Where's the VSE version?
:-)
Frank
On 1/31/2008 at 10:07 AM, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Kirk Wolf
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dave,
Thanks for mentioning Co:Z, which is now a free offering.
We built it with exactly this kind of thing in mind - we have 31 and
64 bit LSB rpm packages for
I was only playing, Kirk.
Not that I wouldn't want to see it.
Frank
lost in VSE-land
--
Frank Swarbrick
Senior Systems Analyst - Mainframe Applications Development
FirstBank Data Corporation - Lakewood, CO
(303) 235-1403
On 2/4/2008 at 2:15 PM, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Kirk Wolf
Frank,
Co:Z depends on ssh (included in Ported Tools for z/OS) and is
written in C++ with dependence on the LE and POSIX apis, so it is
probably a big job port to VSE.
Kirk Wolf
Dovetailed Technologies
On Feb 4, 2008 1:48 PM, Frank Swarbrick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Where's the VSE version?
Dave,
Thanks for mentioning Co:Z, which is now a free offering.
We built it with exactly this kind of thing in mind - we have 31 and
64 bit LSB rpm packages for Linux on z ready to go.
With Co:Z, you can also access MVS datasets as pipes on Linux.
So, for the case that you mentioned - PGP
Oracle, with Oracle's announced shift in strategy away from z/OS, is VERY common
WAS for a lot of reasons
SAP is becoming more common in the US, already very common in Europe.
Domino is common. (I like the installation that converted 24 z/OS CP's to 21
IFLs.) Saved
a trainload of money, but i
barton wrote:
SNIP
SAP is becoming more common in the US, already very common in Europe.
SAP 640 was the last release to run on z/OS, so customers moving to a
higher level of SAP
will have to move away from z/OS, and z/Linux is the preferred target OS.
mark
SAP 640 was the last release to run on z/OS, so customers moving to a
higher level of SAP
will have to move away from z/OS, and z/Linux is the preferred target OS.
I think you are referring to the 32-bit kernel that was discontinued (for all
platforms, so also for z/OS). A 64-bit for kernel
Pieter Harder wrote:
SAP 640 was the last release to run on z/OS, so customers moving to a
higher level of SAP
will have to move away from z/OS, and z/Linux is the preferred target OS.
I think you are referring to the 32-bit kernel that was discontinued (for all
platforms, so also for z/OS).
The only definitive reference I have comes from within oracle's metalink,
which you have to be signed up for:
Oracle Database on z/OS Support Status
The final patch set for Oracle Database 10g Release 2 will be the last
release Oracle delivers for the z/OS platform. Customers can continue to run
Actually, zLinux doesn't use the ZAAP engines at all. And, there's really no
need, since there's no licensing advantage to using ZAAPs in Linux. If z/OS
already has ZAAP engines and you move the Java workload to Linux, consider
asking IBM if the ZAAPs can be converted into IFL engines, which will
And things like data encryption (PGP, etc.) and data compression (GZIP,
BZIP, etc.) make good candidates as well, (and you can avoid the license
charges for PKZIUP on z/OS. :-)
You might also want to check out the new Co:Z Co-processing Toolkit as
well. It allows a z/OS batch job to remotely
-Original Message-
From: Linux on 390 Port On Behalf Of Amir Glaser
Hi,
I would think that WebSphere for example is a great candidate.
Installation of WebSphere on the zOS is very cumbersome,
while on linux it's very easy. The only draw back to this is
if you have ZAAPs on
To: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: Workload move from z/OS to z/Linux
I would think it's a question of demand. I think that if IBM sees a significant
increase in zLinux use, they might support it in the future. Obviously (to me
at least), the pricing of the IFLs is commensurate with the demand
I would think it's a question of demand. I think that if IBM sees a
significant increase in zLinux use, they might support it in the
future.
Unlikely. It's the same physical iron, just different microcode, and if
you can turn the iron into an IFL, that benefits everything accessing
the
I don't see how that would work. If IBM raises the price of an IFL higher
then the price of a ZAAP, why would they then let you use a ZAAP for Linux?
1. IFL, zIIP, zAAP, ICFs are all the same price. At least, they are in Canada.
2. zLINUX (any flavour) does not support any specialty engine
30, 2008 9:47 AM
To: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: Workload move from z/OS to z/Linux
I don't see how that would work. If IBM raises the price of an IFL higher
then the price of a ZAAP, why would they then let you use a ZAAP for Linux?
1. IFL, zIIP, zAAP, ICFs are all the same price
] On Behalf Of
Alan Altmark
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 12:50 AM
To: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: Workload move from z/OS to z/Linux
On Wednesday, 01/30/2008 at 01:31 EST, Amir Glaser [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I would think that WebSphere for example is a great candidate.
Installation
]
-
-Original Message-
From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Wayne Driscoll
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 1:41 PM
To: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: Workload move from z/OS to z/Linux
I realize that this isn't a place for submitting requirements, but here
/VM
and Linux on zSeries for 30 days or so for little to no money at all.
-Original Message-
From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Wayne
Driscoll
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 10:41 AM
To: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: Workload move from z/OS to z/Linux
I
On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 1:41 PM, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Wayne Driscoll
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I realize that this isn't a place for submitting requirements, but here
is something that could be useful for some customers who have zAAPs (or
maybe even zIIPs) is if IBM would allow a
]
-
-Original Message-
From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Fargusson.Alan
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 12:57 PM
To: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: Workload move from z/OS to z/Linux
Right
On Wednesday, 01/30/2008 at 01:45 EST, Wayne Driscoll
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I realize that this isn't a place for submitting requirements, but here
is something that could be useful for some customers who have zAAPs (or
maybe even zIIPs) is if IBM would allow a zAAP (zIIP) only LPAR and have
Richards, Robert B. wrote:
You are not going to like the answer, Wayne.
IBM *will* do personality (zAAP to IFL, zAAP to zIIP, etc.) changes for
a price, but they will not allow zAAP/zIIP processors to execute VM or
Linux natively. Same reason IFLs cannot run z/OS.
Err.. That's a bit
I don't see how that would work. If IBM raises the price of an IFL
higher then the price of a ZAAP, why would they then let you use a
ZAAP
for Linux?
If they did ever permit ZAAP usage for Linux, I'd expect them to offload
just Java processing, not general purpose cycles. That's the point of
On Jan 30, 2008 8:11 PM, David Boyes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If they did ever permit ZAAP usage for Linux, I'd expect them to offload
just Java processing, not general purpose cycles. That's the point of
the special microcode that makes a ZAAP a ZAAP. In that case, you'd need
either a CP or
If they did ever permit ZAAP usage for Linux, I'd expect them to
offload
just Java processing, not general purpose cycles. That's the point
of
the special microcode that makes a ZAAP a ZAAP. In that case, you'd
need
either a CP or an IFL, AND a ZAAP. Not a good cost/benefit model,
IMHO.
However, if I could have share the zAAP with a new zAAP only LPAR, I could run
Linux (either bare or under z/VM) on the currently underutilized zAAP.
All the specialty engines have different names for a good reason.
They do different things, with different micro-code.
So, you CANNOT share one
Right. If the price of an IFL did increase, and was then more expensive then
a zAAP, why would IBM also change and let you use a zAAP in place of an IFL?
They wouldn't.
I think this discussion is moot.
zLINUX only supports one kind of specialty engine -- the IFL.
So, the cost of the others,
can't see what would prevent a mix of
IFL+n*zAAP+m*zIIP LPAR from running linux
How about: it's not supported -- there is no code in zLINUX to (a) recognise
zAAPs zIIPs, and (b) run anything on it.
(unless, again, there is too much stuff stripped from the zAAPs zIIPs that
would prevent it
@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: Workload move from z/OS to z/Linux
Wouldn't the code needed to support a zIIP or zAAP have to be added to
Linux and available to all?
I would think that this is a 'trade secret' for IBM and one they would
prefer to control/license as they are with zIIP for z/OS
Wouldn't the code needed to support a zIIP or zAAP have to be added to Linux
and available to all?
Yes, so IBM probably won't do it.
I would think that this is a 'trade secret' for IBM and one they would prefer
to control/license as they are with zIIP for z/OS workloads
I agree.
(zAAP
-Original Message-
From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Fargusson.Alan
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 3:36 PM
To: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: Workload move from z/OS to z/Linux
I think the zIIP is more generic. At least it can be used
Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Ken Porowski
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 3:31 PM
To: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: Workload move from z/OS to z/Linux
Wouldn't the code needed to support a zIIP or zAAP have to be added to
Linux and available to all?
I would think
On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 4:38 PM, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Wayne Driscoll
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The reason I say this is that Linux
doesn't care if it is running on an IFL or a CP does it?
No, it doesn't.
-snip-
As for going to IBM, mentioning POC etc,
that requires time, and
What I was alluding to was that a zAAP will run anyone's Java code (or a
subset) but for work to run on a zIIP you have to know/code something
specific to gain access to it (or at least this was how it was explained
to me). The first implementer was DB2 and now I believe CA has some
stuff that
Wouldn't the code needed to support a zIIP or zAAP have to be added to
Linux and available to all?
I would think that this is a 'trade secret' for IBM and one they would
prefer to control/license as they are with zIIP for z/OS workloads (zAAP
appears to be a little more generic).
Ken Porowski
zIIPs can be used to dispatch any work which conforms to a particular type of
enclave SRB processing. Not just database work. I don't know
if IBM has generally documented how to create such work.
I believe they have to ISV's under NDA (CDA).
I think CA has a product coming (CA-IDMS?) that will
What I was alluding to was that a zAAP will run anyone's Java code (or a
subset)
Yes, but the dispatcher has to know how/when to direct a sub-task to the zAAP.
It doesn't happen just because you have JAVA and a zAAP.
but for work to run on a zIIP you have to know/code something specific to
On Wednesday, 01/30/2008 at 04:43 EST, Wayne Driscoll
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Possibly, but then again maybe not. The reason I say this is that Linux
doesn't care if it is running on an IFL or a CP does it?
No, Linux does not care.
The change
would (most likely) have to be in hardware and
-Original Message-
Ted MacNEIL
What I was alluding to was that a zAAP will run anyone's Java code (or
a subset)
Yes, but the dispatcher has to know how/when to direct a sub-task to
the zAAP. It doesn't happen just because you have JAVA and a zAAP.
If I have a zAAP and are at
I have JAVA code that 'could' run on a zAAP and I don't have to change my JAVA
code to make it zAAP eligible then isn't that the same as it 'happen just
because you have JAVA and a zAAP' ? I am assuming that I (sysprog
or applications) don't need to do anything to specify what work is zAAP
Ted MacNEIL wrote:
can't see what would prevent a mix of
IFL+n*zAAP+m*zIIP LPAR from running linux
How about: it's not supported -- there is no code in zLINUX to (a) recognise zAAPs
zIIPs, and (b) run anything on it.
How about : It's linux, and the support there is is what people coding
Ted MacNEIL wrote:
Wouldn't the code needed to support a zIIP or zAAP have to be added to Linux
and available to all?
Yes, so IBM probably won't do it.
I would think that this is a 'trade secret' for IBM and one they would prefer
to control/license as they are with zIIP for z/OS workloads
But of course, at the present time, it just won't work.
Don't ever expect it to work.
We already have cheap IFLs.
Why would IBM invest time money to exploit zIIPs and zAAPs on an already
cheap platform?
-
Too busy driving to stop for gas!
So far I've not seen anything to suggest that IBM cannot, should not make the
three interchangeable.
They have different priorities?
The IFL is already 'cheap'!
Same hardware, different firmware I gather. Why not give the customer the
choice of which microcode to IMPL?
$$!
If you truly see a
Ted MacNEIL wrote:
Why would IBM invest time money to exploit zIIPs and zAAPs on an already
cheap platform?
Why would it HAVE for IBM to do this work ?
And for all we know, it could be as simple as issuing the right SIGP or
SERVC !
--Ivan
Ted MacNEIL wrote:
But, in general, it's only easy if you know the API.
And, IBM is NOT publishing that.
One never knows !
But the whole point is moot anyway..
First, I'm pretty confident the HMC won't let you define an LPAR with a
mixture of IFLs and z[IIP][AAP]s (never tried it though)..
On Wednesday, 01/30/2008 at 07:44 EST, Ivan Warren [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Ted MacNEIL wrote:
But, in general, it's only easy if you know the API.
And, IBM is NOT publishing that.
One never knows !
I don't have a copy in front of me, but I think you'll find that the
agreement that goes
I have been asked by my management to find workloads that we can move from
z/OS to Linux on zSeries. The idea is to take advantage of the lower prices
IBM charges for IFL engines as opposed to standard engines.
Has anyone done this? If so, what workloads and/or products are good
candidates for
What sort of workloads are being run on z/OS that can also run on Linux
for System z? Websphere, Domino, DB2, Oracle? All of these are
potentially good workloads for Linux on System z, but determining if
they would be a good fit based the workload is the challenge.
Alan Ackerman wrote:
I have
Oracle is a great one as Oracle will no longer be supporting the z/OS
platform.
MA
On Jan 29, 2008 8:00 PM, Rich Smrcina [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What sort of workloads are being run on z/OS that can also run on Linux
for System z? Websphere, Domino, DB2, Oracle? All of these are
On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 7:45 PM, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Alan Ackerman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have been asked by my management to find workloads that we can move from
z/OS to Linux on zSeries. The idea is to take advantage of the lower prices
IBM charges for IFL engines as opposed
On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 8:50 PM, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Mary Anne Matyaz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oracle is a great one as Oracle will no longer be supporting the z/OS
platform.
Do you have a public reference you can cite for that? It would be good to be
able to point that out to
On Wednesday, 01/30/2008 at 01:31 EST, Amir Glaser [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I would think that WebSphere for example is a great candidate.
Installation of WebSphere on the zOS is very cumbersome, while on linux
it's
very easy. The only draw back to this is if you have ZAAPs on your
machine.
30, 2008 5:39 AM
To: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: Workload move from z/OS to z/Linux
On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 7:45 PM, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Alan Ackerman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have been asked by my management to find workloads that we can move from
z/OS to Linux on zSeries
: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Alan Altmark
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 8:50 AM
To: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: Workload move from z/OS to z/Linux
On Wednesday, 01/30/2008 at 01:31 EST, Amir Glaser [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I would think that WebSphere
On Jan 30, 2008 7:50 AM, Alan Altmark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, Linux doesn't dispatch work on zAAPs, and I don't expect it ever will.
zIIPs and zAAPs are engines specifically created to help z/OS pricing.
Linux runs on IFLs.
So the conclusion is that when a fair amount of the workload is
57 matches
Mail list logo
