITCH get us around the 640 limit per OSA adapter?
--. .- .-. -.--
Gary Dennis
On 8/6/08 1:35 PM, "Mark Post" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 8/6/2008 at 2:24 PM, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Gary M. Dennis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Did I read somewhere (the
>>> On 8/6/2008 at 2:24 PM, in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Gary M. Dennis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Did I read somewhere (the "where" being a place I cannot at this point
> locate) that the number of IP stacks which could be associated with a single
> OSA adapter was 640?
That sounds right
Did I read somewhere (the "where" being a place I cannot at this point
locate) that the number of IP stacks which could be associated with a single
OSA adapter was 640? Running several thousand desktop systems on System z
is meaningful only if those operating systems can access a (the) network.
I
13 matches
Mail list logo
