[Default] On 14 Jul 2016 12:45:43 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main vicky.toble...@americannational.com (Tobleman, Vicky) wrote:
>The issue was in an IBM software audit ... in addition to the SCRT reports, >which did not report on RMF, the audit required us to run Usage Reports. @ >the time we had 3 separate environments - two of them had RMF enabled in >IFAPRD00, the 3rd plex did not. > >There was usage listed on one of the plex's - almost every day for months, >even though we can find no record of RMF tasks being started (we run CMF). >The other plex that had RMF enabled only had one day in 3 months were it >showed RMF usage. We also used a CMF utility to look for RMF records mixed in >with CMF records (all type 70's) but did not find any - so we are fairly >confident that the main RMF tasks were not running anywhere. > >So I'm thinking that "enabled" is not the only thing causing the usage >reporting. We did get a message from IBM support center that talks about >generating RMF usage if you initiate the monitor tasks from TSO or batch - >neither of which would cut RMF records but would cause RMF usage of modules. >Perhaps we had a batch job that was scheduled on that plex that ran one of the >RMF monitors and we didn't realize. We'll explore that avenue - unless anyone >has something else to suggest. Check the step completion type 30 records for any of the program names used by RMF. Clark Morris > >vicky.tobleman > >-----Original Message----- >From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On >Behalf Of Cheryl Watson >Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2016 7:57 AM >To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU >Subject: [EXTERNAL]Re: SMF type 89 records reporting RMF usage > >Hi Peter, > >I think it still goes back to the original contract that has you entitled to >RMF, so I would check that first. > >Best regards, >Cheryl > >-----Original Message----- >From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On >Behalf Of Peter Ten Eyck >Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2016 8:56 AM >To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU >Subject: Re: SMF type 89 records reporting RMF usage > >After some research... I am starting to think this might be the case. It >appears we had RMF enabled in IFAPRD00, but were not running it. We are >running CMF. > >Can a SMF type 89 record indicating RMF use be cut under these circumstances? > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to >lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to >lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > >________________________________ > >American National has changed its email addresses to >firstname.lastn...@americannational.com. Please update my email address in >your contact list, if applicable, at your earliest convenience. > >Confidentiality: This transmission, including any attachments, is solely for >the use of the intended recipient(s). This transmission may contain >information that is confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. The >use or disclosure of the information contained in this transmission, including >any attachments, for any purpose other than that intended by its transmittal >is strictly prohibited. Unauthorized interception of this email is a violation >of federal criminal law. If you are not an intended recipient of this >transmission, please immediately destroy all copies received and notify the >sender. > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, >send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
