]
Ryan McCain
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
state.la.us
With the help of the people on this list I was able to determine DHCPD wasn't
working on our Linux guests because the VSWITCH was set to Layer 3. The
suggestion was to set it to Layer 2. Sounds simple enough, right?
Here is feedback from IBM on the issue:
--SNIP--
2. Another dependency is
It's far worse than that. Having / on an LV has _zero_ advantages, since
there is never a need to expand the root file system. Having / on an LV
introduces additional risk, and will elongate recovery time. That makes the
decision very easy. More risk, no benefit, no deal. Put / on an
Or just make sure you have good backups. Good and tested backups were the
original Knoppix. :)
On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 10:33 PM, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], John Summerfield
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Scott Rohling wrote:
I think there are pros and cons - enough on both sides that I
Thanks for the info. I'm going to discuss this further with management.
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 11:01 AM, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Mark Post
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 8/15/2008 at 7:29 AM, in message [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Ryan McCain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-snip-
It has at least
Is it possible to shrink a LVM fs, not just grow it?
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 11:04 AM, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Mark Post
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 8/15/2008 at 12:58 AM, in message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Mark
Perry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-snip-
Is there a way to trigger a script when
some can
shrink only if there are no used blocks in the area that is going to be
removed.
-Original Message-
From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Ryan McCain
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2008 9:43 AM
To: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: Root filesystem
Could I put the root filesystem outside of LVM and just not /boot? Isn't that
the real issue?
Thanks..
On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 7:45 PM, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], dave [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Hi, John.
I didn't say that LVMs are inherently risky or unreliable.
By all means build
Is there a list of pro's and con's somewhere?
On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 11:47 PM, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Scott Rohling
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I didn't say that LVMs are inherently risky or unreliable.
By all means build and use LVMs to hold your application
data and code. Just
Ira,
If you are just looking for a copy of the PDF I can make it available for you
on my personal FTP server. Let me know.
On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 9:16 AM, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
Ira Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Where is the tar file located, I can't seem to find it at
Thats the issue we are trying to avoid if possible. If we could put /, /opt,
/usr, /lib, etc. etc. into LVM, we won't have to guestimate how much disk
we'll need from the outset. We could grow as needed.
In the x86 world, we've been putting / in LVM for years and have never had a
problem.
Valid points.
I guess if one has solid backups it is more of a moot point, correct? In the
z/VM world, is it common for / to get wasted any more than in the x86 world?
On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 10:41 AM, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Rob van der Heij
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Aug 14,
The main reason is we have a limited about of disk to allocate and we will have
a hard time saying X gigs go to /opt, Y gigs will be needed for /home, etc.
On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 10:49 AM, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], David
Boyes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thats the issue we are trying to
My point of view is that there is only one reason to put / in an LVM:
easier expansion if needed. Some of those calls others have referred to in
the middle of the night can happen because root fills up.. and being able
to dynamically add space without bringing down Linux can be an easy fix
Do you have every directory under / defined as its own filesystem? /etc,
/boot, /var, /opt, /lib, etc.. ?
On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 11:15 AM, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], David
Boyes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The main reason is we have a limited about of disk to allocate and we
will
have a
cylinders. We are not doing much with Linux on Z right now, so /tmp may need
to be larger if you are doing a lot of compiles, or anything that creates
large temporary files.
-Original Message-
From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Ryan McCain
Sent
Doesn't seem as complex as I thought it would be.
Thanks, Ryan
On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 12:07 AM, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Ronald van der
Laan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ryan,
Yes, add the following line to the
/etc/sysconfig/hardware/hwcfg-qeth-bus-ccw-* files
QETH_LAYER2_SUPPORT=1
Something strong had to power that opening ceremony. I see a sharp decline
next quarter. :)
On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 9:19 AM, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], CHAPLIN, JAMES (CTR)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Every few years, people predict that the mainframe is on its last legs
and will be taken
How do you guys handle the / filesystem? Is it managed in LVM or outside of
LVM? What are the pros and cons of doing it in and out?
Thanks, Ryan
--
For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email
What does this do?
rug sa -t nu https://nu.novell.com
On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 2:12 PM, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Levy, Alan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have been using a local yum server for my patches. Unfortunately, that
server was taken away and I now have to revert back to novell
With the help of people on this list, I've confirmed it's definitely the
VSWITCH being set to layer 3 that isn't allowing broadcast connections (which
in turn doesn't allow me to run DHCPD) on the guest SLES 10 VM.
My next question is, how does one convert the VSWITCH from layer 3 to layer 2?
Being a Linux and not a mainframe guy, I'm still trying to learn 'ed' in case I
get stuck with only 3270 access to my Linux guest. Here's a superb list of sed
one liners that should come in handy:
http://student.northpark.edu/pemente/sed/sed1line.txt
Ryan
We've had a heck of a time trying to get DHCPD running on SLES10. I've noticed
that The Linux guest isn't accepting broadcasts. When typing tcpdump -nepi
eth0 broadcast on regular x86 servers, it spits out all kinds of stuff. On
the servers we have running on z/VM, nothing comes back. Can
http://www.novell.com/products/linuxenterpriseserver/sp1.html
--
For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit
What is the equivalent of a emergency boot disk on a mainframe? ie: something
happends to the /boot filesystem and I need to boot from a boot disk, then
mount it manually?
Thanks, Ryan
--
For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff /
Just make sure you DROP it and not REJECT it.
Ryan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/06/05 4:57 pm
On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, Adam Thornton wrote:
On Jul 6, 2005, at 4:10 PM, shogunx wrote:
Adaptive iptables would do the trick nicely.
Yeah, what he said. Not necessarily even adaptive: merely limiting
I'll give it a test. Thanks, Ryan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/30/05 4:15 pm
It's just PHP code -- all the prereqs are available on zLinux, and run
fine. I don't see any reason why it won't run on Z, although the indexer
is going to be a pig for CPU.
http://kt-dms.sourceforge.net/
Does anyone know of Knowledge Tree will run on the mainframe?
Thanks, Ryan
--
For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit
Sorry about that..
http://kt-dms.sourceforge.net/
thanks, ryan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/30/05 2:30 pm
URL?
Mark Post
-Original Message-
From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Ryan McCain
Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2005 11:17 AM
To: LINUX-390
29 matches
Mail list logo
