On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 23:46:22 -0600, Timothy Sipples
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'll have to officially call this a rumor and only specify the general
parameters, but I'll see what I can say.
That is a well-crafted description, Timothy. I need to tread lightly too,
but I heard a remarkably
Charles Mills wrote:
Gee, how hard could it be to write COPY 'DSN1' 'DSN2' in Rexx? I suppose the
entire PDS would be a little tricky. I'd leave out the bug-prone numbering
options. What does LRECL/RECFM do? Let you re-block if you are creating an
entire dataset?
Way back in 1969, I wrote
Ted MacNEIL wrote:
Why would you want to cancel after 10 wall clock minutes?
If you're like most shops, Batch is low priority.
It only soaks up CPU that nobody else wants.
And, if there is none available, it doesn't execute.
So, at lightly loaded times a job could use tons of CPU before 10
Are you sure the RD server is configured to disallow remote device access?
Yes.
Charles
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Tony Harminc
Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2006 3:26 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Looking for
I remember an issue of the IBM Installation Newsletter back in the late 1960s.
It described an elaborate modification. Basically you assembled the Lord's
Prayer into object
form as a load of DCs and then applied it to every non-iplable volume as
IPLTXT. During error
recovery on 2311s and
Dave Salt wrote:
problem still exists. With little or no exposure to mainframes they are
not easily understand anything being done that is actually interesting.
There is lots of boring grunt-work to give them, but that won't make
them want to stay.
Which is why you have to try to give
Here's an interesting phenomenon that perhaps some of you have observed, or
maybe not. I've observed it when running in SRB mode and specifying
LINKAGE=BRANCH when using WTOs for messaging. Perhaps someone can explain
what is going on here.
For situtation #1, my app is running in SRB mode, it
Hi Todd,
Just a guess but if you look in SYSLOG or OPERLOG I think you will in
find the WTO was recorded there and processed by automation in a timely
fashion. The actual JOBLOG update is probably sitting in a JES2 buffer
just not flushed out.
Best Regards,
Sam
In a message dated 4/14/2006 7:56:44 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So my question is, why does it take so long for the WTO to externalize?
The only reason I can think of why a WTO would not show up somewhere almost
instantly is if there is an extreme WTO buffer
I have found that using WTLs instead of WTOs in these circumstances helps
much more than there would seem to be any reason to believe that it should.
When I do I also use a pair of CONTROL statements. the first to increase the
number of log buffers (I double them) and the second to restore
In a recent note, john gilmore said:
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 14:19:23 +
When I do I also use a pair of CONTROL statements. the first to increase the
number of log buffers (I double them) and the second to restore the status
quo ante.
If two such processes could execute
At 02:37 PM 04/13/2006, you wrote:
Would anybody have the jcl available for PDSEDIT? I used to have a
copy around but I cannot retrieve from my pds which was deleted 3
months ago. Needless to say no backups are available.
Thanks in advice.
Take a look at this web site:
Thanks Brian. I wish they would open this stuff earlier. Most companies only
have so much money for education and when it's gone...
One would guess that having this information available at an earlier time might
increase attendance at SHARE.
Thanks again,
Steve
-Original Message-
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
ASG got BETA42 and ZEKE,ZEB,ZARA
maybe they rolled them up. BETA42 was descindent of Smart Schedular from
Pecan. Learned a lot from primary author George Elliot. He passed away a few
years ago at the tender age of 38.
It was
On Friday 14 April 2006 11:10, Stephen M. Wiegand wrote:
Would anybody have the jcl available for PDSEDIT?
Take a look at this web site:
http://gsf-soft.com/Products/PDSEDIT.shtml
I'm afraid this probably isn't the PDSEDIT the O.P. is asking about.
It's more likely he's interested in
Jorge,
I recommend you read the installation and customization manual for AUTOOPER. In
there you will probably find a section that discusses the advantages and
disadvantages of running AUTOOPER under SUB=MSTR as opposed to a normal
started task after JES2 has started. This section should include a
On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 13:07:26 GMT, in comp.lang.rexx
(Message-ID:[EMAIL PROTECTED])
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Neal Eckhardt) wrote:
I am probably missing something very obvious. I want to
input a hex
value and do an exclusive OR on the entered value. The
example in the
REXX manual shows rhe BITXOR
IBM-Main,
Those of you who attended Bit Bucket x'1F' at SHARE in Seattle are aware
of this. Others may wish to peruse the first part of the following
presentation for details on what I discussed there (NextGen 3270):
Cross posted to IBM-MAIN and MVS-OE
I recently put some toleration and ERRSYSMOD maint onto my z/OS 1.4
system (moving to 1.6).
Since the maint has gone on I have seen an increase in the I/O to an
application (PeopleSoft) HFS.
I/O rates have increased from 5-10/sec to 80-100/sec with no obvious
We're still using it too - but management cut some sort of deal with CA
(we'll give you all our products for a low, low price but don't look
beneath that clause over there, OK?) , and I feel we'll be running CA-7
before long. Ironically, we originally got Beta-42 because it was our
first
In a message dated 4/14/2006 1:11:10 P.M. Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We're still using it too - but management cut some sort of deal with CA
(we'll give you all our products for a low, low price but don't look
beneath that clause over there, OK?) , and I feel we'll
SRBs are interesting creatures. I had one recently that would
takeanywhere
from 50 microseconds to 50 MILLISECONDS to be SCHEDULEd inside disabled
code. I have a hard time understanding why it takes so long to put
an SRB on a
queue.
SCHEDULE and IEAMSCHD generally do not put the
In a message dated 4/14/2006 1:32:21 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If your z/OS system is running under a Hypervisor (LPAR
or VM) using shared CPs, then there may also be logical
processor dispatching effects (and these could be in
the multi-millisecond range if
IBM Mainframe Discussion List IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU wrote on 04/14/2006
08:51:30 AM:
Here's an interesting phenomenon that perhaps some of you have observed,
or
maybe not. I've observed it when running in SRB mode and specifying
LINKAGE=BRANCH when using WTOs for messaging. Perhaps someone
Edward Jaffe wrote:
I'm hoping those of you interested in extending the 3270 protocol, and
have not yet done so, will request the ANCAS24 usermod from TSO/E level
2 as soon as possible. Even if you're unable to exploit the new function
right away, the request sends the right message as to
Jim, that pretty much hits the nail on the head. Thanks for the
explanation. Me thinks I have some WTO SYNCH=YES code to remove...
Insofar as the non SYNCH=YES situation, I'm satisfied attributing that
behavior to the explanation from Sam, in that JES has not externalized the
WTO as fast as I
Gerhard Postpischil wrote:
Edward Jaffe wrote:
I'm hoping those of you interested in extending the 3270 protocol,
and have not yet done so, will request the ANCAS24 usermod from TSO/E
level 2 as soon as possible. Even if you're unable to exploit the new
function right away, the request
Did someone say keep us informed how this works out?
No matter. Here's my resolution.
CLIPB.EXE that Arthur T. suggested turns out to use the PC-DOS text file
convention of quitting at the first x'00' byte. For the TRANSMIT file I
tested with, that turned out to be after seven bytes. Scratch
While we do not use Mantissa's scheduler (we use CA-7), we are arguably
the largest user of their report distribution software. Small company,
good service.
This is a link to that product on their website
http://www.mantissa.com/index.php?option=contenttask=viewid=39Itemid=56
Job/Master -
Hi Stephen,
This is just brainstorming not something that SHARE has officially
contemplated as far as I know but what if companies could purchase SHARE
credits/SHARE dollars at any time that could be spent within some time
period (1, 2, 3? years) similar to IBM education credits. Would that
Too bad so many of us were dropped over the years during acquisitions.
It always amuses me to think that when CA bought Legent it kept the
management who were a large part of the problem and dropped most technical
staff who were a large part of the solution. Those who think code is a
greater
At 14:19 + on 04/14/2006, john gilmore wrote about Re: Certain
WTOs are slow to externalize:
I have found that using WTLs instead of WTOs in these circumstances
helps much more than there would seem to be any reason to believe
that it should.
Isn't a WTL just a WTO ROUTECDE=11 under the
We have a 6 LPAR DASD only sysplex. We need to add a new LPAR to the
configuration. Using existing CHP's, control units and devices were added
for the new LPAR. A working unit was used as a model. The new devices
connect to 5 of the 6 LPARs, 1 LPAR comes up as Path not operational. Does
anyone
Hi,
Does anyone have the current GA releases of the IBM OMEGAMON suite who
can say weather IBM has eliminated use of user key common storage. Have
you reported it and what did support have to say about it? One recent
report to the Windmill Tilting Club HQ says it still does. I thought
that
In a recent note, Edward Jaffe said:
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 10:13:20 -0700
http://shareew.prod.web.sba.com/client_files/callpapers/attach/SHARE_in_Seattle/S2817EJ095515.pdf
I'm hoping those of you interested in extending the 3270 protocol, and
have not yet done so, will request
Jimmy Wagner wrote:
We have a 6 LPAR DASD only sysplex. We need to add a new LPAR to the
configuration. Using existing CHP's, control units and devices were added
for the new LPAR. A working unit was used as a model. The new devices
connect to 5 of the 6 LPARs, 1 LPAR comes up as Path not
Paul Gilmartin wrote:
A good idea, but woefully underreaching -- an initiative to
bring 3270's into the 1980's; hardly Next Generation.
NextGen was simply intended as a cute reminder of the zNextGen project
at SHARE. This was made clear during the presentation, which you missed.
Guess
I must confess I don't quite understand your situation. Are you adding
an additional LPAR to the configuration or are you adding additional
disk to each of the current LPARs in the configuration? Which (or both)
is it?
Rex
Jimmy Wagner wrote:
We have a 6 LPAR DASD only sysplex. We need to
Hi Sam,
I don't think this would help. Usually, the travel and lodging expenses are
much more than the conference costs and they require pre-approval as well. So,
the earlier I put in my request, the more likely I am to get budgeted for the
trip. Education budgets may or may not be dried up
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Paul Gilmartin
[ snip ]
A good idea, but woefully underreaching -- an initiative to
bring 3270's into the 1980's; hardly Next Generation.
What this user would like is continuous and dynamic
adjustment of
On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 11:36:04 -0400, Bielskie, Stephen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wish they would open this stuff earlier. Most companies only
have so much money for education and when it's gone...
...
Jees. The project managers and their slaves (all with real lives and real
jobs
In a recent note, Chase, John said:
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 15:16:00 -0500
But doing that would seem to violate the principle that mainframes are
for **data** processing (i.e., business logic), not presentation
processing. Since a terminal emulator would still be required, I submit
Pat,
We all appreciate the work that is done for such a major event, and I enjoyed
attending my first SHARE in Boston last year. As such, I would like to go to
the Baltimore SHARE this year. I simply feel more confident that I will have a
chance to go if I get the request in earlier, even if
I do not really understand the question, but it sounds like the new
system should have identical access to the channels, etc. I would
research the Channel Path Access/Candidate Lists for any problems. You
should be able to obtain a Channel Path Summary Report by selecting the
following from the
We have a 6 LPAR DASD only sysplex.
I have worked with SYSPLEX since October 1994, and I have never heard of the
term DASD Only PLEX!
What do you mean by that?
-
-teD
O-KAY! BLUE! JAYS!
Let's PLAY! BALL!
--
For IBM-MAIN
This is an excellent idea.. Since I happen to have the e-mail addresses of
some high-ranking SHARE officers (as I'm sure many of you do, too) I am
going to start e-mailing to see where we can get with this. I'd encourage
others to do the same, with whatever contacts you have. If you're already
On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 14:58:18 -0500, Jimmy Wagner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We have a 6 LPAR DASD only sysplex. We need to add a new LPAR to the
configuration. Using existing CHP's, control units and devices were added
for the new LPAR. A working unit was used as a model. The new devices
connect to
It won't help the issue for those who need an agenda to justify the
trip,
probably, but for organizations like mine where the money has to be
allocated in advance, SHARE education credits which could be bought
would
be wonderful...
We already offer a Passport Registration. It's good for one
Edward Jaffe wrote:
TSO/E's support distributed via ANCAS24 allows *any* valid geometry for
both primary and alternate sizes. (IKJLPENU restrictions are a different
story to be addressed under separate cover.)
Sorry I wasn't clear. By TSO/E, I was considering all IBM TSO
facilities, not just
On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 21:48:19 +0100, Bielskie, Stephen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
My apologizes if I offended you.
...
Not me. That was a proxy offense. I took offense on behalf of those too
busy to do it themselves. :-)
Pat O'Keefe
M - what are the legal ramifications ???.
Even if one was to find manuals/microcode/subsystem-code whatever, I
suspect the fairly stringent licenses would come into play.
Even free code has requirements to be destroyed when no longer
licensed/needed.
Software certainly does come with
Sometimes if the education money isn't allocated or spent by March, it gets
'borrowed' to make up for other projects that have over-spent their budgets. I
might get to go to Share in Baltimore if there is any leftover money that needs
to be spent before the end of the fiscal year. And that is only
Gerhard Postpischil wrote:
Edward Jaffe wrote:
TSO/E's support distributed via ANCAS24 allows *any* valid geometry
for both primary and alternate sizes. (IKJLPENU restrictions are a
different story to be addressed under separate cover.)
Sorry I wasn't clear. By TSO/E, I was considering
I can only say AFO from Candle/IBM still getmain CSA storage in Key8.
I don't blieve the productmanager ever report this issue even I told
him. Seems he didn't understand the issue and I gave up.
Roland
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi,
It's actually a pretty simple thing to issue the command to set the JES2
AUTOMATIC commands for 10 minutes from the current time to cancel your job,
but how do you know your job has completed what it was supposed to do by
then? It would be much safer to change the job to end when it's done,
I especially liked the end of it where they said that it would be better to
tell the client before the time change, but the alert wasn't issued until
after it:)
Brian
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access
Edward Jaffe wrote:
Gerhard Postpischil wrote:
Sorry I wasn't clear. By TSO/E, I was considering all IBM TSO
facilities, not just the base program. I.e., the support should be
extended to ISPF/PDF facilities (especially EDIT), SDSF, etc.
That's already implicit in this support. GTTERM -- the
57 matches
Mail list logo
