Hello,
how have you called zipl?
can you show us the zipl.conf please?
regards
Ihno
On Sun, Aug 25, 2002 at 07:53:28PM -0400, Scully, William wrote:
For Mark Post and anyone else with some ideas, here's some details from a -heavily-
edited console log. To restate the problem, the 201 disk,
Folks,
You will have to extend your ext2 filesystem as well, since the ext2
metatdata are
not automatically aware of the volume expansion.
Check http://sourceforge.net/projects/ext2resize/ for additional
information-
Best Regards
Holger Smolinski
--
Dr. Holger Smolinski, Tech. Planning
On Mon, 26 Aug 2002 15:56, you wrote:
Folks,
You will have to extend your ext2 filesystem as well, since the ext2
metatdata are
not automatically aware of the volume expansion.
Check http://sourceforge.net/projects/ext2resize/ for additional
information-
I thought about that, having
David,
Dave Jones made some mention about a checkbox on the registration form. I
don't know if that's going to work for him or not. I do know that when the
CDs are ready, I get an email from them, and I can request one from the
SHARE web site. I did that for Minneapolis, and got the CD not
William,
I guess the question I have now is, how did the IPL text get written to the
20E volume?
Mark Post
-Original Message-
From: Scully, William [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2002 7:53 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Enlarging Root File System
For Mark Post
Here's my zipl configuration file. Note that we normally boot off the 201
(/dev/dasda1) device, and the new larger disk was added at address 20E (/dev/dasd01).
To put the new disk into production I swapped 201 and 20E via the VM Directory.
[defaultboot]
default=ipl
[ipl]
On Sun, 2002-08-25 at 21:21, Lionel Dyck wrote:
The process is that for those who provided an e-mail
address when they registered an e-mail will be sent
Unfortunately, when I provided an email address to SHARE the spam
started rolling in. This was mostly in the form of exhortations to
attend
I would say no. The CP COUPLE command is used to connect a virtual CTC to
another VM guest. It has nothing to do with guest LANs (that I'm aware of).
Mark Post
-Original Message-
From: Eddie Chen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2002 9:51 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
There have been a few more presentations added to the linuxvm.org site.
Since there have been a number of emails like this, I decided it was time to
list all of them again to hopefully reduce any confusion. All of the
presentations are in PDF format.
Presentations from SHARE 99, San Francisco,
David,
Sounds pretty useful to me.
Mark Post
-Original Message-
From: David Boyes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2002 11:15 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: VM FAQ
Since everyone's been wishing for a FAQ list for VM, particularly for
hosting Linux images, I've
I started define the GuestLAN (virtual HiperSockets) by:
- cp define lan ownerid system
on the TCPIP userid:
- cp define nic a000 - - cp couple a000 system
The TCPIP is the router. My problem is that the LINUX and TCPIP are
not talking to each
Holger,
I'm curious why you say that. He did a tar from the original file system to
the new file system. The metadata should have already been in place from
the mke2fs command against the new volume. Other people have used this
process multiple times without this kind of problem showing up.
Since everyone's been wishing for a FAQ list for VM, particularly for
hosting Linux images, I've created a FAQ-o-matic site for collecting this
information and getting it into a usable form.
The site is active at: http://www.sinenomine.net/fom-serve/cache/4.html, and
I've populated it with a set
Can I assume it's the couple command that bind/joint the guest
LAN???
Yeah, the root= looks like it will cause you problems. When you IPL from
this volume, dasdo1 will be your old root volume, hence giving you the
smaller file system.
When you're going to do things the way you did, and re-address the minidisks
so that they look like your current system, you need
I went into SHARE HQ in SF and asked to be put on the mailing list for the
proceedings CDs. They said it would be sent to everyone, no signup
required.
Only two things are infinite: the Universe and human stupidity, and I'm
not so sure about the Universe. - Albert Einstein
Gordon Wolfe, Ph.D.
Post, Mark K wrote:
From: Scully, William [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2002 9:52 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Enlarging Root File System
Here's my zipl configuration file. Note that we normally boot off the 201
(/dev/dasda1) device, and the new larger disk
On Mon, Aug 26, 2002 at 11:44:41AM -0400, Post, Mark K wrote:
I would say no. The CP COUPLE command is used to connect a virtual CTC to
another VM guest. It has nothing to do with guest LANs (that I'm aware of).
It's also how you couple virtual NICs to guest lans.
CP DEF NIC ADDR
CP COUPLE
Then, what is the difference between coupling to a ownerid
is SYSTEM -vs- VMuserid.
Should I have my Owneridto TCPIP
(GuestLAN) Stack
CTC
Host(linux01) 192.168.138.202
|192.168.138.201
Then I stand corrected. This is what not actively supporting VM gets me.
Sigh. Still, I learned something new today. Thanks.
Mark Post
-Original Message-
From: Adam Thornton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2002 12:35 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re:
Oh, you can't do that. It's not supported; you have to use NFS for that.
The problem is not with VM or Linux,
but with software management tools and really more with
how the packages are built by the package creators.
RPM, for example, wants to lay things out in specific places.
If any
I am working on a patch that removes the old limit of NGROUPS.
Good.
Obviouscly, I can't test it.
Sure you can. Bring up Hercules. Runs like a champ on SunFires...8-)
-- db
Hi...
SYSTEM-owned LAN verses user-owned LAN --
When the LAN owner is defined as SYSTEM, you have to
have a Class B userid to modify the LAN or DETACH it.
A Guest LAN owned by SYSTEM will persist even if all
members have signed off or uncoupled from the LAN.
When the LAN owner is a user on the
Does SuSE, Red Hat or any of the other distributions that have Amanda on it
include support for it with their Linux support?
Also, is there any way to use Amanda with the 3590 magstar?
**
This message, including any
I'm glad I sent out this consolidated list because it turned up a
presentation that Rich Smrcina had sent to me, but that I never received.
Rich has contributed his (and Larry's) presentation on getting Linux running
on a laptop system.
Sess. Presenter Title
9365 Rich Smrcina Linux
Does SuSE, Red Hat or any of the other distributions that
have Amanda on it
include support for it with their Linux support?
No, but there are other sources. Contact me offline.
Also, is there any way to use Amanda with the 3590 magstar?
Yes, if your Linux distribution supports 3590s. The
Hi,
In the past (prior to z/VM 4.2.0) the CP COUPLE command was only used
to connect simulated CTCA adapters. For example:
cp define ctca 500
cp couple 500 to othervm 500
This connects the wires between your virtual 500 and the other user's
virtual 500.
With z/VM 4.2.0 we also use
From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Wolfe, Gordon W
Subject: Re: FW: New SHARE Presentations on linuxvm.org
I went into SHARE HQ in SF and asked to be put on the mailing
list for the
proceedings CDs. They said it would be sent to everyone, no signup
required.
http://www.computerwoche.de/index.cfm?pageid=254artid=39967
(In German only.)
MfG / Best Regards
Sebastian Welton
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.welton.de
0171 8880522
---
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Aug 26, 2002 at 03:56:03PM -0400, David Boyes wrote:
Obviouscly, I can't test it.
Sure you can. Bring up Hercules. Runs like a champ on SunFires...8-)
Under Solaris, or Linux? I've had requests for making it run on Solaris, but
have no Solaris box of my own to test on. (That's about
I use the Ping command from VM and LINUX. I am running ROUTED with ETC
GATEWAYS.
NET 192.168.138.0 Gateway 192.168.138.201 Metric 1 permanent mask
255.255.255.0
Two Home address:
192.168.138.201(GuestLAN side) and
192.159.81.14(CTC) to the outside
Hello,
I am working on a patch that removes the old limit of NGROUPS.
In doing so, I am checking everything that references NGROUPS. One
such place is in arch/s390x/kernel/linux32.c.
I notice these things:
* s390x defines __kernel_old_gid_t to __kernel_gid_t (unsigned int)
* s390x has a
Here's the english version:
http://www.computerworld.com/softwaretopics/os/linux/story/0,10801,73781,00.
html
Bob
-Original Message-
From: Sebastian Welton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2002 12:38 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Gigagroup: Linux on the
I was one of people who joined SHARE in SF. It was very wonderful time for
me, and you - speakers, chairs, attendees - did a great jobs! I learned many
important things to improve performance or environment of Korean Air's Linux
systems. Thank you very much for your sharing. :-)
--
Jae-hwa Park
Gordon,
I was at your presentation at SHARE in SF, and was wondering if you
might share with me an electronic copy of your slides. Could you mail
me a copy? Many thanks.
- Alex
Wolfe, Gordon W wrote:
I went into SHARE HQ in SF and asked to be put on the mailing list for the
proceedings CDs.
On Tue, 27 Aug 2002 03:17, you wrote:
The best candidates for sharing are /usr and opt.
For some years I shared /usr/local on my LAN.
I used it to share stuff across the LAN that was outside package-manangement,
such as yp* before RH adopted it.
You could equally-well have /usr/local on
36 matches
Mail list logo
