Re: SLES 12 - to btrfs or not to btrfs

On 08/16/2016 04:55 PM, Marcy Cortes wrote: > Larry wrote: > "I would look at your backup mechanism and make sure it is compatible before > you commit to it." > > Thanks Larry, that answers that!! A note about volume management: Btrfs can do multi-volume backing store. In English, a Btrfs

Re: SLES 12 - to btrfs or not to btrfs

Rick wrote: "Where possible, keep your business apps above the op sys. Curious what backup methods (or products) would have trouble because of a different filesystem." We do and it's Netbackup. It may well work but it is currently has a note that says unsupported. Many times that means

Re: SLES 12 - to btrfs or not to btrfs

On 08/16/2016 04:55 PM, Marcy Cortes wrote: > Larry wrote: > "I would look at your backup mechanism and make sure it is compatible before > you commit to it." > > Thanks Larry, that answers that!! Where possible, keep your business apps above the op sys. Curious what backup methods (or products)

Re: Logs from Operator

hi We haven´t IBM Operations Manager for z/VM. We are implementing a REXX called by PROP to send a UDP message directly to z/OS. Thanks for the answer! jp 2016-08-15 12:56 GMT-03:00 Tracy Dean : > > From: joão paulo limberger (shoo) > > To:

Re: SLES 12 - to btrfs or not to btrfs

Thanks, Aria. Good to know! -Original Message- From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU] On Behalf Of Aria Bamdad Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 2:27 PM To: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: [LINUX-390] SLES 12 - to btrfs or not to btrfs Marcy you also asked about

Re: SLES 12 - to btrfs or not to btrfs

Marcy you also asked about xfs. We use xfs for our data storage volumes (user data file systems) and have been very happy with it. It is faster than ext3 and much faster with respect to fsck at boot time. Larger ext3 file systems would take a very long time to fsck at boot time and were causing

Re: SLES 12 - to btrfs or not to btrfs

The Command processing for btrfs file systems uses the btrfs command so if you have procedures already in place for LVM then those procedure may have to be updated that’s all. Larry Davis, VM Capability -Original Message- From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU] On

Re: SLES 12 - to btrfs or not to btrfs

Hi Dimitri, Granted, Mark already mentioned this wouldn't be applicable to SLES12. But can you explain your comments? I guess no one would accept degrading performance or lengthy downtimes. So I am curious as to why this would be an issue with BTRFS (being the new "improved" filesystem of

Re: SLES 12 - to btrfs or not to btrfs

Hi Larry, Can you explain your changed procedures a bit more? What are the considerations, pitfalls etc? We are going to install new (SLES12) machines in the near future and, just like Marcy, I am still considering what would be the best option. Either for system volumes (think of cloning

Re: SLES 12 - to btrfs or not to btrfs

Larry wrote: "I would look at your backup mechanism and make sure it is compatible before you commit to it." Thanks Larry, that answers that!! -- For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to

Re: SLES 12 - to btrfs or not to btrfs

>>> On 8/16/2016 at 03:17 PM, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote: > Hello, > > On 16 August 2016 at 19:45, Marcy Cortes > wrote: >> Was wondering what other people have decided to do for their file systems in > SLES 12. >> Stable tried and try ext3 or

Re: SLES 12 - to btrfs or not to btrfs

We have kicked the tires of btrfs, but are still staying with ext3 for now. -Mike MacIsaac On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 3:17 PM, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote: > Hello, > > On 16 August 2016 at 19:45, Marcy Cortes > wrote: > > Was wondering what

Re: SLES 12 - to btrfs or not to btrfs

Hello, On 16 August 2016 at 19:45, Marcy Cortes wrote: > Was wondering what other people have decided to do for their file systems in > SLES 12. > Stable tried and try ext3 or new function (and more space) with btrfs. Any > use of xfs? > It is a different kind

Re: SLES 12 - to btrfs or not to btrfs

We are using btrfs and it just requires some changes to adding DASD and expanding file systems. I would look at your backup mechanism and make sure it is compatible before you commit to it. Larry Davis, VM Capability -Original Message- From: Linux on 390 Port

Re: SLES 12 - to btrfs or not to btrfs

"tried and true" that is. darn autocorrect Marcy -- For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@vm.marist.edu with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit

SLES 12 - to btrfs or not to btrfs

Was wondering what other people have decided to do for their file systems in SLES 12. Stable tried and try ext3 or new function (and more space) with btrfs. Any use of xfs? Marcy This message may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the addressee or authorized

Re: qeth.5cb8a3: 0.0.0700: The qeth device is not configured for the OSI layer required by z/VM

False alarm, folks! It seems like the ftp-server and the guest is *not* on the same network, and that for some reason the vswitch is configured as layer 2. Sorry for the noise! On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 3:00 PM, Michael Weiner wrote: > Interesting. I had an issue when

Re: qeth.5cb8a3: 0.0.0700: The qeth device is not configured for the OSI layer required by z/VM

Interesting. I had an issue when upgrading from a service pack to SLES11 SP4, after the upgrade I had to reconfigure the network with yast. Sent from my iPhone > On Aug 16, 2016, at 08:47, Christer Solskogen > wrote: > > This is a fresh install. > The weird

Re: qeth.5cb8a3: 0.0.0700: The qeth device is not configured for the OSI layer required by z/VM

This is a fresh install. The weird thing is that if I configure the nic as a layer 2, I can the network "up". And by up I mean that I can ping the host from my machine, but the guest itself cannot get to my ftp-server which it *should* be able to do as it is on the same network. On Tue, Aug 16,

Re: qeth.5cb8a3: 0.0.0700: The qeth device is not configured for the OSI layer required by z/VM

Hi Christer, Are you upgrading or fresh install? Sent from my iPhone > On Aug 16, 2016, at 08:26, Christer Solskogen > wrote: > > Hi! > > I'm trying to install SLES11SP4 on a machine on one of our z/VMs, but > I can't seem to get past the error mentioned in

qeth.5cb8a3: 0.0.0700: The qeth device is not configured for the OSI layer required by z/VM

Hi! I'm trying to install SLES11SP4 on a machine on one of our z/VMs, but I can't seem to get past the error mentioned in subject when I configure the network. As far as I know, our vswitches are all layer 3 (how can I check if it is?) - and even if I configure it as layer 2, the network does

Re: DASD usage

We use a mix. ECK DASD for the system and also for high attention data (some systems with db2 bundled) Because it's easy and safe to handles, we use VM Secure. And really stable. Some customer data is on NFS mounted NAS. And we are just starting to use FCP, via defined EDEV. Will use it for