I hate the lack of sensible quoting w/i Bloated Notes.
I thought we were talking about buffers for files, not storage allocated to
programs during use (and that's what stack, bss are).
Everything in /usr is supposed to be mountable r/o.
However, Linux doesn't know that VM might
It took me a surprising amount of time to realize that /usr doesn't
retain any large quantities of data that would end up residing in a
buffer cache- R/O data is of very limited utility. I don't think
we're likely to be overrun by people calling up the same man
On Fri, 26 Apr 2002 07:21:57 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It took me a surprising amount of time to realize that /usr doesn't
retain any large quantities of data that would end up residing in a
buffer cache- R/O data is of very limited utility. I don't think
The author is correct. This has NOT been addressed for Linux
on zSeries.
From: Werner Puschitz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Is the author right on this:
http://www.linuxworld.com/site-stories/2002/0416.mainframelinux-p7.html
Linux memory management assumes control of a machine and so grabs up
:
|
| Subject: Re: LinuxWorld Article series
|
--|
The author is correct
Does anyone know if there are any plans to address it in the near
future? Isn't this a big drawback for Linux on zSeries?
On Thu, 25 Apr 2002, Barton Robinson wrote:
The author is correct. This has NOT been addressed for Linux
on zSeries.
From: Werner Puschitz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and
cache, so only frequently used things will remain in storage.
Mark Post
-Original Message-
From: James Melin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2002 11:10 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: LinuxWorld Article series
This assumes that every Linux image is going
PROTECTED]
Sent by:Linux on 390 Port [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject:Re: [LINUX-390] LinuxWorld Article series
The author is correct. This has NOT been addressed for Linux
on zSeries.
From: Werner Puschitz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Is the author right
prune
This assumes that every Linux image is going to be using the same disk,
does it not?
I've thought that it should work the OTHER way once a mechanism to
throttle buffer allocation has been cooked up; You'd best depend
upon VM to handle paging your system (to avoid
I try to maintain some recognition of weaknesses (no one system is
ever good at _everything_). Working w/ Xenix (and Unix, early on)
one of the tunables was to set the buffer cache size. While the new
model of buffer cache management is wonderful for regular (non-
I hate the lack of sensible quoting w/i Bloated Notes.
I thought we were talking about buffers for files, not storage allocated to
programs during use (and that's what stack, bss are).
Everything in /usr is supposed to be mountable r/o.
However, Linux doesn't know that VM might be
John Summerfield:
I try to maintain some recognition of weaknesses (no one system is
ever good at _everything_). Working w/ Xenix (and Unix, early on)
one of the tunables was to set the buffer cache size. While the
new
model of buffer cache management is wonderful
25, 2002 5:34 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: LinuxWorld Article series - bufferring etc...
John Summerfield:
I try to maintain some recognition of weaknesses (no one
system is
ever good at _everything_). Working w/ Xenix (and Unix, early
on)
one of the tunables
processor.
Mark Post
-Original Message-
From: David Boyes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2002 8:29 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: LinuxWorld Article series
If I'm reading it correctly, a 6070 is some kind of PowerPC box. Possibly a
R/390? If so, you're
On Tue, 23 Apr 2002 05:32:03 +0800, John Summerfield
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
This is nothing really new. Sharing a VM system with early releases of
MVS was unpleasant.
I hear that it's no problem with the two in different LPARs, and that
running MVS as a guest under VM
On Wed, 24 Apr 2002 03:46:04 +0800, John Summerfield
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 23 Apr 2002 05:32:03 +0800, John Summerfield
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
This is nothing really new. Sharing a VM system with early releases of
MVS was unpleasant.
I hear that it's no problem
PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2002 8:29 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: LinuxWorld Article series
If I'm reading it correctly, a 6070 is some kind of PowerPC box. Possibly a
R/390? If so, you're facing the same OS/2 based device emulation...
-- db
Dave,
Not really, sorry. I'm
Hello all,
yes, I know this, but this is the OLD part of the OS. I could not have been
done in normal PL/1 because of too much overhead and because of the (too) many
features of the language, which prevent effective optimization.
C was designed as a systems programming language, and so you have
David Boyes [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Although the article did have issues, I'm most disconcerted
with some of the bang-per-buck comparisons (one of the
charts showed a mid-range SUN performs at 300% that of the
z/900 at only %18 of the cost... and that was a *mid-range*
SUN!)
He's
David,
No, I've been informed by a reliable source that this is an MSF'd Amdahl
0700 processor.
Mark Post
-Original Message-
From: David Boyes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2002 8:29 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: LinuxWorld Article series
If I'm reading
But - he's comparing one mid-range sun to one z/900. Seems like
the 37% people and remainder facilities would be the same in both
of those. One sun should be just about as much work/power as one
z/900.. in fact, I'd expect one mid-range sun to be a little lower
on the power/HVAC
As pointed out by many, hardware is the smallest cost in all of this.
Also, you need to consider software costs. IF the application software isn't
free, multiple boxes are a negative. Consider that Websphere is about $20K per
engine. DB2/UDB is also around $20K per engine. Now 4 Sun boxes
...
This is nothing really new. Sharing a VM system with early releases of
MVS was unpleasant.
I hear that it's no problem with the two in different LPARs, and that
running MVS as a guest under VM works well with a surprisingly small
performance hit (in the 2-3% ballpark.)
--
--henry
...
This is nothing really new. Sharing a VM system with early releases of
MVS was unpleasant.
I hear that it's no problem with the two in different LPARs, and that
running MVS as a guest under VM works well with a surprisingly small
performance hit (in the 2-3% ballpark.)
--
--henry
On Tue, 23 Apr 2002 05:32:03 +0800, John Summerfield
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
This is nothing really new. Sharing a VM system with early releases of
MVS was unpleasant.
I hear that it's no problem with the two in different LPARs, and that
running MVS as a guest under VM works well
)
(This company dedicates this E-Mail to Master Yoda )
-Original Message-
From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of
John Summerfield
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2002 5:32 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: LinuxWorld Article series
...
This is nothing
John,
As you should remember, :) the feature on the 580s was MDF - Multiple
Domain Feature.
Dennis.
Of course PR/SM which turned into the LPAR facility... and a parallel
Amdal 580 feature obsoleted the software in 4-5 years.
john alvord
Nope, it is not.
Yes it is. The License Manager, for instance.
--
Phil Payne
http://www.isham-research.com
+44 7785 302 803
+49 173 6242039
: Re: LinuxWorld Article series
Nope, it is not. I am not quite sure what the current name is, as the
compiler is not freely available. Names used in the past were PL/S, PL/X,
PLAS, PLAS 3, etc
With kind Regards|\ _,,,---,,_
ZZZzz
Bernd Oppolzer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
By the way: most of the new development on IBM systems (for example LE) is
done in C, as you can see by looking at the LE modules.
C is not very widely used by IBM customers; there are only few large
companies in germany using C/370 for
better - how do you use pseudo registers in C ??
And how do you define task for C procedure ??
have a nice day - tuomo ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] )
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2002 6:50 PM
Subject: Re: LinuxWorld Article series
There is development for VSE being done in C as well. Some of the TCP/IP
functionality available for DB2 and also some of the new Connector support.
On Sunday 21 April 2002 06:41 am, Mark Perry wrote:
Bernd is correct, New IBM product development (z/OS) is in C and C++ with
support routines
On Sat, 20 Apr 2002, Jay G Phelps wrote:
Despite the poorly written article, I have actually been somewhat
disappointed by the test results I have been getting on my MP3000 P30 Linux
system(s). In particular, the Bonnie++ test I did last week showed poor
results in most area's. Granted, I
cookie jar)
-Original Message-
From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Phil Payne
Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2002 10:12 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: LinuxWorld Article series
Nope, it is not.
Yes it is. The License Manager, for instance.
--
Phil Payne
: LinuxWorld Article series
Mark,
I don't recognize the CPU type in the CPUID field. can you explain what type
of system you ran this test on?
Thanks.
DJ
-Original Message-
From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Post, Mark K
Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2002 3:43 PM
Actually, my warning was slightly off beam anyway. putc will use mutex logic
irrespective of pthreads or not. If you know you're program will not do so
then that's when you use _IO_putc_unlocked().
Dave Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
One statement struck me as clearly incorrect is the following:
In contrast, most mainframe control environments, including loadable
libraries and related systems level applications, are written and
maintained very close to the hardware -- usually in PL/1 or
On Friday 19 April 2002 03:13 pm, Hall, Ken (ECSS) wrote:
Anyone seen this?
Aside from some (fairly glaring) technical inaccuracies, I can't see much
I'm qualified to dispute.
http://www.linuxworld.com/site-stories/2002/0416.mainframelinux.html
Unfortunately, there are ads that are 336x280
-Original Message-
From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Hall, Ken (ECSS)
Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 12:13 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: LinuxWorld Article series
Anyone seen this?
Aside from some (fairly glaring) technical inaccuracies, I can't
On Sat, 20 Apr 2002, Dave Jones wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Hall, Ken (ECSS)
Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 12:13 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: LinuxWorld Article series
Anyone seen this?
Aside from some
I found it interesting that he wrote about CP/40. That was the first
example of a 360-style operating system using virtual memory with the
equivalent of modern TLBs. [It had been done on other architectures.] The
hardware was a one-of created for the Cambridge Scientific Center
(Mass). And
Despite the poorly written article, I have actually been somewhat
disappointed by the test results I have been getting on my MP3000 P30 Linux
system(s). In particular, the Bonnie++ test I did last week showed poor
results in most area's. Granted, I am running under VM in an LPAR, but I
still
On Sat, 20 Apr 2002, Phil Payne wrote:
I found it interesting that he wrote about CP/40. That was the first
example of a 360-style operating system using virtual memory with the
equivalent of modern TLBs. [It had been done on other architectures.] The
hardware was a one-of created for
-Original Message-
From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Hall, Ken (ECSS)
Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 12:13 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: LinuxWorld Article series
Anyone seen this?
Aside from some (fairly glaring) technical inaccuracies
If you explain how, I will run a test and post the results.
On Saturday 20 April 2002 01:19 pm, you wrote:
Despite the poorly written article, I have actually been somewhat
disappointed by the test results I have been getting on my MP3000 P30 Linux
system(s). In particular, the Bonnie++ test
Despite the poorly written article, I have actually been somewhat
disappointed by the test results I have been getting on my MP3000 P30 Linux
system(s). In particular, the Bonnie++ test I did last week showed poor
results in most area's. Granted, I am running under VM in an LPAR, but I
PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2002 4:46 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: LinuxWorld Article series
If you explain how, I will run a test and post the results.
--
Rich Smrcina
Sytek Services, Inc.
Milwaukee, WI
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Catch the WAVV! Stay for Requirements
]
Subject: Re: LinuxWorld Article series
For what it's worth:
bonnie++-1.02a
$ hcp q cpu
CPUID = FF0240760700
$ ./bonnie++ -s 256
Writing with putc()...done
Writing intelligently...done
Rewriting...done
Reading with getc()...done
Reading intelligently...done
start 'em...done...done
And for some other topic: as mentioned earlier, PL/1 close to the hardware is
complete nonsense. I did much benchmarking in the past with PL/1 and C/370, and
I found that C/370 performs very well (better than PL/1), and I don't see any
performance problems with C on the mainframe. It depends
Here's the output from a G5 with a Shark:
Version 1.02a --Sequential Output-- --Sequential Input-
--Random-
-Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block--
--Seeks--
MachineSize K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP /sec
%CP
websp.corporat
Here's the output from a G5 with a Shark:
Version 1.02a --Sequential Output-- --Sequential Input-
--Random-
-Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block--
--Seeks--
MachineSize K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP /sec
%CP
Please note that the use of putc in a multithreaded environment under any
Linux yields horrible results due to locking/mutexes. Replace with
_IO_putc_unlocked() and see the difference. I'm not sure if Bonnie uses
pthreads (I ran it some months ago but can't recall).
-Original Message-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Please note that the use of putc in a multithreaded environment under
any Linux yields horrible results due to locking/mutexes. Replace with
_IO_putc_unlocked() and see the difference. I'm not sure if Bonnie
uses pthreads (I ran it some months ago but can't recall).
PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Bernd Oppolzer
Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2002 12:23 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: LinuxWorld Article series
By the way: most of the new development on IBM systems (for example LE) is
done
in C, as you can see by looking at the LE modules.
C is not very widely used by IBM
Anyone seen this?
Aside from some (fairly glaring) technical inaccuracies, I can't see much I'm
qualified to dispute.
http://www.linuxworld.com/site-stories/2002/0416.mainframelinux.html
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
It doesn't appear that the author has a very good idea of the basic
concepts
Be sure to tell Paul and the editor.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
If enough people tell them, I guess it will get fixed.
--
Cheers
John Summerfield
Microsoft's most solid OS:
56 matches
Mail list logo
