We have that question from our network people, because we will need
to connect to a separate physical LAN for one customer, and we want the
migration
as seamless as possible.
So we will have duplicates of connections, of which both are redundant as well.
This will obviously expose us for the risk
http://download.sinenomine.net/lxfmt contains an updated LXFMT VMARC. A bug
has been fixed that incorrectly decoded device addresses containing hex
digits.
--
For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send
On Tuesday, 05/15/2012 at 05:36 EDT, Agblad Tore tore.agb...@volvo.com
wrote:
We have that question from our network people, because we will need
to connect to a separate physical LAN for one customer, and we want the
migration
as seamless as possible.
So we will have duplicates of
Any know if a z/VM vswitch support this or if it is perhaps not needed ?
It does not (it'd be nice, but it doesn't).
It's probably not necessary, but you can (at least with the Cisco hardware)
configure the spanning tree parameters so that the real network hardware always
has the lowest
http://download.sinenomine.net/lxfmt contains an updated LXFMT VMARC. A bug
has been fixed that incorrectly decoded device addresses containing hex
digits.
The files in the new LXFMT22 VMARC have dates in 1907, 1908, and 1912. Either
we had some very forward-thinking programmers a hundred years
Hi, I have small problem and tiny workaround for it. I am wondering if
anyone else had issues like this.
Sometimes (actually quite often), Yast complains when I try to deactivate a
scsi disk. (yast-hardware-zfcpdelete) with message Could not deactivate
SCSI disk).
Unfortunately it is being
Not using the VMARC MODULE I am:
LXFMTVMARCX1 F 80 111622 2012-05-15 09:45:58
LXFMTLOADMAP X5 V100 89 3 2012-05-15 09:44:25
LXFMTMODULE X1 V 18712 4 5 2012-05-15 09:44:25
LXFSETEXT X1 F 80
Grzegorz,
I have been working with Novell to fix these problems. Novell has resolved
the problems and is putting the final touches on a PTF s390-tools package
that contains a /sbin/zfcp_disk_configure script without these problems.
You can probably get an advance copy, before the maintenance
Interesting. I downloaded the latest VMARC MODULE from IBM, which is a
slightly different size than my previous version from 2001, and also tried
setting my date format to FULL and ISO. I tried this on both z/VM 5.4 and 6.2,
and I still get dates in the 1900's. Time for a PMR, I suppose. Is
If you execute VMARC with no args or ? it should tell you the version
number ...
Mine is 1.2.29 -- and what I see is things are a century off:
LISTFILE LXFMT* * (ISODATE
FILENAME FILETYPE FM FORMAT LRECL RECS BLOCKS DATE TIME
LXFMTASSEMBLE A1 F 80 3456
I'm glad to know it's not just me. I see the problem on both 1.2.27 and 1.2.29.
Dennis O'Brien
No man`s life, liberty, or property are safe while the
11 matches
Mail list logo
