FWIW ...  A plumber in Germany came up with this and it seems to have
bypassed the problem for us:

It's not a pipeserv problem - it's a bug in pipeline's delay stage (TOD
overrun in 2042). As a bypass please change the line with literal +99999 to
literal +59999

I tried it on our z/VM 5.4 Test System and it works.

Note:
The actual line in the  PIPESERV  REXX module is:

'\ literal +999999999',                /* Never expiring timer        */

This should be changed to:

'\ literal +599999999',                /* Never expiring timer        */
--
bc

On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 9:35 AM, Jeffrey Forte <jfo...@us.ibm.com> wrote:

> We had a system running this code that is used for our software
> distribution within IBM.  We had a couple
> of 5.4 systems that were IPL'ed just last week.  The server came up with no
> problems.  After some emails were
> sent out about problem, I logged onto on of the server and IPL CMS.  Would
> not start at that point.  Worked fine on
> Monday and then it has been failing since Tuesday.  As far as I can tell,
> nothing has changed.
>
> Jeff Forte
> z/VM System Support
> jfo...@us.ibm.com
> 720-396-1716
>
> > Well, I am told that this pipeline has not been changed for years and it
> all
> > of a sudden stopped working the first time the virtual machine running it
> > was re-IPL'd this year (which just happened to be on 1/11 so I thought it
> > might be related as I have seen similar issues in other areas when
> "weird"
> > dates occur). Thoughts on where to start trying to debug it? I've
> literally
> > never seen PIPESERV until last night so am a bit out of my element.
> > --
> > bc
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 4:27 AM, Rob van der Heij <rvdh...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > > On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 10:18 AM, Shimon Lebowitz <shimon...@gmail.com
> >
> > > wrote:
> > > > And how exactly did my name get involved in this thread? :-)
> > > > Shimon
> > >
> > > Oh, my bad!  I confused you with Hobart.  We plumbers all look the
> > > same from behind :-)
> > >
> > > Sir Rob the Plumber
> > >
>

Reply via email to