A 3 digit CMS service level existed before PUT and/or RSU tapes existed.
With the arrival of PUT/RSU, and their 4 digit number, CP was enhanced with
a Q CPLEVEL command, but CMS remained compatible with its past.
2010/9/29 Alan Ackerman alan.acker...@bankofamerica.com
HELP says:
Responses
In the Redbook I mentioned, I wrote a chapter to compare NetRexx with Rexx.
And, as opposed to OO-Rexx, NetRexx is not upward compatible with REXX.
I didn't visit NetRexx recently, but as NetRexx is in Java, NetRexx runs on
all Java platforms (this too should appear in this redbook)
2010/9/29
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 11:27 AM, Kris Buelens kris.buel...@gmail.com wrote:
And, if the 2'nd level system has enough free spool space, you could let
this 2'nd level run without page packs: CP will page in the spool when
paging is full (or not-existing). **NOT** recommended for a production
As always, Alan, ty for the good advice.
I have renamed with CPFMTXA the 2nd Level disks to 54O(Oh)RES, 54O(Oh)W01,
adn 54O(Oh)W02 and will copy the 2 page and 2 spool disks just for
simplicity, neatness counts.
Alan Altmark alan_altm...@us.ibm.com
Sent by: The IBM z/VM Operating System
That's then to confuse everyone 0 and O, who can tell the difference unless
having a very good font, and even then.
If you change, change it better, not more work
Why not 54TRES, 54TW01 etc
2010/9/29 George Henke/NYLIC george_he...@newyorklife.com
As always, Alan, ty for the good advice.
I
But
who
is going to write it? It's
not going to come from Sun/Oracle. Sun doesn't even provide one for the
M
acintosh -- Apple
does. There are a heck of a lot more Macs than copies of CMS.
If you want it enough to contribute to the development, let's talk offlist.
We've done Java ports
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 4:11 PM, Kris Buelens kris.buel...@gmail.com wrote:
That's then to confuse everyone 0 and O, who can tell the difference unless
having a very good font, and even then.
If you change, change it better, not more work
Why not 54TRES, 54TW01 etc
I guess my background of
-Original Message-
From: The IBM z/VM Operating System
[mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of David Boyes
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 9:30 AM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: Is there a JAVA implementation for CMS?
But
who
is going to write it? It's
ty all,
I will change the volser's to 54XRES, 54XW01, 54XW02.
It is not as poetic but neither is a disaster.
Kris Buelens kris.buel...@gmail.com
Sent by: The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
09/29/2010 10:11 AM
Please respond to
The IBM z/VM Operating System
Hello,
Thanks very much from your help.
I'm starting my work with this now, and of course, have some questions.
How you can see, this list, is very useful, and also help a lot.
Let me learn few more about this, and later let you know.
Thanks again, and Best Regards,
Sergio
Would this be true JAVA? I.e. from licensed source? Or a port of
OpenJDK? Which I take it is somewhat different. Or am I, once again,
out of my mind (please leave a voice message at the tone)?
If you want the licensed source, then the price obviously goes up. The
technical problem is pretty
On Wednesday, 09/29/2010 at 10:39 EDT, McKown, John
john.mck...@healthmarkets.com wrote:
Would this be true JAVA? I.e. from licensed source? Or a port of
OpenJDK?
Which I take it is somewhat different. Or am I, once again, out of my
mind
(please leave a voice message at the tone)?
The
This was stated on the z/VSE LISTSERV, can someone confirm (or deny) it?
Here is a quick tip. When running under VM with multiple VSE's it is
usually NOT a good idea to define multiple CPU's to VSE and expect turbo
dispacher to handle them. Why? Because z/VM will not dispach a VSE
unless it
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 7:30 PM, Frank M. Ramaekers
framaek...@ailife.com wrote:
This was stated on the z/VSE LISTSERV, can someone confirm (or deny) it?
Here is a quick tip. When running under VM with multiple VSE's it is usually
NOT a good idea to define multiple CPU's to VSE and expect
I know you are a smart guy Rob, but I beg to differ with you on this point.
At least where VSE is concerned.
I have done this and can reproduce results at will (that is if I stilled
worked there).
Environment:
4 CPU z890.
8 gig real memory.
z/VM 5.4
7 production VSE's
VSE 2.7
z/VSE 3.1
With VSE's
VSE's turbo dispatcher is known not to be the best in avoiding MP overhead,
the VSE lab published tables with its MP overhead.
So, never draw conclusions from VSE tests in MP situations to apply them to
other environments.
And, I don't see where your measurement would disagree with what Rob often
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 8:54 PM, Tom Huegel tehue...@gmail.com wrote:
With VSE's using only 1 CPU (non-dedicated) I carfully selected a one hour
job mix.
Giving VSE's 4 CPU's (non-dedicated) the same job mix ran close to 1hr
20min...
This is wall clock time, which in final analysis is the
The z/VM and Linux on z user group ³Hillgang² will meet on October 13 in
Herndon Virginia at the CA offices. The agenda has been updated and may be
found at http://www.vm.ibm.com/events/hill1013.pdf
The PDF also contains logistical information regarding registering and
directions.
Neale Ferguson
Also... you haven't mentioned whether you adjusted the share value when you
added virtual cpus to your VSE guest. Remember that each v-cpu will get
only 1/n of the userid's share, which may place them at a disadvantage if
competing with the virtual cpus of your other guests. So if I'm running
On of our z/VM 5.4.0 systems is about to grow to 140 GB of storage. Given our
target overcommit ratio of 3:1, and IBM's advice to keep paging space no more
than 50% full, this should just about fit onto 240 or 248 3390-3 sized volumes.
My question is what will happen the next time we add
IBM has said many, many times to never, never use more than 3 CPU's with
VSE, and even 3 is be bad with most work loads. This is due to the
overhead of the Turbo-Dispatcher. With 4 you were spinning the
dispatcher more than servicing the jobs.
Try your job with just 2 CPUs.
Tony Thigpen
OK .. maybe Cathrine M. will chime in I can't remember everything we tried,
but she takes notes.
If I remember correctly nothing worked better than 1 CPU. I set share
manually and let VMRMSVM do it dynamically.
I think VMRMSVM did a better job overalll than I did manually.
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010
With most workloads, IBM says to get the largest UNI you can.
Remember, with z/VSE, only one CPU can be used by a single partition at
a time. If you have a heavy CPU usage partition, like CICS, that uses up
all the cycles it can, then adding another CPU just adds overhead. The
only time I really
I agree with IBM on this one. Long ago the powers-that-were brought in a 6-way
with not-too-fast processors. This was when turbo dispatcher was first GA. The
experiment was only marginally successful. Great perf on CMS, not so good on
VSE
- Original Message -
From: The IBM z/VM
One was best in our atypical environment with an atypical workload. We were an
ADABAS shop and that skewers things a bit with all its SVC's. We did test with
rel share set equally. No limitsoft or set absolutes.
From: The IBM z/VM Operating System
CP will page out to the disk with the best performance, so yes, the mdl3's
may be filled too much when mixing sizes.
2010/9/30 O'Brien, Dennis L
dennis.l.o'br...@bankofamerica.comdennis.l.o%27br...@bankofamerica.com
On of our z/VM 5.4.0 systems is about to grow to 140 GB of storage. Given
26 matches
Mail list logo
