I was a college student working that one summer as an operator. The (only!) sysprog gave us the procedures to re-configure, which we did (to a single partition to run a 'large' job) about once a month. (I never got my hands on any Fine Manuals at that time, so I didn't know any better.) Four years later I went from application programming at the same company to system programmer - got to do the very last SVS sysgen and the very first MVS sysgen for that shop. Spent the next 14 years as a sysprog there, then got outsourced to IGS & did another 5 years as sysprog on the same account.
Randy -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ed Gould Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2012 7:02 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: TINC? Randy: We used to run MFT and everyday we changed the partition sizes without an IPL. Now if you are saying to change from MFT to MVT then indeed an IPL was needed, as well PCP to MFT (or for that matter MVT)? The OS is the "key" issue and indeed VM you can "ipl" an OS and it probably does not require an IPL(machine wise) a virtual machine needs to be brought in . Maybe I am missing some distinction here. Ed On Mar 5, 2012, at 9:06 AM, Gross, Randall [GCG-PFS] wrote: > In college, we had a 360/40 running PCP (Primary Control Program) in > 64K; iirc, PCP could not be patrtitioned. > > I worked one summer for a company that had a 256k 360/40 running MFT > with (typically) 4 partitions. Iirc, it took an IPL to reconfigure > MFT. (M = multimple, F = fixed) > > I belive MVT (V = variable) was the first OS360 operating system that > suppored dynamic repartitioning, but I could be wrong. I never > experienced MVT - just went from MFT to SVS to MVS..... > > Randy > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of Lloyd Fuller > Sent: Friday, March 02, 2012 8:32 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: TINC? > > It could be that the spooler was really a resident writer. I was just > a newby programmer, and know that we were told that requiring more > than a certain amount of memory required a major operations change and > was frowned on. > > It was definitely not DOS/360. It was OS/360 and used JCL with DCBs, > etc, not the DOS/360 stuff. > > Lloyd > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: John Gilmore <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Thu, March 1, 2012 4:09:02 PM > Subject: Re: TINC? > > Shmuel/Seymour wrote: > > <begin extract> > NFW. There was only a single partition on PCP. Based on the model I'd > guess that you were running DOS/360. > </end extract> > > and it is correct, albeit in a Pickwickian sense, that OS/PCP "had > only a single partition"; but it did support both transient and > resident readers and writers; there were even some very primitive > to-2311-DASD RYO spoolers in use; and at this remove Lloyd Fuller's > confusion may be only a terminological one. Still, I too guess that > he may have been using DOS. > > --jg > > > On 3/1/12, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) <[email protected]> > wrote: >> In <[email protected]>, on >> 02/29/2012 >> at 05:01 AM, Lloyd Fuller <[email protected]> said: >> >>> No. When we used PCP on the Model 40 with 64K. We had a single job >>> partition and, most of the time, a spool partition. >> >> NFW. There was only a single partition on PCP. Based on the model I'd >> guess that you were running DOS/360. >> >>> It was a very simple partition (like 10K or so) that ran the 1401 >> >> What are you trying to say? The 1401 was a computer, not a program. >> If > >> you meant that you ran the 1401 Emulator program, that confirms that >> it was DOS. >> >>> If we needed more memory for a specific purpose, we would reipl from >>> a > >>> different pack and bring up OS360 with just the program partition. >> >> Another sign that you were not running OS/360; on an OS/360 system >> with multiple partitions you can amalgamated partitions with the >> DEFINE command; you don't need to re-IPL. >> >> -- >> Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT >> ISO position; see <http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html> >> We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress. >> (S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003) >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> - >> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send >> email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN >> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send > email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send > email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send > email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
