Now I am confused. Please correct me when I am wrong.
When I create guestlan of QDIO type, VM can handle it
for its guests. It doesn't need real hipersocket.
Guests use virtual NIC so it can work even when there
are no real OSA adapters. Of course there is at least
one for VM itself, but guestlan
Hello list,
We've just moved to z/VM 4.4 and I'm having trouble with my SuSE7 Linux/390. VM's
RouteD is having a problem with SuSE7's RouteD packets. We are running the VM RouteD
using supply control RIP2B, but Linux is sending RIP1 packets. This is resulting in
intermittent connections to
You might try Zebra or its replacement Quagga. This implements just about
all the routing protocols, and it can be configured to handle as many or as
few as you want.
David
David Booher
[EMAIL PROTECTED]To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
IBM wants us to see if we can get the Linux to send RIP2
packets, which I believe only can be done with gateD. Is
there an rpm available for SuSE 7 Linux?
Use Zebra instead of gated. It supports RIP2.
-- db
I was able to load a more current version of the RH kernel, etc. and
displays and response look much better. qeth/qdio appears to be in this
kernel, IFCONFIG diplays eth0 with the data I entered, but I still can't
get to the Linux guest. Admittedly, networking isn't my strong suit. I've
talked
On Tue, 2003-10-28 at 09:56, Steve Gentry wrote:
I was able to load a more current version of the RH kernel, etc
Enter the default gateway: 10.140.2.254 (This is where I get confused. a) should it
be 255 instead of 254? If so,
is the reply to the previous question
On Tuesday, 10/28/2003 at 10:56 EST, Steve Gentry
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was able to load a more current version of the RH kernel, etc. and
displays and response look much better. qeth/qdio appears to be in this
kernel, IFCONFIG diplays eth0 with the data I entered, but I still can't
get
On Tuesday, 10/28/2003 at 08:59 CST, David Booher [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Hello list,
We've just moved to z/VM 4.4 and I'm having trouble with my SuSE7
Linux/390.
VM's RouteD is having a problem with SuSE7's RouteD packets. We are
running
the VM RouteD using supply control RIP2B, but Linux
When Linux started on the s390 over 3 years ago, a lot
of work was done to see what Linux on the mainframe
was good for. But that was with lower levels of linux
(2.2.16, 2.4.7) and slower machines (mp2000, mp3000,
g5,g6). Now that Trex is GA, has anyone gone back and
re-examined the mythology?
-
I've noticed that if I start 10 or 12 VM linux guests
at the same time, after they are up the bogomips
vary by almost an order of magnitude (1 guest may have
900 bogomips, another 100). Since bogomips are used
for timinig purposes within Linux, does the difference
affect the relative performance
On Tuesday, 10/28/2003 at 08:57 PST, Jim Sibley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
mp2000 - less than 200 bogomips
9672-zz7 (g6) 630 bogomips
2064-116 (z1) 820 bogomips
2084-b16 (Trexx GA1) 2400 bogomips!
The speed of the top of the line zSeries has increased
at four fold in the last 3-4 years.
It
On Tue, 2003-10-28 at 10:57, Jim Sibley wrote:
The speed of the top of the line zSeries has increased
at four fold in the last 3-4 years.
I'd be amazed if Intel hasn't done at least this well too.
Adam
On Tuesday, 10/28/2003 at 12:26 PST, Marian Gasparovic [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I don't have VM background and I didn't get answer on
VM list regarding my receive/apply, maybe someone here
would answer it ( although these two mailing lists
have huge intersection :)) Can anybody explain this
Since you're on 4.4, you likely using Guest LANs. That means only the
virtual routers need to be running dynamic routing, as leaf nodes in a
network do not require dynamic routing protocols.
Unless they're multi-homed and/or need to adapt to routing failures or
maintenance on their default
Bogomips are used for micro timings in some device drivers. I don't think they are
used for any other purpose. Mostly this is for devices with funny timing
characteristics such as not accepting a second command for a short period after
getting a first command.
The channel architecture of the
On Tue, Oct 28, 2003 at 11:21:23AM -0600, Adam Thornton wrote:
| On Tue, 2003-10-28 at 10:57, Jim Sibley wrote:
| The speed of the top of the line zSeries has increased
| at four fold in the last 3-4 years.
|
| I'd be amazed if Intel hasn't done at least this well too.
It probably has. But
Ignoring BogoMIPS arguments for the time being and returning to what I think
Jim was really asking: Our original recommendations as to what type of
workloads were good matches for the 390 architecture were based on the G5/G6
boxes, now that we have the z990 with its enhanced instruction
I have heard the story line, If you have high transaction volume, then
you don't want Big Blue IRON. Well my question then is, what is a
transaction? Is this a computation, is this prime number generation, is
this high volume websites, or is this is a large database with a Tbyte of
data running
Well, I have been told that some of the Intel servers are coming up to speed
in the following areas, but in most other architectures, you get an outage
if you have a memory error. On a zArch box, you might not even see this
because the hardware will replace failing memory automagically. This is
The level of redundancy is not the same in the Intel/AMD world as it is in the
mainframe. In many cases this does not matter. You only need the redundancy if
something goes wrong. In many cases an Intel based server is very reliable. It is
hard to compare CPU power, but it seems to me that
On Tuesday, 10/28/2003 at 01:27 EST, Eric Sammons
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thoughts???
I don't think we're trying to compare (in this discussion, anyway) the
relative merits of different platforms. The question at hand is whether
the latest generation of zSeries hardware and software have
-Original Message-
From: Fargusson.Alan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 12:49 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Perpetuating Myths about the zSeries
snip
If I may ramble on a bit: one thing I have noticed is that
all systems I have worked with have
Well my question then is, what is a
transaction?
A very good question, and exactly why the how many PCs can I consolidate?
question is basically a useless one. The answer has to include what the PCs
are doing and how they do it. It's comparing apples and pumpkins.
So what is a transaction?
On Windows this
results in the famous general protection fault, on Unix it
results in the famous segmentation fault, and on z/OS it is
the famous SOC4. I wonder if there isn't a better way to
deal with this problem then just aborting the program. Users
find this problem really annoying.
On Tuesday, 10/28/2003 at 10:49 PST, Fargusson.Alan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If I may ramble on a bit: one thing I have noticed is that all systems I
have
worked with have one common problem, which is programs that try to
access
memory regions outside of the allocated virtual memory for the
On Tue, 2003-10-28 at 13:09, David Boyes wrote:
This is programmer error -- the hardware is doing exactly what it should do,
methinks. Correcting the developers usually helps, although that's much
harder. I've yet to find a programming language or toolset that doesn't do
exactly what the
Catching the fault with sigaction does not give you much opportunity to correct and
continue. In fact it seems that you cannot continue from the signal handler. I don't
have access to a Linux system, but I tried ignoring the fault on our z/OS Unix system,
and the process went into an infinite
Of course this is a programmer error, and the hardware is doing the right thing. But
is the OS doing the right thing? The programmer didn't ask the OS to abort the
program.
-Original Message-
From: David Boyes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 11:09 AM
To:
On Tue, Oct 28, 2003 at 10:29:18AM -0500, David Boyes wrote:
IBM wants us to see if we can get the Linux to send RIP2
packets, which I believe only can be done with gateD. Is
there an rpm available for SuSE 7 Linux?
Use Zebra instead of gated. It supports RIP2.
Use GNU Quagga instead of
On Tue, 2003-10-28 at 13:32, Fargusson.Alan wrote:
The problem with laying this at the feet of the application programmer
is that they are not perfect, and when the program fails it actually
the end user that suffers.
Yes, but do you have a better suggestion?
I mean, in the common case, you
Hi list,
As is considered good practice, I've been trying to use VDISK swap with the
DASD diagnose driver when possible. I was surprised to see the following
message when IPLing RHEL3
WARNING: Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS release 3 (Taroon) requires at
least 256MB
RAM to run as a
-Original Message-
From: Fargusson.Alan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 1:35 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Perpetuating Myths about the zSeries
Of course this is a programmer error, and the hardware is
doing the right thing. But is the OS doing
I think you could make the case that PROLOG, when it's behaving
nondeterministically, is *perhaps* not doing what the programmer tells
it to.
MMf. The argument on whether data-driven languages like Prolog or Standard
ML are deterministic or not is a very fine line (and has nothing to do with
The problem with laying this at the feet of the application
programmer is that they are not perfect, and when the program
fails it actually the end user that suffers.
Unfortunately, that's about the only place it *can* go. Users can't (or
shouldn't be able to) change the code on the fly, or,
Believe it or not, a lot of thought DOES go in at the Operating System level about the
proper action to take for a given problem. When I was learning about Parallel Sysplex
in zOS, for example, we
were told that there are certain failures that can take down the entire sysplex (all
Recovery is only as good as the language framework allows it to be. Compilers
insulate you from the data and the hardware, and reduce your level of control over how
errors are handled.
But that's part of what you're buying by using a compiler in the first place: Not to
have to worry about
On Tuesday, 10/28/2003 at 01:43 CST, Adam Thornton
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In any event, what *is* the correct behavior?
+--+
|Application Failure |
| Program XYZ has failed. Because it did |
| not register for automatic failure
But, it is still the programmer's fault!
Such things as bounds checking and reasonablness
tests need to be instinctual if you are an
applications programmer. Just like not
breathing while you are under water!
If the end user is suffering then they should be
standing around the programmers desk
On Tue, 2003-10-28 at 14:31, Alan Altmark wrote:
| surrounding the failure. Feel free to |
| curse and pound on the desk in anger.|
| It won't help. Really. |
I find that it helps quite a lot, myself.
It doesn't help me get my job done any quicker, but I feel better.
- Original Message -
From: David Boyes [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 1:09 PM
Subject: Re: Perpetuating Myths about the zSeries
On Windows this
results in the famous general protection fault, on Unix it
results in the famous segmentation
The answer to this may be: it depends.
In a batch program it is probably best to abort the program. In a windowing
environment it might be best to ask if the user wants to continue. Timesharing users
might want an option to tell programs to continue (maybe an environment variable?).
I like that. Reminds me of an old Windows program called First Aid that tried to
help catch failures better than Windows itself did. My friends raved about it, but it
never worked that well for
me.
-Original Message-
From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Alan
I want to say that I agree very strongly with you about programming languages. I
think that the right language should be used for each application, but blaming C for
buffer overflows it not helping solve the problem. In fact, a some of the programs
with problems (Outlook?) are written in
Of course this is a programmer error, and the hardware is
doing the right thing. But is the OS doing the right thing?
The programmer didn't ask the OS to abort the program.
Ostensibly the reason that the OS is limiting access is to do resource
access or utilization controls. If the
On Tue, 2003-10-28 at 14:54, Fargusson.Alan wrote:
The answer to this may be: it depends.
In a batch program it is probably best to abort the program.
In a windowing environment it might be best to ask if the user wants
to continue. Timesharing users might want an option to tell programs
to
Alan wrote:
Why should anyone give a rats behind about bogomips
numbers? A
four-fold
increase in bogomips says only that bogomips runs 4
times as fast as it
used to.
Your question about comparisons of competitiveness is
interesting, but
not
in the context of bogomips. I would ask if TCO has
(Cross posted to VMESA-L,LINUX-390, and IBM-MAIN).
Hello zSeries enthusiasts,
If the word about the upcoming tech conference has not yet reached you
via other e-mail or web notices, please allow me to remind you of this
annual technical education opportunity.
IBM zSeries EXPO
... a
On Tuesday, 10/28/2003 at 01:30 PST, Jim Sibley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Its like the old TSO is slow myth vs CMS. In the few
years of the of the s/360, TSO was slow and a lot of
products tried to replace it (ROSCOE, etc). Once TSO
got improved, the myth persisted.
Yes, but in this case
On Tuesday, 10/28/2003 at 03:57 CST, David Booher [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Some listers have mentioned I should go to MPROUTE etcThat may be a
possibility in the future, but as I see it, if ROUTED is still
supported, it
still should work - it worked fine on 2.4.
Yes, ROUTED is still
I was thinking of batch in z/OS terms, ware there is a distinction. If the OS does
not have this distinction then you would treat batch and interactive the same for
error handling.
-Original Message-
From: Adam Thornton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 1:12 PM
I do
-Original Message-
From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hall,
Ken (IDS ECCS)
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 3:06 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Memory access faults.
Recovery is only as good as the language framework allows it to be.
Compilers
First of all, it was not a myth that TSO was slow when
compared to CMS. And i'm not religious about CMS vs TSO.
Second, i'd really like a concrete example of what performance
literature is way behind for Linux. There were two redbooks this
year that looked at many performance issues. If
On Tuesday 28 October 2003 14:44, you wrote:
Hi list,
As is considered good practice, I've been trying to use VDISK swap with the
DASD diagnose driver when possible. I was surprised to see the following
message when IPLing RHEL3
WARNING: Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS release 3 (Taroon)
Jim said:
Its like the old TSO is slow myth vs CMS. In the few
years of the of the s/360, TSO was slow and a lot of
products tried to replace it (ROSCOE, etc). Once TSO
got improved, the myth persisted.
In a shop with heavy use of both VM (CMS) and MVS
one could gather evidence from objective
I was thinking of batch in z/OS terms, ware there is a distinction. If
the OS does not have this distinction then you would treat
batch and interactive the same for error handling.
That's one of the things I always thought was superior about the TOPS-20 and
VMS batch systems. Batch and
55 matches
Mail list logo
