tracks.
All of this to avoid getting FBA, improving ESDS by among other things
giving GDG function to them, and making PDSE a base data type rather
than a Started Task add-on.
Clark Morris
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff
allow for large fixed decimal
fields. Floating point decimal isn't always the best idea.
Clark Morris
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM
are the considerations?
Thanks
Clark Morris
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
On 17 Mar 2008 10:34:49 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
I am not enthused about changing JCL even if its as easy as inserting a
one-line step with PGM=CLEANUP. I worked with a product many years ago that
competed against DFHSM that was smart enough to know that the dataset being
On 18 Mar 2008 08:55:20 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
it's possible to zap a module and not leave footprints, though it's not the
default.
Yikes!
Our programmers occasionally ZAP a load module in a test load library, which
is
fine. When the time comes to promote the load module
On 1 Apr 2008 13:37:53 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
On Tue, 1 Apr 2008 13:57:09 -0500 Don Higgins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
:Optimizing COBOL generated assembler
:Consider the cobol statements:
:3402 R-CNTR PIC S99 COMP SYNC VALUE +0.
:...
of transmissions.
Clark Morris
Tony H.
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm
in and get
to ibm-main but not with that URL.
Thanks, Clark Morris
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http
needed them. Abendaid
was more than adequate for the applications and understood COBOL. The
LE dumps of the late 1990's also were good for debugging and for most
purposes IPCS would probably have been more trouble than it was worth.
Clark Morris
I suggest a more reasonable explanation
on the files and any recent compiler changes, other
conditionally successful opens should be checked for.
Clark Morris, COBOL programmer analyst who has done systems
programming.
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access
are capturing the type 14, 15, and 6x records anyway, could you
turn off logging the RACF successful attempts to SMF because you have
the successful use in the regular SMF data?
Clark Morris
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive
I finally am getting around to commenting on this.
On 23 Jan 2008 03:13:49 -0800, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
This is my $0.01...
If I get an engineer out on a call for a Cartridge drive, I expect the
following:
1. Well dressed, Easy to communicate my problem to.
Neat, yes but well
existed (well over
20 years ago), I am surprised that the problem hadn't surfaced long
before this year.
Clark Morris
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED
On 5 May 2008 15:51:01 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
On Mon, 5 May 2008 16:03:33 EDT, Ed Finnell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Yeah, where are the symantiziers when you needs them? Ever hear
an
Unauthorized P.A.R.?
30+ years ago the Westinghouse Fast Dump Restore program had the
On 6 May 2008 12:34:26 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gibney, Dave
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2008 2:25 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: VSAM / COBOL question - redux (fwd)
On 6 May 2008 06:30:03 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
Here is additional information:
The dataset was allocated through ISPF panels (so there was no RLSE
parameter), in subsequent daily batch it is used with DISP=OLD, program is
ICEMAN.
Unless things have changed, there is a RLSE
and goes beyond
what logs can do.
How much data needs to be stored in order to accomplish that? What
are the implications for application testing? Does this mean that
test data correction must include obfuscation of identifiable data?
Clark Morris
Robert Galambos CIPP/C
Compuware Senior
On 12 May 2008 11:33:26 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
Edward E Jaffe wrote:
That is -- and AFAIK has always been -- the VIO trade-off. CPU time for
clock time.
Yes, that's right. And VIO should be compared and contrasted with other
DIM techniques for Batch. I've a feeling I
organizations.
Names of 60 characters don't fit well on screens, reports and
envelopes. I doubt that I would have been able to spell that name or
even copy it correctly.
Clark Morris
Ed Finnell
cycle wasting CKD is carried forward. It is an architecture that is
FBA file hostile (look at the space wasted per track for PDSE, VSAM
and any other file system that is at least somewhat page oriented).
Clark Morris
Meanwhile, Cheryl Watson's polling questions in Orlando didn't show very
many
On 15 Oct 2008 11:16:39 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
At my company, we are looking at FATA drives to put our HSM ML1 (1 year
period) data on it .
Does someone have some experience doeing this ?
Today we do not use ML1 and write directly to ML2 , NATIVE tapedrives from
SUN/STK.
mainframe
strategists. I believe penny-pinching accountants with no vision for
how things inter-relate have taken over.
Clark Morris
Regards,
John K
Bret Hoesly of the IBM Mainframe Discussion List IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
wrote on 10/15/2008 03:37:07 PM:
Yes, Oracle 10g is the last release
On 30 Oct 2008 08:08:50 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
From: John McKown [EMAIL PROTECTED]
They don't say which version of CICS. They don't say which version of COBOL.
But this is likely documented in the actual Redbook They don't take into
account any possible performance
.
Clark Morris
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
On 31 Oct 2008 05:37:11 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Frank Swarbrick
My mention of being a new z/OS with IMS shop got a few surprised
replies, so
I thought I'd give a bit more information...
We have
identified?
Clark Morris
Scott Ford
Senior Systems Engineer
[p] 678.266.3399 x304[m] 609-346-0399 identityforge.com
This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain
privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have
received it in error, please notify
On 19 Nov 2008 09:14:56 -0800, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
Interesting note in this article, Unfortunately, HP couldnt provide a single
customer out of a reported 250 that could speak to me about their
migration.
That says a lot, you would figure these 250 (or at least some
the Marine Corps training center at
Quantico. They knew how to teach.
I still see some people posting who were on that project. The
Michmods tape of the project preceded the CBT tape.
Bruno Sugliani
zxnetconsult(at)free(dot)fr
Clark Morris
On 17 Dec 2008 14:37:47 -0800, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
Do you mean just define the COBOL FD as RECORD CONTAINS 0 TO 32756 CHARACTERS
and then use LRECL=32760 as a JCL override for a file no matter what it's
variable max length is?
I don't believe you need the JCL override.
You DO
On 6 Jan 2009 13:09:50 -0800, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
for zcobol initial release at SHARE. It doesn't test things like EXEC CICS or
Enterprise COBOL extensions such as EXTENDED-FLOAT, but it sure looks like
There is no EXTENDED-FLOAT in Enterprise COBOL.
There are floating-point
that there
is a requirement that explicitly asks for it).
I thought that I submitted one in the 2002 - 2004 time frame.
Clark Morris cfmpub...@ns.sympatico.ca wrote in message
news:ht7am41ddtc4r8c3cij01vdugok96c4...@4ax.com...
On 6 Jan 2009 13:09:50 -0800, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote
On 9 Jan 2009 12:13:51 -0800, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 19:50:07 +, Ted MacNEIL eamacn...@yahoo.ca wrote:
BTW - I prefer solid examples for current need, not histrionics.
Call it histrionics if you like.
But, just because we don't need it today, doesn't mean we
they would be needed to enable
migration from other platforms to z/OS. They also would be in support
of stated IBM goals and directions.
Clark Morris cfmpub...@ns.sympatico.ca wrote in message
news:6tkem45k95u9c18tmoutc4o98cs772i...@4ax.com...
On 7 Jan 2009 15:25:56 -0800, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you
On 21 Jan 2009 15:10:26 -0800, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
IBM intends to keep extending z/SO COBOL for many years to come!
We have been exploring what it would take to get AMODE 64 COBOL
on z/OS for years. Coordination between all of the products is in
progress. We could ship a
On 23 Jan 2009 17:43:53 -0800, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
Tom Ross wrote:
XML features of COBOL have been the most quickly adopted new features of
COBOL in my 25 years of IBM COBOL development. We shipped AMODE 31 in
1984, Intrinsic Functions in 1991, OO in 1995, but many users are
On 9 Feb 2009 15:33:19 -0800, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On
Behalf Of Ivan Warren
Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 5:23 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: Assembler Question
Hopefully..
On 4 Feb 2009 18:35:47 -0800, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
On Wed, 4 Feb 2009, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
Good question. I know that John is an NFS user (at least
Linux server; z/OS client). I believe that SMF data are
RECFM=VBS. I know that if a VBS file is overridden to
RECFM=U it can
On 16 Feb 2009 14:30:46 -0800, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
In kmi4p4th01jpqif5rqgihtqfdbstvra...@4ax.com, on 02/10/2009
at 11:52 PM, Clark Morris cfmpub...@ns.sympatico.ca said:
Thsey are able to run programs for which there is source in one of the
higher level languages (the B5000
On 16 Feb 2009 14:30:46 -0800, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
In kmi4p4th01jpqif5rqgihtqfdbstvra...@4ax.com, on 02/10/2009
at 11:52 PM, Clark Morris cfmpub...@ns.sympatico.ca said:
Thsey are able to run programs for which there is source in one of the
higher level languages (the B5000
procedural language they must be written in
PL/I.
It is, I think, worth noting explicitly that Ed Gould, alone among
contributors to this thread, did identify this problem.
John Gilmore
Ashland, MA 01721-1817
USA
Clark Morris, semi-retired MVS systems programming (was only in
applications on z/OS
On 17 Jul 2007 19:21:33 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
Dean Kent wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Howard Brazee [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 7:29 AM
Subject: Re: PSI MIPS (was: Links to decent
On 20 Jul 2007 07:48:03 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
On Fri, 2007-07-20 at 06:31 -0700, Ray Mullins wrote:
In something as compute-intensive as SMF triplets, every little bit
helps.
The nasty part is testing bit fields in COBOL. The LE bit test routines
are expensive to run. (I
.
rest snipped
Clark Morris
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
procedural language they must be written in
PL/I.
It is, I think, worth noting explicitly that Ed Gould, alone among
contributors to this thread, did identify this problem.
John Gilmore
Ashland, MA 01721-1817
USA
Clark Morris, semi-retired MVS systems programming (was only in
applications on z/OS
On 20 Jul 2007 07:48:03 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
On Fri, 2007-07-20 at 06:31 -0700, Ray Mullins wrote:
In something as compute-intensive as SMF triplets, every little bit
helps.
The nasty part is testing bit fields in COBOL. The LE bit test routines
are expensive to run. (I
On 31 Jul 2007 22:07:06 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main Timothy
Sipples wrote:
much snipped
While I might agree with your logic -- the chance of a spindle theft is
relatively remote though nonzero -- it really doesn't matter what you or I
say here. There are certain minimum security
On 1 Aug 2007 23:33:41 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
Clark,
Could this really be a true story? The few boxes that attach to mainframes
would have triggered a SIM the moment someone unlatched and pulled the drive
- a highlighted, non-scrolling error message on the console.
The
On 3 Aug 2007 12:28:14 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
Everyone
I believe the incident described below occurred at the Regina, SK office
of ISM, an IBM subsidiary. The incident in this case involved an IDE
drive from a server or other Wintel platform. As I understand the
details of
On 5 Aug 2007 13:36:57 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
Clark,
If it was taken from an Array emulating MF it would be very, very dificult
to read, but it is certainly not encrypted. It would not be useful to the
idiot described in this stolen drive article, but there still is data in
Discussion List
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Clark Morris
Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2007 3:49 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: [IBM-MAIN] Theft of spindles was Re: PCI Compliance -
Encryption of all non-console administrative access.
On 1 Aug 2007 23:33:41 -0700
On 6 Aug 2007 11:27:35 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
Tom Kelman wrote:
Then why when I try to edit or browse an SMF file on disk
(LRECL=32760)
do I get the message Invalid Record Length. I just tried it.
John Kalinich wrote:
Maybe it is variable spanned format?
On 11 Aug 2007 09:19:38 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
---snip--
Does anybody know why the people who designed SMF decided to encode the
date and time as FL4'hundredths of seconds after midnight' plus
PL4'0cyyddd'? Why not just put in
On 16 Aug 2007 09:24:57 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 11:09:37 -0400, Sumi, Joseph J. (CMS/CTR) (CTR)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What I will probably do is to have the programmers use IBMLINK ASAP and
enter FMID's to track their productsI still would have
On 16 Aug 2007 14:28:30 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 16:44:03 -0300, Clark Morris wrote:
Does the report ERROR SYSMODS tell you if you have an error against a
function or PTF that has been ACCEPTED? Many years ago if the sysmod
was ACCEPTED the PE wouldn't show
On 23 Aug 2007 04:33:21 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
No one has pointed out that it is impossible to place an 80mb module into
PLPA / MLPA / FLPA. A PDS supports load modules of only 16MB, contrasted
with a PDSE. You cannot get something from a PDSE into PLPA / MLPA / FLPA.
You
On 31 Aug 2007 23:18:08 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
With due respect to all the fellow listers, I would like to request
everybody on the list to kindly avoid any comments that directly or
indirectly hurt anybody's sentiments.
I have felt, that some of the comments (recently) were
/disadvantage of some of the other posters knowing me
from SHARE. In being willing to answer a question, I go with looking
at context such as how much work has the poster done prior to asking
and what if any is their past posting record.
Clark Morris
The view of the sender does not necessary reflect
On 18 Sep 2007 13:19:39 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
Technically, both JES2 and JES3 are equally old, since I think they were
both available on the first release of OS/VS Release 2, known later as MVS.
Which of their predecessors is older is a different question.
As I
On 30 Oct 2007 09:18:04 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
Howard,
Yes, I agree, having the BLLSIZE=0 is the way to go now.
Of course IBM should provide a compile option to default to BLOCK = 0
in the FD statement for COBOL. This is permissible within the COBOL
standard, both 1985 and
On 30 Oct 2007 13:53:30 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Howard Brazee
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 3:41 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: z/OS 1.9 Features summary
not call on any system services it would be
possible but then there are some services are so tightly ingrained
that anything changed would create versioning issues, UGH!
Ed
Clark Morris
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff
of you who are actually working (I'm
retired until someone offers me a contract on the applications side or
systems if they are willing to overlook my not having done systems
programming in over 15 years) are in a better position to submit the
requirement.
-
Too busy driving to stop for gas!
Clark
On 12 Nov 2007 12:31:04 -0800, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Thomas Berg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2007 3:09 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: SV: COBOL COPY statement w REPLACING...
-Ursprungligt meddelande-
On 13 Nov 2007 13:12:29 -0800, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
Jim Marshall wrote:
I have read many discussions here on the topic of management is not
exploiting the z/OS to it utmost. It maybe has been relegated to doing its
1990 work and the web is passing it by. I have quite a few
On 11 Apr 2007 08:55:35 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
Subject: Are there standard IBM dsects for the P-L-O functions that
require one?
Or need I write my own?
I did not find any and so I wrote my own. You probably ought to do the
same.
Why the unprintable should everyone who
On 16 Apr 2007 05:38:40 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
Instead, the application crashes reported as flaws are
actually by design.
I just installed Microsofts new security system for home owners. If anyone
tries to break in, the house bursts into flames. :-)
Before all of carry
On 17 Apr 2007 14:09:17 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
Just announced to Wall Street Yet more mainframe double digit growth
amidst declining prices. One of the fastest growing parts of IBM.
Is this really growth, i.e. greater dollars and more boxes, or just
more capability. In
On 17 Apr 2007 09:53:03 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
I see from their annual report
ftp://ftp.software.ibm.com/annualreport/2006/2006_ibm_annual.pdf
that System z hardware revenue is up 7.8% with an 11% increase in MIPS
shipped. Given that a z9 is more than 11% bigger than a z990,
On 18 Apr 2007 00:37:29 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/32lgs6
Its not dead yet
Is the COBOL group in IBM on life support? There are announcements
for both XML an hardware decimal floating point yet no hint of COBOL
support
For May availability
Birger Heede
IBM
On 18 Apr 2007 12:06:17 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
All mainframe ISV and H/W vendors provide *worse* documentation than IBM
does. Sometimes the quality difference is significant.
Usually documentation website require user authorization or it's simply
unavailable online.
native IEEE
floating point in COBOL, again for Java communication, I'm not so
optimistic.
Clark Morris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
On 18 Apr 2007 00:37:29 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/32lgs6
Its not dead yet
Is the COBOL group
On 25 Apr 2007 12:33:54 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 14:16:47 -0500, Rick Fochtman wrote:
With the new instructions, I now count 751 instructions documented in the
POO. That's up a lot from the (IIRC) 143 for S/360.
It's called evolution, son. Like it or
On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 15:13:37 -0300, in bit.listserv.ibm-main Clark
Morris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 26 Apr 2007 08:45:03 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Edward Jaffe)
wrote:
Clark Morris wrote:
The frustrating thing is that there is no compiler switch to tell most
of the compilers
On 27 Apr 2007 08:42:12 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
In a recent note, Edward Jaffe said:
Subject: Re: sysdsn enq
Ted MacNEIL wrote:
After all, batch processing FREEs all data sets between steps, but
continues to hold the ENQ if a subsequent step uses the same data set
On 29 Apr 2007 08:29:05 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
If you ask about DITTO - well in my understanding DITTO has no idea
about real BPI. How DITTO can measure length of the tape and number of
bytes written, especially when compression is turned on? Can DITTO
access number of
On 9 May 2007 02:31:28 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
Dear All,
we would like to get the number of logical record of VSAM file using
Catalog Search Interface.
Has anyone sucessfully mapped the VSAMSTAT contents with Rexx/COBOL?
This is the reason I think (I wanted to but am
On 7 May 2007 01:01:13 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
Ted MacNEIL wrote:
They can't understand when I say my last system outage was in 2003...
[...]
Unfortunately, the PFCSK's, with their squatty boxes, brag about how fast
they can re-boot!
We brag about how long the system
On 11 May 2007 04:08:24 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
Try this link to IBM's manuals on the 'net:
http://publibz.boulder.ibm.com/cgi-bin/bookmgr_OS390/BOOKS/IEA2M671/12.4
16?SHELF=EZ2ZO10IDT=20070118143320CASE=
This will take you to the IDC3009 message.
However, two questions I
On 12 May 2007 13:44:55 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
Mark Zelden wrote:
[...]
As far as more options... I know you use Sun/STK like we do... I think
I heard VTCS 6.2 will have some help there.
VTCS 6.2 supports 4GB VTVs. Before compression.
AFAIK, new IBM VTS supports even 12GB
On 15 May 2007 07:04:03 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
On Tue, 15 May 2007 07:05:19 -0400, Lizette Koehler wrote:
Note: If it is not a TSO user holding the dataset (it is either a batch job
or STC) then you need to deterimine if the JCL has DISP=OLD and then handle
it appropriately.
On 16 May 2007 17:09:35 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
H. I used LRECL=X, BFTEK=A and locate-mode GET in my assembler programs.
Does COBOL not support that technique?
There is no way to specify that in COBOL but I have handled the VBS
SMF files in COBOL with a RECORDING S
On Fri, 18 May 2007 12:17:41 -0600, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you
wrote:
On 18 May 2007 10:50:04 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark H. Young)
wrote:
Howard, where did you find this topic to originate?
Back in April or March perhaps?
I can't seem to backtrack via Previous in Topic up above.
It is in
On 18 May 2007 13:30:32 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
Picking up on something Paul G. said in another thread, I realized I have
never known *why* the system issues JOB scope ENQ's on DSN's.
I do realize that it is most probably to avoid an ENQ deadly embrace
somewhere along the
On 22 May 2007 04:57:02 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
G'day list,
We are having a response problem with an E/Cobol module that has just being
converted from COBII. It is called from an HLASM module not using LE.
That is the problem. Change the Assembler caller to LE conforming
On 23 May 2007 09:19:03 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
Hi Ken,
You can only reference a temporary data set once in a job step.
Not true. You can have multiple references if you use VOL=REF
referring to the first DD for all subsequent DDs. UNIT=AFF also might
be useful in
On 24 May 2007 18:20:54 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
I believe both sequential and at least some VSAM datasets can utilize
compression in their representation on DASD. This requires that the
datasets be SMS-managed and be assigned a DATACLAS that defines the
dataset as extended
On 26 May 2007 17:47:25 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070526/ap_on_hi_te/
reprogramming_programmers_1;_ylt=AofT.RhpTGKWVlU5o3YhheAE1vAI
U.S. colleges retool programming classes (watch the wrap)
Frankly, colleges never did understand the business
On 1 Jun 2007 10:53:04 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
--snip--
I would never complain about helping someone, but they need to
investigate something as far as their skill level permits. A number of
questions appear to be posted because someone
(8-473-5332) | E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
AIM: lbdyck | Yahoo IM: lbdyck
Kaiser Service Credo: Our cause is health. Our passion is service. We?re
here to make lives better.?
?Never attribute to malice what can be caused by miscommunication.?
Clark Morris
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
414-475-7434
Robert
[*1] And I loved to insert the update pages into the manuals. That
way I touched most every manual in our library and that way I
learned new and updated features on the fly.
Clark Morris
On 8 Jun 2007 10:42:51 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
It has been slow or down all day. How can an organization (IBM) who is trying
to promote the mainfame as a platform of choice, migrate one of their most
important functions off the mainframe? Sounds like very few listserv members
On 28 Jun 2007 11:32:08 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
My 10 year old Multiprise 2003 model 106 is running OS/390 2.10 just
fine and I have yet to find any business justification for changing it.
I have three customer running OS/390 1.3 on a 2003/103 and their only
concern is the
mentioned as well.
Clark Morris
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm
On 2 Jul 2007 09:04:20 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
Of course this facility should be highly restricted since this
probably bypasses all dataset access checking. This comment would
apply to the other programs mentioned as well.
True, our manual says:
DSF ABSOLUTE TRACK
On 9 Jul 2007 09:41:38 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
Thankyou...we are leaning in this direction...
-Original Message-
From: Lizette Koehler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 9:37 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: 3390 Model 27
John,
Just from
snipped
Clark Morris
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
On 11 Jul 2007 12:46:12 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Clark Morris
Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 2:20 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: A mod 27 is small was Re: 3390
a cylinder.
While this doesn't matter when the secondary is over a cylinder, it
can cause unexpected results with primary equating to N cylinders and
secondary to only M tracks. And there is no way force optimum CA
size. Hence I specified VSAM in track or cylinders.
Clark Morris
On 8 Dec 2006 13:08:43 -0800, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
You're not alone. We run BTAM and EP-only 37x5's to connect to our trading
partners using BSC RJE (or emulators). No matter how often we ask them to
switch to IP based solutions, they always have a reason to stick with the
status
On 8 Dec 2006 14:42:08 -0800, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
Jim,
Thanks for clearing that up for Tom as I already understood the points.
All of what has been posted, however, missed the point of my original
question, which was all things being equal (meaning the same amount and
type of JVM
1 - 100 of 629 matches
Mail list logo
