I would like to make a suggestion. REGION=xxx and other settings should remain the same. If you specify REGION=(#K,#M,#G), where you are requesting 24, 31, and 64 bit memory amounts subject to other suffixes and normal override measures.
On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 4:08 PM <[email protected]> wrote: > > Jesse, > > While I like Region=0, one should always remember that there are installation > parms and exits that control how "zero" is actually applied below and above > the line. Ann old version of SAS that liked to getmain everything up to the > top of private has bitten me in the past as it blew up on the system areas > allocated down from top ☹ > > There is a wealth of data on private area usage in the SMF Type 30-4 records > and the Type 78-2 records that the OP can use to check the history of Private > and Common usage across changes in CEC, OS, etc. > > Simply checking the available private region for addresses before and after > the migration may help to drill down on the problem. A simple change in > Common storage can mean huge changes in available private. > > MXG is our friend. > > Ron Hawkins > Director, Ipsicsopt Pty Ltd (ACN: 627 705 971) | m: +61 400029610 | h: +61 > 387399252 | email: [email protected] > > -----Original Message----- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <[email protected]> On Behalf Of > Jesse 1 Robinson > Sent: Wednesday, 9 January 2019 06:13 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [IBM-MAIN] Generic query on Region allocation failure > > This post is not intended to be enlightening; it's merely corroborative. We > recently went from z12EC to z14. We had already upgraded to z/OS 2.3 with > hardware support service. In the week or so afterwards, we experienced a > handful of 'storage shortage abends' in tasks that had been running unchanged > for years. AFAIK no technical explanations ever came forth. In the few PMRs > we opened, the advice was to increase region size. We did. Problems went > away. Move on. > > I do have one piece of advice. Never specify a smallish region size. If it's > worth your time and effort to type in any region size at all, go for some > number >16M. It generally costs nothing and may save some debugging grief > down the road. I've seen cases where 0M may be required for a particular > product. Again, the cost of doing so is minimal. Why quibble? Someone needs > to refresh the communal coffee pot. > > . > . > J.O.Skip Robinson > Southern California Edison Company > Electric Dragon Team Paddler > SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager > 323-715-0595 Mobile > 626-543-6132 Office ⇐=== NEW > [email protected] > > -----Original Message----- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of Tom Marchant > Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2019 7:49 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: (External):Re: Generic query on Region allocation failure > > On Tue, 8 Jan 2019 10:16:00 +0400, Jake Anderson wrote: > > >IEF085I REGION NOT AVAILABLE ERROR CODE = 20 IEF187I NNNNNJJJ FAILED - > >SYSTEM ERROR IN INITIATOR IEF472I NNNNNJJJ > > That means that the region that was specified is not available. > > Most likely, the region specified is less than 16M and that much storage is > not available below the line. It is certainly possible that the available > region size below the line is smaller on your old system than is available on > your new system. > > -- > Tom Marchant > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 -- Mike A Schwab, Springfield IL USA Where do Forest Rangers go to get away from it all? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
