Not disputing your facts, Jim, but it would have been a lot
more helpful if the TSM server for Linux had included support
for escon-attached tape drives and the ability to communicate
with VM-based tape catalogs and tape management systems such as
VM:Tape. As it stands, it seems to me to be
of Virtual Linuxes [WAS: Re: Red Hat AS 3.0]
On Thu, 2004-07-29 at 18:59, Tom Shilson wrote:
The server runs on VM. The
^^^
server piece is frozen at some outdated release.
^^^
Yeah, that's pretty much to what I was referring. TSM
My thoughts exactly - they are awsome.
-Cameron
-Original Message-
From: Knutson, Sam [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 30, 2004 07:10
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Backup of Virtual Linuxes [WAS: Re: Red Hat AS 3.0]
Did you look at the UPSTREAM products from Innovation
: Backup of Virtual Linuxes [WAS: Re: Red Hat AS 3.0]
My thoughts exactly - they are awsome.
-Cameron
-Original Message-
From: Knutson, Sam [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 30, 2004 07:10
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Backup of Virtual Linuxes [WAS: Re: Red Hat AS 3.0]
Did you
This is true.
-Original Message-
From: Davis, Larry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 30, 2004 07:17
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Backup of Virtual Linuxes [WAS: Re: Red Hat AS 3.0]
That is true, FDR Upstream does work, but it does not help those that don't
have z/OS
of Virtual Linuxes [WAS:
IST.EDU Re: Red Hat AS 3.0]
07/29/2004 07:21
PM
Please respond to
Linux on 390 Port
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
IST.EDU
Okay, I should have added current to my list
Linuxes [WAS: Re: Red Hat AS 3.0]
So let me understand this correctly Tivoli=IBM - didn't IBM buy the
Tivoli mark, kinda like they did with Lotus? VM=IBM. IBM makes the
Virtualization software we all come to depend on to make the linux equation
work. So what we have here is IBM saying
In addition to running backups, you may want to look into restore as
well ;-)
I don't normally deal in hearsay, but this sounded realistic enough to
repeat without trying it myself. Colleagues who tried to do a restore
with their backup software found that it appeared to restore various
system
So let me understand this correctly Tivoli=IBM - didn't IBM
buy the Tivoli mark, kinda like they did with Lotus? VM=IBM.
IBM makes the Virtualization software we all come to depend on
to make the linux equation work. So what we have here is IBM
saying they will not update their own
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/30 5:22
James:
IBM decided for what were felt to be good reasons to provide a
TSM server on Linux under z/VM rather than on CMS under z/VM.
There were technical reasons for this (which we will NOT go into
in this forum) which made it difficult to continue to enhance the
experience. - Scott Adams
Gordon W. Wolfe, Ph.D. Boeing Enterprise Servers 425-865-5940
--
From: Jim Elliott
Reply To: Linux on 390 Port
Sent: Friday, July 30, 2004 8:22 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Backup of Virtual Linuxes [WAS: Re: Red Hat AS 3.0
Linuxes [WAS: Re: Red Hat AS 3.0]
That is true, FDR Upstream does work, but it does not help those that don't
have z/OS laying around!
Larry Davis
This email/fax message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and
may contain confidential and privileged information
of America
Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall! -- Ronald Reagan, 12 Jun 1987
-Original Message-
From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Biggs, Eric J [ITS]
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 12:42
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Red Hat AS 3.0
For anyone that is using Red
On Thu, 2004-07-29 at 17:12, O'Brien, Dennis L wrote:
We tried to find a backup product for Red Hat Linux, and couldn't find a GA product
that met our needs (e.g. uses mainframe tape drives, doesn't require a server on
z/OS).
HEY, TIVOLI, ARE YOU LISTENING?
...
crickets chirp
...
No, of
Linux on 390 Port [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 07/29/2004 06:13:14
PM:
On Thu, 2004-07-29 at 17:12, O'Brien, Dennis L wrote:
We tried to find a backup product for Red Hat Linux, and couldn't
find a GA product that met our needs (e.g. uses mainframe tape
drives, doesn't require a server on
On Thu, 2004-07-29 at 18:59, Tom Shilson wrote:
The server runs on VM. The
^^^
server piece is frozen at some outdated release.
^^^
Yeah, that's pretty much to what I was referring. TSM would be a whole
lot more useful if
-Original Message-
From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of
Adam Thornton
Sent: Friday, July 30, 2004 12:46 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [LINUX-390] Backup of Virtual Linuxes [WAS: Re: Red Hat
AS 3.0]
On Thu, 2004-07-29 at 18:59, Tom Shilson wrote
Steven
Did you manage to see a performance benefit from the Red Hat NPTL?
--
For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit
On Wed, 2004-07-28 at 07:43, Graham Owen wrote:
Did you manage to see a performance benefit from the Red Hat NPTL?
By the time we worked though some nuances specific to RHEL 3 (MQ and WAS
installation), our 30-day trial expired. While this effort was going
on, upper management signed
SLES9 should have NPTL.
-Original Message-
By the time we worked though some nuances specific to RHEL 3 (MQ and WAS
installation), our 30-day trial expired. While this effort was going
on, upper management signed agreements with Novell for SLES 8. Our
hopes were dashed.
I wish the
as with
RHEL3.
Mark Post
-Original Message-
From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kohrs,
Steven
Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2004 11:10 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Red Hat AS 3.0
On Wed, 2004-07-28 at 07:43, Graham Owen wrote:
Did you manage to see a performance
Ferguson, Neale wrote:
SLES9 should have NPTL.
It will also have the 2.6 kernel. Not sure how well that
will play out on the z... but certainly has advantages on
other smp.
--
For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access
On Wed, 2004-07-28 at 12:00, Ferguson, Neale wrote:
SLES9 should have NPTL.
Unfortunately, WebSphere 5.1 is incompatible with the 2.6 kernel of SLES
9. Now we're waiting for the WebSphere 6 release. We're crossing our
fingers that WebSphere 6 will also have 64-bit support. If that's the
For anyone that is using Red Hat AS 3.0 for zSeries, can you provide
feedback (positive or negative) about your experience with the product?
Many thanks.
Eric Biggs
Sprint
--
For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access
] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 15:42 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Red Hat AS 3.0
For anyone that is using Red Hat AS 3.0 for zSeries, can you provide
feedback (positive or negative) about your experience with the product?
Many thanks.
Eric Biggs
Sprint
Biggs, Eric J [ITS] wrote:
For anyone that is using Red Hat AS 3.0 for zSeries, can you provide
feedback (positive or negative) about your experience with the product?
Light years better than RHAS2.1 (or whatever you want to call their
7.x product on z). Might be better than SLES8. We're getting
To
Sent by: Linux on [EMAIL PROTECTED]
390 Port cc
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
IST.EDU Subject
Re: Red Hat AS 3.0
07/27
For anyone that is using Red Hat AS 3.0 for zSeries, can you provide
feedback (positive or negative) about your experience with
the product?
It seems much better tested than the previous release, although support
still seems to be spotty (the quality of the support varies widely from
call
On Tue, 2004-07-27 at 14:42, Biggs, Eric J [ITS] wrote:
For anyone that is using Red Hat AS 3.0 for zSeries, can you provide
feedback (positive or negative) about your experience with the
product?
We installed RHEL 3.0 to test a claim* that WebSphere ran twice as fast
under that distro
James Melin wrote:
When you get SLES9, I will be VERY interested in how you upgrade an
existing SLES8 system to SLES9. A migration experience story would be nice
to see.
We're an ISV... likely will be a new install rather than an
upgrade (sorry).
30 matches
Mail list logo
