On 1/7/21 1:58 PM, Cohen, Sam wrote:
> If you're running under z/VM with a class G (or lower) user, why use
> cio_ignore at all? Your hypervisor will only allow you to see what should be
> seen. Even without z/VM, you can limit the devices visible to the LPAR via
> IOCDS statemen
: Linux on 390 Port On Behalf Of Viktor
Mihajlovski
Sent: Thursday, January 7, 2021 4:02 AM
To: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: cio_ignore
[External Email: Use caution with links and attachments]
On 1/7/21 4:41 AM, Bill Head wrote:
> On RHEL 8.2 I'm having a problem with cio_ignore. I
If you're running under z/VM with a class G (or lower) user, why use cio_ignore
at all? Your hypervisor will only allow you to see what should be seen. Even
without z/VM, you can limit the devices visible to the LPAR via IOCDS
statements. I don't have cio_ignore on the startup of any of my
On 1/7/21 4:41 AM, Bill Head wrote:
On RHEL 8.2 I'm having a problem with cio_ignore. I can remove devices from
the blacklist but when I reboot they are exluded again:
cio_ignore -L
Devices that are not ignored:
=
0.0.0009
0.0.0150
0.0.0300-0.0.0301
0.0.0700
*
So, I have to set up a bonded network to two OSA adapters and use VLAN tagging.
From the RHEL reference manual I've tried this:
cio_ignore -r 0.0.1000,0.0.1001,0.0.1002
cio_ignore -r 0.0.2000,0.0.2001,0.0.2002
znetconf -u
znetconf -a 1000
znetconf
On Thu, 7 Jan 2021 03:41:07 +
Bill Head wrote:
> On RHEL 8.2 I'm having a problem with cio_ignore. I can remove devices from
> the blacklist but when I reboot they are exluded again:
>
> cio_ignore -L
> Devices that are not ignored:
> =
>
No. They are not persistent.
You should add each address to /etc/dasd.conf
Enviado do meu iPhone
> Em 7 de jan. de 2021, à(s) 00:42, Bill Head escreveu:
>
> On RHEL 8.2 I'm having a problem with cio_ignore. I can remove devices from
> the blacklist but when I reboot they are e
On RHEL 8.2 I'm having a problem with cio_ignore. I can remove devices from
the blacklist but when I reboot they are exluded again:
cio_ignore -L
Devices that are not ignored:
=
0.0.0009
0.0.0150
0.0.0300-0.0.0301
0.0.0700-0.0.0702
0.0.1000-0.0.1002
0.0.2000-0.0.2002
Walter mike.wal...@aon.com
To: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU
Date: 12.01.2015 20:43
Subject: Re: [LINUX-390] cio_ignore vs Linux in System z
Sent by: Linux on 390 Port LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU
Thanks, Sam, Jay, Jim, Harley, and Mark (and anyone else who may
have replied since I looked at the log
Thanks, Sam, Jay, Jim, Harley, and Mark (and anyone else who may have replied
since I looked at the log),
There are no LPAR-only Linux servers running here, only those running (RHEL)
under z/VM. I suspected that cio_ignore was something related to security
(perhaps an auditor fearing
Mike,
Until you get around to disabling cio_ignore you can run the following command
to update the blacklist when you add a volume to Linux to enable it to be seen:
cio_ignore -r 0.0.vdev
Harley Linker
-Original Message-
From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU
On 1/12/2015 at 02:48 PM, Linker Harley - hlinke harley.lin...@acxiom.com
wrote:
Until you get around to disabling cio_ignore you can run the following
command to update the blacklist when you add a volume to Linux to enable it
to be seen:
cio_ignore -r 0.0.vdev
Better yes, just
[mailto:LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU] On Behalf Of Mike
Walter
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2015 11:09 AM
To: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: cio_ignore vs Linux in System z
The cio_ignore table within Linux (at least in RHEL6.5) is used to restrict
access devices, both real and virtual. Being new the Linux
that (by _changeable_
default), cio_ignore=all,!ipldev,!condev will be added to the kernel parms at
install time. As others have indicated this is primarily intended for LPAR
installs. I personally see no significant benefit to using it in a virtual
machine, whether z/VM or KVM. It does provide a very
, 2015 10:09 AM
To: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: cio_ignore vs Linux in System z
The cio_ignore table within Linux (at least in RHEL6.5) is used to restrict
access devices, both real and virtual. Being new the Linux on System z, this
has become an occasional stumbling block for our Linux admins
to.
If you're running under z/VM, you can disable the cio_ignore feature
entirely by removing the cio_ignore statement from the kernel paramater in
/etc/zipl.conf and rewriting the ipltest with the zipl command.
If you're running under LPAR, you really ought to be removing non Linux
devices from
It's also about efficiency. Recall that there aren't many other processors
out there whose I/O architecture is built on (sub)channels. If the
cio_ignore data indicates that signals arriving from certain channels
needn't be processed, then that's less work the kernel has to engage in. In
cases
The cio_ignore table within Linux (at least in RHEL6.5) is used to restrict
access devices, both real and virtual. Being new the Linux on System z, this
has become an occasional stumbling block for our Linux admins; when we z/VM
sysprogs attach a new virtual or real device and the guest cannot
On Friday, 03/30/2012 at 03:19 EDT, Lee Stewart
lstewart.dsgr...@attglobal.net wrote:
cio_ignore=all,!009
appears to be the default, at least on RH 6.2... Certainly not added by
us...
IMO, Linux should be willing to recognize 009 and 01F as consoles, by
default.
Alan Altmark
Senior Managing
On Fri, 30 Mar 2012, Mark Post wrote:
On 3/30/2012 at 11:31 AM, Lee Stewart lstewart.dsgr...@attglobal.net wrote:
I've been trying to think of any reason to ever have cio_ignore in a VM
guest. I can see real use for it in an LPAR where you may have
thousands of devices that have nothing
Hi all,
I've been trying to think of any reason to ever have cio_ignore in a VM
guest. I can see real use for it in an LPAR where you may have
thousands of devices that have nothing to do with the Linux instance.
But in a virtual machine I only give it the devices I want it to have in
the first
Lee,
On Fri, 30 Mar 2012, Lee Stewart wrote:
Hi all,
I've been trying to think of any reason to ever have cio_ignore in a VM
guest. I can see real use for it in an LPAR where you may have
thousands of devices that have nothing to do with the Linux instance.
But in a virtual machine I only
On 3/30/2012 at 11:31 AM, Lee Stewart lstewart.dsgr...@attglobal.net
wrote:
I've been trying to think of any reason to ever have cio_ignore in a VM
guest. I can see real use for it in an LPAR where you may have
thousands of devices that have nothing to do with the Linux instance
cio_ignore=all,!009
appears to be the default, at least on RH 6.2... Certainly not added by
us...
Lee
On 3/30/2012 10:59 AM, Sebastian Ott wrote:
Lee,
On Fri, 30 Mar 2012, Lee Stewart wrote:
Hi all,
I've been trying to think of any reason to ever have cio_ignore in a VM
guest. I can see
24 matches
Mail list logo
