Re: PSI MIPS (was: Links to decent 'why the mainframe thrives' article)
John S. Giltner writes: Right now the plan is to ONLY have 96 total cores (some systems will have single core processors and some will have dual core) CPU's and 456 GB of RAM. This is a est. and they beleive that they may need to increase this by as much as 50%. So the head to head comparsion is 7 CPU's and 20GB to 96 CPU's and 456 GB of RAM. Doesn't seem to head to head to me. So let's suppose it's 130 cores, for sake of argument. Just curious, but do you then get to double that to support disaster recovery? (Will the disaster recovery work?) Dean Kent writes: Yes, reliability, fault-tolerance, data integrity, etc. are all factors too - but the mainframe does not have a lock on these features, other platforms do as well, including those based on x86. I'm sorry, Dean, but that statement borders on malpractice. If you focus solely on the chip you're totally missing the point, because business outcome two chips. Why are we still focused on the chip in this discussion? John Giltner makes an excellent point, and SPEC wouldn't give you a clue about his situation. Also, the chips, though still important, are probably the least important architectural component in delivering reliability, fault tolerance, data integrity, and other service qualities. As just one example among many, if there's another way to have an active-active highest availability MQ configuration without using z/OS and shared queues in an IBM coupling facility, I'd be interested to know what it is. To pick another example, there's just nothing else like DB2 data sharing. Even Larry Ellison said so. Are there any other general purpose business servers constitutionally capable of delivering five-9s business service availability, no excuses (i.e. including both planned and unplanned outages)? General purpose here means, in particular, running middleware that's actually market relevant? There are niche systems, perhaps. There are also general purpose servers that don't meet the business service availability levels. Is the combination of general purpose and highest service qualities unique to the IBM mainframe? I think so. Let me try to make it simple again. An IBM mainframe is, quite literally, an entire data center in one box. (The earlier server farm comment is quite correct.) If you can benchmark an entire data center all at once you might be on to something. As it turns out some of the outsourcing companies are relatively good at this. You can also get IBM to do the work independently, dispassionately. One good example: http://www.ibm.com/servers/library/pdf/scorpion.pdf - - - - - Timothy Sipples IBM Consulting Enterprise Software Architect Specializing in Software Architectures Related to System z Based in Tokyo, Serving IBM Japan and IBM Asia-Pacific E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: PSI MIPS (was: Links to decent 'why the mainframe thrives' article)
- Original Message - From: Tom Marchant [EMAIL PROTECTED] Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 10:08 PM Subject: Re: PSI MIPS (was: Links to decent 'why the mainframe thrives' article) Process size is a limiting factor for performance. One can find devices manufactured in a process one or two generations back that perform just as well as one manufactured on a current process generation, depending upon the design (Itanium vs. x86, for example). So process size is not an indication of performance, particularly across architectures. How can you say that? Haven't you read the literature? The fact is that both of these do provide performance benefits. Yes, I have read them. My understanding is that it allows for lower leakage and power consumption. This, in turn, *may* allow for higher clocked devices. However, performance at a given clock speed does not increase and there may be other limiting factors in clockspeed.As I said, Intel, for example, does not use SOI and seems to be producing very high clockrate devices without it, which (currently) outperform their rival AMD, who *does* use IBM's SOI process. and has nothing at all to do with feature size. Didn't you just say that process (feature) size is not an indicator of performance? Yes, I mistyped. It was supposed to help with leakage, but Intel seems to be doing quite will without these. As Timothy pointed out, Intel is in fact using copper. Has been for years. Lest you misunderstand me - I am not trying to say that Intel is 'better' than IBM, nor the other way around. That's right, you didn't say better. You said faster. More precisely, you said, The mainframe MPU *is* slower than other processor platforms. Yes, and I recanted if you recall. Now I am looking for any data that would help identify whether the perception is, in fact, true or not. Simply stating that IBM is a technology leader, and pointing to their manufacturing process provides no insight into this - and that is what I was pointing out in my rebuttal to you. ... However, IBM is positioning the mainframe to compete in some of the same markets that x86 competes. What do you mean by that? Are you talking about Linux on z? Or are you talking about the larger servers that are being constructed from 86 processors in the hope of competing with mainframes? I'm talking about positioning the mainframe as a web/database server, and a Linux platform. Using the argument that IBM is a leader in technology, and therefore z9 must be better than x86 is ludicrous, if that was your point. I most certainly didn't say that, and I think you know it. Red herrings are not rational arguments. Then I have no idea what your point was in making the statement about IBM's process. TSMC is a huge foundry, and uses advanced manufacturing process - but this has nothing at all to do with whether they are a 'technology leader' able to design and produce advanced microprocessors that can compete with IBM or Intel. I mentioned that I find it hard to believe that IBM would invest in mainframe performance to the extent that x86 manufacturers would, considering the difference in the competitivness of the markets. IBM invests where the money is. The mainframe business is a profitable one. I am comparing the pace of improvement in x86 with the mainframe. The IT Jungle article says that installed mainframe MIPS has increased 4 fold over 7 years. I showed that in the same time period, x86 performance has increased over 8 fold. We still aren't getting an apples to apples comparison because it doesn't tell us what the highest performing mainframe processor was in 2000 vs today. My point was that in a market where there isn't the intense competition that there is less incentive to pour money into it. Intel and AMD *have* to, lest the other one grab huge market share (as Intel saw AMD do with the Opteron, and now AMD is seeing Intel do with the Core 2 processors). IBM seems to be in an enviable position with the mainframe where there isn't any real direct competition, yet. It was stated that IBM invests $1.2B annually on mainframe RD (hardware, software and services). Intel, on the other hand, spends almost $6B on their semiconductor business alone. It should not be surprising that Intel is also a leader in technology - even if their primary product is the lowly x86 based processors. Yes, Intel is another leader in the semiconductor industry. Not, IMO, in computer architectures, though. The iAPX 432 was a notable exception. Agreed. But my intent was not to compare IBM and Intel, but z9 with other architectures - such as x86, Itanium and POWER. x86 being the most common, and Itanium only because it was used in the PSI systems. As for fault-tolerant systems, Stratus and NEC offer them (and likely others). Tandem was first with real fault tolerance as we know
Re: PSI MIPS (was: Links to decent 'why the mainframe thrives' article)
- Original Message - From: John S. Giltner, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 7:21 PM Subject: Re: PSI MIPS (was: Links to decent 'why the mainframe thrives' article) Can the mainframe z900/z990/z9 compete head to head with Intel? IMHO, yes. Well, I think that depends upon the definition of 'head-to-head'. Head to head. You are talking about the same number of processors and same amount of RAM/Central Storage. Not really. For example, I could compare the slowest Sun SPARC against the fastest Itanium, and while one might call that a 'head-to-head' comparison, it really would be skewed in favor of the Itanium. In addition, if you have two z990s vs. 48 x86 machines, you will necessarily require more memory because you will be running at least 46 more copies of an operating system. So no, I wouldn't call this a head-to-head comparison of processors. Are we? NOPE. In the end to replace 80% of 7 z990 CPU's and 20GB of RAM the Intel side will have Right now the plan is to ONLY have 96 total cores (some systems will have single core processors and some will have dual core) CPU's and 456 GB of RAM. This is a est. and they beleive that they may need to increase this by as much as 50%. So the head to head comparsion is 7 CPU's and 20GB to 96 CPU's and 456 GB of RAM. Doesn't seem to head to head to me. It isn't, but it is really cool information. What it seems to indicate to me is not that the z9 CPU is faster (which is may or may not be), but that the z990 system design has much better throughput. Of course, without any details on the Intel based system, it is hard to determine what the real limiting factor is. For example, whoever made the decision might have gone with the cheapest solution (hardwarewise), rather than a more robust and more expensive solution. Since the application may be very I/O bound (typical business application), the CPU speed may not even be the bottleneck (and probably isn't in this case). This would mean you need more systems to handle the same transaction load, which means more CPUs just because you need at least one for each system, and of course, more memory. I mentioned that Stratus makes very robust, fault-tolerant x86 based systems but they are really expensive. Sun makes systems that are able to handle more users/transactions as well, but still aren't as cheap as commodity server systems. A true head to head comparison would have to be done holding as many factors constant as possible. If one were to determine how many users a single, well-designed x86 box could handle, and measure performance for both it and a z990 with the same number of users/transactions, that would be a better indicator of processor speed... but that is also presuming they are running the same application. For example, if you are moving from z/OS to Windows, you are likely not running the same application code and probably not even from the same vendor. So the OS and application differences can account for quite a bit of performance difference. However, if both are running Linux and the same application - then you have a better head-to-head test. So, I suggest that a real head-to-head CPU performance comparison would be to put the exact same load on a single processor system (for example) and measure the response time, or how fast a problem is solved, etc. That is what CPUs do (calculations). However, where the mainframe shines is its ability to support many users and perform massive amount of I/O without bogging down the system. This is not a processor issue, but a system design issue, as has been mentioned before. That is a about a 13:1 ratio on CPU's and 23:1 on RAM. If Intel was faster then we should be able to do more work on less processors. No. As explained above. It would be true if all other factors were the same, but they are not. Please show me a site that has migrated off a modern day mainframe to Intel using the same number of CPU's and same amount of Central Storage/RAM as they had on the mainframe. You know head to head. I would like to see just that kind of comparison myself, but we probably won't see it. But, as I said, the information you posted is really interesting. If you can provide more details about the Intel systems, that would be useful (yes, I am curious. No, I am not working for a hardware vendor of any kind). My conclusion regarding this situation is that it seems obvious that the processor speed isn't really the issue. And in that case, whether the z9 is slower than an x86 (or RISC) processor is not even important. This is where appropriate benchmarks are useful (such as the SPECjbb or TPC benchmarks I've mentioned, or any other that can be identified) - to show where the real strengths of a system are. Regards, Dean -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe /
Re: PSI MIPS (was: Links to decent 'why the mainframe thrives' article)
- Original Message - From: Timothy Sipples [EMAIL PROTECTED] Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 11:12 PM Subject: Re: PSI MIPS (was: Links to decent 'why the mainframe thrives' article) I'm sorry, Dean, but that statement borders on malpractice. If you focus solely on the chip you're totally missing the point, because business outcome two chips. Why are we still focused on the chip in this discussion? John Giltner makes an excellent point, and SPEC wouldn't give you a clue about his situation. Also, the chips, though still important, are probably the least important architectural component in delivering reliability, fault tolerance, data integrity, and other service qualities. Because the original question was why there is a perception that mainframe processors are slow, relatively speaking. All of these other factors are very well known, and discussing them here is preaching to the choir. This is a mainframe list, after all, so I expect people to know the attributes of mainframes, but not necessarily those of other platforms (particularly when I see the comments about PCs being just for word processing). I sense that the defensiveness about this subject is a reaction to the perception here that the mainframe market is an embattled one, with mounting losses and so it has to be vigorously defended against all heretics. The discussion was about processor performance, and my comments have been intended to address that question, and nothing else. When all of the other attributes of the mainframe have been brought up, I've tried to just point out that other platforms have, or are acquiring, those features as well and get back to the performance issue. This seems to be considered a put down or a threat. The closest thing I've seen to useful information related to the original question was the data on how many instructions were required to emulate the instruction set, and the MIPS for the PSI systems vs. z9. That was interesting, and helps to answer the question about peformance, which I personally find interesting. Regards, Dean -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: How can I give the volume unit address and return the volume name from REXX
Bruce
This code uses the OCO UCB Look Up Table control block - I assume you are
aware that it may well change/disappear in future z/OS releases without warning.
Rob Scott
Rocket Software, Inc
275 Grove Street
Newton, MA 02466
617-614-2305
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Bruce Hewson
Sent: 18 July 2007 05:21
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: How can I give the volume unit address and return the volume name
from REXX
This REXX can report on ONLINE devices. I have it set up to report on DASD
volumes found where the argument is part of the volume name.
It also contains some unused code that I haven't removed.
Regards
Bruce Hewson
/*REXX*
***/
/* */
/* TITLE = Scan UCBs */
/* */
/* COPYRIGHT = */
/* */
/* AUTHOR= Bruce Hewson */
/* */
/* NAME = SCANUCBS */
/* */
/* FUNCTION = */
/* */
/* NOTES = */
/* */
/* INPUT = Subset mask of required VolSer*/
/* */
/* OUTPUT= */
/* */
/* - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - */
/* CHANGE HISTORY: Latest change at top. */
/* */
/* Date NameDescription */
/* ===
*/
/* 18/07/07 Bruce HewsonOriginal Version.*/
/* */
/**
***/
Trace 'o'
Signal on Novalue/* Clean diagnostics */
Signal on Syntax /* for unexpected results. */
Numeric Digits 16
/*---*/
Parse Source opsys calltype execname .
Parse Upper Arg search_arg .
/*---*/
/*- SCANUDBD - Scan UCBs and summarize NED entries -*/
/*---*/
Say 'Begin of dasd UCB scan'
num_UCB = 0
num_UCB_online_CU = 0
num_UCB_offline_CU = 0
num_UCB_online_total = 0
num_UCB_offline_total = 0
SSCB_print. =
SSCB_print.0 = 0
ULUT_address = Ulut()
ULUTE_address = Ulute()
If Storage(ULUT_address, 4) = ULUT Then Do
ULUTDASD = C2d(Storage(X2x(ULUT_address, '1C'), 4))
ULUTDSDI = C2d(Storage(X2x(ULUT_address, '34'), 2))
dasd_ULUTE_addr = D2x(X2d(ULUTE_address) + (12 * (ULUTDSDI -1)))
ULUTNXDC = C2d(Storage(X2x(dasd_ULUTE_addr, '2'), 2))
Do While ULUTNXDC 0
num_UCB = num_UCB + 1
ULUTUCBP = C2x(Storage(X2x(dasd_ULUTE_addr, '08'), 4))
ULUTDEVN = C2x(Storage(X2x(dasd_ULUTE_addr, '00'), 2))
DASD_volser = Storage(X2x(ULUTUCBP, '1C'), 6)
flag1 = C2x(Storage(X2x(ULUTUCBP, '17'), 1))
If Bitand(X2c(flag1),'01'x) = '01'x Then Do
UCB_plus15= C2d(Storage(X2x(ULUTUCBP, '15'), 3)) - 1
hi_byte = X2d(Left(ULUTUCBP,2) ³³ '00')
UCBEXTP_addr = D2x(hi_byte + UCB_plus15)
End
Else Do
UCBEXTP_addr = C2x(Storage(X2x(ULUTUCBP, '15'), 3))
End
UCBIEXT_addr = C2x(Storage(X2x(UCBEXTP_addr, '08'), 4))
SSCB_addr= C2x(Storage(X2x(UCBIEXT_addr, '30'), 4))
If SSCB_addr = '' Then Do
TokenNED = Left('NED not found',32)
End
Else Do
TokenNED = Storage(X2x(SSCB_addr,'1C'),32)
End
ix = SSCB_print.0
If ix 0 Then Do
If Strip(SSCB_print.ix) Strip(SSCB_addr) ,
SSCB_addr Then Do
/* Call Print_SSCB*/
num_UCB_offline_CU = 0
num_UCB_online_CU = 0
ix = ix + 1
SSCB_print.ix = SSCB_addr
SSCB_print.SSCB_addr = ix
SSCB_print.0 = ix
SSCB_print.DEV.ix = ULUTDEVN
SSCB_print.NED.ix = TokenNED
End
Else Do
If
Re: How can I give the volume unit address and return the volume name from REXX
Hi Rob, Yep, thats what I found in z/OS 1.7, some changes I need to think about. On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 04:05:23 -0400, Rob Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bruce This code uses the OCO UCB Look Up Table control block - I assume you are aware that it may well change/disappear in future z/OS releases without warning. Rob Scott Rocket Software, Inc 275 Grove Street Newton, MA 02466 617-614-2305 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bruce Hewson Sent: 18 July 2007 05:21 To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: How can I give the volume unit address and return the volume name from REXX This REXX can report on ONLINE devices. I have it set up to report on DASD volumes found where the argument is part of the volume name. Regards Bruce Hewson -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
IEBGENER S878-10 abend
Hi, A user is running a job that copies a file from one 3590B to another. The file is an ADABAS backup. We've just upgraded to ADABAS v7.4.4. We are running z/OS 1.7. As the subject says we are using IEBGENER. We started out with a REGION of 4M, increased it to 8M and then 0M. All ended with the same abend. This is the job we are using: //B155B1DM JOB (00,P,305),COPY-DRIVE-1,CLASS=X,PRTY=9, // MSGCLASS=X,NOTIFY=V120KBY //COPY EXEC PGM=IEBGENER,TIME=100,REGION=0M //SYSPRINT DD SYSOUT=* //SYSUT1 DD DSN=B306.PDBN.GBYOMI.DRIVE1(0),DISP=OLD,DCB=BUFNO=30 //SYSUT2 DD DSN=B279.PBKK.OFFSITE.ADABAS.DRIVE1(+1), // DISP=(,CATLG,DELETE), // UNIT=3590-1, // VOL=(,,,90),DCB=(MODEL,BUFNO=30) //SYSIN DD DUMMY //* The DCB for the input file is LRECL=32756, BLKSIZE=229376,RECFM=VB, The DCB has changed from our previous version of ADABAS. In the previous version it was 32760 Gadi -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: File to PDF Product
The Devil is in the details. Some free software has better support than some chargeable software. I really would like to agree with you, but unfortunately I can't. I downloaded both XMITIP an TXT2PDF package, really nice tools which simplify things a lot. However, I had a problem trying different translation table (code pages) with TXT2PDF and I asked directly the developer. No answer. I posted my issue twice to the Google XMITIP group. Likewise, no answer. There are surely good reasons for not answering (too busy, on holiday, I have no time now, this is a no-problem, please dig further), but I came to the conclusion that I can't make use of both tools in production (TXT2PDF and XMITIP work together). I doubt a ISV could afford not to answer to whatever issue coming from a customer. Pity. Walter Marguccio In this case immediate support was not what you received, but you got what you paid for. I do not believe that anyone can expect ISV levels of support for free products that have been put into production regardless of anyone's prior experiences. I know a number of sites that have Lionel's code in production and that their management is aware that if it breaks for any reason it may stay broken for a long time. The source comes with the package so one could potentially resolve the problem oneself. Cheers Paul Gillis -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: IEBGENER S878-10 abend
Before doing anything else, I would drain and restart the initiator and try again. It could be that your INIT address space private area has become fragmented (a common cause of this is either installation exits or ISV software that bleed storage over time) . Also check for any IEFUSI exit that could be limiting the region that you are getting irrespective of the REGION card. Rob Scott Rocket Software, Inc 275 Grove Street Newton, MA 02466 617-614-2305 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ??? ?? ??? Sent: 18 July 2007 09:57 To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: IEBGENER S878-10 abend Hi, A user is running a job that copies a file from one 3590B to another. The file is an ADABAS backup. We've just upgraded to ADABAS v7.4.4. We are running z/OS 1.7. As the subject says we are using IEBGENER. We started out with a REGION of 4M, increased it to 8M and then 0M. All ended with the same abend. This is the job we are using: //B155B1DM JOB (00,P,305),COPY-DRIVE-1,CLASS=X,PRTY=9, // MSGCLASS=X,NOTIFY=V120KBY //COPY EXEC PGM=IEBGENER,TIME=100,REGION=0M //SYSPRINT DD SYSOUT=* //SYSUT1 DD DSN=B306.PDBN.GBYOMI.DRIVE1(0),DISP=OLD,DCB=BUFNO=30 //SYSUT2 DD DSN=B279.PBKK.OFFSITE.ADABAS.DRIVE1(+1), // DISP=(,CATLG,DELETE), // UNIT=3590-1, // VOL=(,,,90),DCB=(MODEL,BUFNO=30) //SYSIN DD DUMMY //* The DCB for the input file is LRECL=32756, BLKSIZE=229376,RECFM=VB, The DCB has changed from our previous version of ADABAS. In the previous version it was 32760 Gadi -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: IEBGENER S878-10 abend
Also, it may be worth reducing the number of buffers. On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 05:12:41 -0400 Rob Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: :Before doing anything else, I would drain and restart the initiator and try again. :It could be that your INIT address space private area has become fragmented (a common cause of this is either installation exits or ISV software that bleed storage over time) . :Also check for any IEFUSI exit that could be limiting the region that you are getting irrespective of the REGION card. :-Original Message- :From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ??? ?? ??? :Sent: 18 July 2007 09:57 :To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU :Subject: IEBGENER S878-10 abend :A user is running a job that copies a file from one 3590B to another. :The file is an ADABAS backup. :We've just upgraded to ADABAS v7.4.4. :We are running z/OS 1.7. :As the subject says we are using IEBGENER. :We started out with a REGION of 4M, increased it to 8M and then 0M. All ended with the same abend. :This is the job we are using: ://B155B1DM JOB (00,P,305),COPY-DRIVE-1,CLASS=X,PRTY=9, :// MSGCLASS=X,NOTIFY=V120KBY ://COPY EXEC PGM=IEBGENER,TIME=100,REGION=0M ://SYSPRINT DD SYSOUT=* ://SYSUT1 DD DSN=B306.PDBN.GBYOMI.DRIVE1(0),DISP=OLD,DCB=BUFNO=30 ://SYSUT2 DD DSN=B279.PBKK.OFFSITE.ADABAS.DRIVE1(+1), :// DISP=(,CATLG,DELETE), :// UNIT=3590-1, :// VOL=(,,,90),DCB=(MODEL,BUFNO=30) ://SYSIN DD DUMMY ://* :The DCB for the input file is LRECL=32756, BLKSIZE=229376,RECFM=VB, :The DCB has changed from our previous version of ADABAS. In the previous version it was 32760 -- Binyamin Dissen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.dissensoftware.com Should you use the mailblocks package and expect a response from me, you should preauthorize the dissensoftware.com domain. I very rarely bother responding to challenge/response systems, especially those from irresponsible companies. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: File to PDF Product
- Original Message From: Paul Gillis [EMAIL PROTECTED] In this case immediate support was not what you received, but you got what you paid for. I do not believe that anyone can expect ISV levels of support for free products that have been put into production regardless of anyone's prior experiences. I didn't expect immediate support as I would do for an ISV, I know I can't do this for free products. I just posted my issue to the community, and I've been waiting for about three months. There's nothing bad or wrong with this, but I have assess the risks and draw my conclusions. I know a number of sites that have Lionel's code in production and that their management is aware that if it breaks for any reason it may stay broken for a long time. If I know that a if product breaks it could stay broken for a long time, well this product is IMHO everything but a good candidate for production. The source comes with the package so one could potentially resolve the problem oneself. Potentially Walter Marguccio z/OS Systems Programmer Munich - Germany -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: IEBGENER S878-10 abend
Gadi, In the EXEC statement add parm='SDB=input'. This will allow the large block interface to be activated. See OSDFSMSdfp Utilities for details. Btw, 3590 supports large block sizes of 256K. You specified 224K which was uses on old 3590 models. Itschak -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of גדי בן אבי Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 10:57 AM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: IEBGENER S878-10 abend Hi, A user is running a job that copies a file from one 3590B to another. The file is an ADABAS backup. We've just upgraded to ADABAS v7.4.4. We are running z/OS 1.7. As the subject says we are using IEBGENER. We started out with a REGION of 4M, increased it to 8M and then 0M. All ended with the same abend. This is the job we are using: //B155B1DM JOB (00,P,305),COPY-DRIVE-1,CLASS=X,PRTY=9, // MSGCLASS=X,NOTIFY=V120KBY //COPY EXEC PGM=IEBGENER,TIME=100,REGION=0M //SYSPRINT DD SYSOUT=* //SYSUT1 DD DSN=B306.PDBN.GBYOMI.DRIVE1(0),DISP=OLD,DCB=BUFNO=30 //SYSUT2 DD DSN=B279.PBKK.OFFSITE.ADABAS.DRIVE1(+1), // DISP=(,CATLG,DELETE), // UNIT=3590-1, // VOL=(,,,90),DCB=(MODEL,BUFNO=30) //SYSIN DD DUMMY //* The DCB for the input file is LRECL=32756, BLKSIZE=229376,RECFM=VB, The DCB has changed from our previous version of ADABAS. In the previous version it was 32760 Gadi -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.8/906 - Release Date: 17/07/2007 18:30 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.8/906 - Release Date: 17/07/2007 18:30 -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: PSI MIPS
Dean Kent wrote: I am comparing the pace of improvement in x86 with the mainframe. The IT Jungle article says that installed mainframe MIPS has increased 4 fold over 7 years. I showed that in the same time period, x86 performance has increased over 8 fold. We still aren't getting an apples to apples comparison because it doesn't tell us what the highest performing mainframe processor was in 2000 vs today. Comparing two different things. Installed mainframes increased 4 fold is not an expression of processor power but an expression of capacity. X86 performance has increased 8 fold is an expession of performace. If you had said that the installed capacity of X86 boxes had increased 8 fold then that woyld have been a valid comparison. Note I have no idea of the increase in installed X86 capacity and really don't care. Ken -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: PSI MIPS (was: Links to decent 'why the mainframe thrives' article)
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 23:51:48 -0700, Dean Kent wrote: ...As I said, Intel, for example, does not use SOI and seems to be producing very high clockrate devices without it, which (currently) outperform their rival AMD, Another assertion without data to back it up. I hope you are not talking about clock rates. I've not seen any data regarding performance improvements for mainframe processors over that time except for the 4-fold increase in installed MIPS between 2000 and 2007. There is no way to know how that relates to individual processors. If you have any data, that would be nice to hear. http://www-03.ibm.com/servers/eserver/zseries/lspr/ I don't think there's anyone who buys a mainframe for its sheer processing power. These servers *are* purchased, in part, for their processing power. In part? -- Tom Marchant -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: OT IBM Take Back Control with the Mainframe
Thanks for drawing the attention to my post @ youtube. But I actually think this little movie was first made for the virtualization engine and they changed the end afterwards for the mainframe. Unfortunately I can't find the original one any longer. If you're interested in more of these. Over the last year I've been gathering some more of these at my blog. If you want to take a look at some others : This one's some kind of sequel to it : http://mainframe-watch-belgium.blogspot.com/2006/11/heist-linux- consolidation_15.html Some others : http://mainframe-watch-belgium.blogspot.com/2006/12/ibm-making- movies.html http://mainframe-watch-belgium.blogspot.com/2007/05/life-in-data- center.html Marc. On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 01:20:44 +, Bill Wilkie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ed: That video should be shown in every college, High School and in every business. That is what is needed. It really drives the point home of the workload that can be run on a mainframe. Great! Bill From: Ed Gould [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: IBM Mainframe Discussion List IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: OT IBM Take Back Control with the Mainframe Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 11:18:06 -0500 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F63tYLhiqZ8mode=relatedsearch= -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html _ http://im.live.com/messenger/im/home/?source=hmtextlinkjuly07 -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: S0C4 in IEBCOPY on z/OS 1.8
Turned out the person doing the upgrade had only applied HIPERs out of all the maintenance available in SMPPTS. We found a PTF from March which wasn't HIPER that fixed the problem. The person went back and applied all maint without error holds and that is what is going forward from here. ___ Jim Petersen MVS - Lead Systems Engineer Home Depot Technology Center 1300 Park Center Drive, Austin, TX 78753 www.homedepot.com email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 512-977-2615 direct 512-977-2930 fax 210-859-9887 cell This message may contain confidential information. The information contained in this message and any attachments are intended solely for the use of the addressee(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or other use of the contents of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately by email and delete all copies of this message -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Craig Bakken Sent: Monday, July 02, 2007 9:48 AM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: S0C4 in IEBCOPY on z/OS 1.8 Petersen, Jim [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Wonder if anyone else has experienced this. We just rolled out z/OS 1.8 to our 1st two Test/Dev LPARs and we have encountered a problem. Our DB2 folks were copying a PDSE loadlib and got an IGW message in the IEBCOPY followed by recursive S0C4 and S0C1 abends. Essentially, until this is resolved, we are stopped dead in our tracks from rolling out z/OS 1.8 any further. We had a broken PDSE after converting to Z/OS 1.8. The PDSE was broken by HSM partial space release. Symptoms were S0F4, S0C4 and S0C1 abends. We have opened an ETR with IBM and sent doc, but have not received a resolution. - Looking for a deal? Find great prices on flights and hotels with Yahoo! FareChase. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: IEBGENER S878-10 abend
Gadi, Someone else mentioned reducing the BUFNO. You have 2 lots of 30 buffers requested. That is over 13MB of storage which most likely must be below 16MB. See http://publibz.boulder.ibm.com/cgi- bin/bookmgr_OS390/BOOKS/dgt2d450/3.2.9.4? SHELF=EZ2ZO10I.bksDT=20060524093000 for more information Mike Wood RMM Development -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: IEBGENER S878-10 abend
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 11:57:22 +0300, #1490;#1491;#1497; amp;#1489;#1503; #1488;#1489;#1497; [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, A user is running a job that copies a file from one 3590B to another. The file is an ADABAS backup. We've just upgraded to ADABAS v7.4.4. We are running z/OS 1.7. As the subject says we are using IEBGENER. We started out with a REGION of 4M, increased it to 8M and then 0M. All ended with the same abend. This is the job we are using: //B155B1DM JOB (00,P,305),COPY-DRIVE-1,CLASS=X,PRTY=9, // MSGCLASS=X,NOTIFY=V120KBY //COPY EXEC PGM=IEBGENER,TIME=100,REGION=0M //SYSPRINT DD SYSOUT=* //SYSUT1 DD DSN=B306.PDBN.GBYOMI.DRIVE1(0),DISP=OLD,DCB=BUFNO=30 //SYSUT2 DD DSN=B279.PBKK.OFFSITE.ADABAS.DRIVE1(+1), // DISP=(,CATLG,DELETE), // UNIT=3590-1, // VOL=(,,,90),DCB=(MODEL,BUFNO=30) //SYSIN DD DUMMY //* The DCB for the input file is LRECL=32756, BLKSIZE=229376,RECFM=VB, The DCB has changed from our previous version of ADABAS. In the previous version it was 32760 Well, lets see... 30 buffers x 229376 (224K) = 6.7M.That is just for one DD. 6.7M * 2 is more than the private area below the line. And just because you used REGION=0M doesn't mean you have all of it available (IEFUSI could be modifying it). Lose the BUFNO. What was the old blksize? Mark -- Mark Zelden Sr. Software and Systems Architect - z/OS Team Lead Zurich North America / Farmers Insurance Group: G-ITO mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] z/OS and OS390 expert at http://searchDataCenter.com/ateExperts/ Systems Programming expert at http://expertanswercenter.techtarget.com/ Mark's MVS Utilities: http://home.flash.net/~mzelden/mvsutil.html -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
PR: IBM Announces Tivoli OMEGAMON XE for CICS Transaction Gateway
I don't intend to broadcast every IBM product announcement -- there are a lot of them -- but this one is notable given some recent discussions in this forum. http://www.ibm.com/common/ssi/rep_ca/6/897/ENUS207-156/ENUS207156.PDF It's Tivoli OMEGAMON XE for CICS Transaction Gateway on z/OS, Version 4.1. Yes, a long name, sorry about that. It's the first and only product of its kind, on any platform, to manage the availability and performance of CICS TG. No, it's not IBM Tivoli OMEGAMON XE Cure for Cancer Facility for z/OS, or IBM WebSphere World Peace and Prosperity Extender Advanced Edition for z/OS. Still working on those. But it's an interesting announcement because it's yet another mainframe software portfolio expansion: more products doing more things in more ways. It's also, I think, pretty typical of the way IBM approaches software company acquisitions, to enhance and expand such companies' offerings when they become part of IBM. (IBM in the past few days announced its intention to acquire DataMirror, and that companies' products already have at least some mainframe relevance.) If you do see an IBM software product that isn't yet available on the mainframe -- one of the shrinking number -- and you'd strongly consider buying it for the mainframe, go ahead and ask your IBM rep. That goes for all software vendors, actually. Also, while we're sharing Web videos, here's another fun trio to enjoy: http://www.ibm.com/software/info/firstlove/cupid - - - - - Timothy Sipples IBM Consulting Enterprise Software Architect Specializing in Software Architectures Related to System z Based in Tokyo, Serving IBM Japan and IBM Asia-Pacific E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: UNIX File - PDS via ISPF LM Services?
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 21:14:20 -0500, Kenneth E Tomiak wrote: OCOPY I believe I need to use ISPF LM services. I just tried OCOPY and it appears not to serialize properly: o If I attempt to allocate OUTDD with DISP=OLD, it fails with IKJ56241I DATA SET IS ALLOCATED TO ANOTHER JOB OR USER if another session is editing even a different member of the same PDS. o If I allocate OUTDD with DISP=SHR, don't I have an integrity exposure? Thanks for the suggestion, gil -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: PSI MIPS (was: Links to decent 'why the mainframe thrives' article)
-Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Timothy Sipples Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 1:13 AM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: PSI MIPS (was: Links to decent 'why the mainframe thrives' article) SNIP Let me try to make it simple again. An IBM mainframe is, quite literal= ly, an entire data center in one box. SNIP Not any more (remember IBM v PSI). As of this past fall, when the contracts with FLEX were not renewed, it now takes a z/box, a raid unit, probably a tape unit or three, etc. While IBM was shipping the MP200, MP3000, R/390, and/or P/390 this was true. All the DASD in the box, with ethernet, etc. Same held true with the FLEX boxes and the z/Laptop systems. But now IBM has killed off those drop and play systems, and so this is no longer true. HOWEVER, the TCO and TCO (ownership, operation) IS known (regardless of physical config). The ROI can be plotted. There is very little HIDDEN costs (HCO) in a mature system such as the z/Architecture. Regards, Steve Thompson -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: UNIX File - PDS via ISPF LM Services?
-Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Gilmartin Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 8:21 AM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: UNIX File - PDS via ISPF LM Services? On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 21:14:20 -0500, Kenneth E Tomiak wrote: OCOPY I believe I need to use ISPF LM services. I just tried OCOPY and it appears not to serialize properly: o If I attempt to allocate OUTDD with DISP=OLD, it fails with IKJ56241I DATA SET IS ALLOCATED TO ANOTHER JOB OR USER if another session is editing even a different member of the same PDS. o If I allocate OUTDD with DISP=SHR, don't I have an integrity exposure? Thanks for the suggestion, gil I assume you are using REXX. If so, then why not just read the UNIX file, record by record, using normal REXX I/O and add each record to the PDS using LMPUT? -- John McKown Senior Systems Programmer HealthMarkets Keeping the Promise of Affordable Coverage Administrative Services Group Information Technology The information contained in this e-mail message may be privileged and/or confidential. It is for intended addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, reproduction, distribution or other use of this communication is strictly prohibited and could, in certain circumstances, be a criminal offense. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by reply and delete this message without copying or disclosing it. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: UNIX File - PDS via ISPF LM Services?
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 08:21:23 -0500, Paul Gilmartin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 21:14:20 -0500, Kenneth E Tomiak wrote: OCOPY I believe I need to use ISPF LM services. I just tried OCOPY and it appears not to serialize properly: o If I attempt to allocate OUTDD with DISP=OLD, it fails with IKJ56241I DATA SET IS ALLOCATED TO ANOTHER JOB OR USER if another session is editing even a different member of the same PDS. o If I allocate OUTDD with DISP=SHR, don't I have an integrity exposure? Not really... IBM fixed that years ago. But if you want to eliminate that, use DISP=OLD to an intermediate data set and then use LMCOPY. Mark -- Mark Zelden Sr. Software and Systems Architect - z/OS Team Lead Zurich North America / Farmers Insurance Group: G-ITO mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] z/OS and OS390 expert at http://searchDataCenter.com/ateExperts/ Systems Programming expert at http://expertanswercenter.techtarget.com/ Mark's MVS Utilities: http://home.flash.net/~mzelden/mvsutil.html -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: How can I give the volume unit address and return the volume name from REXX
Here is some code we have.
/* Rexx */
parse arg DEVADR
CONSPROF SOLDISPLAY(NO) SOLNUM(100)
CONSOLE ACTIVATE
CONSOLE SYSCMD(D U,,,DEVADR,1)
msg = GETMSG('conmsg.','sol')
CONSOLE DEACTIVATE
CONSPROF SOLDISPLAY(YES) SOLNUM(1000)
parse var conmsg.3 one two three four rest
say 'The volume ' four
EXIT
You may need to play with it a bit.
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Bruce Hewson
Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 1:44 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: How can I give the volume unit address and return the volume
name from REXX
Hi guys,
update, the exec does work at z/OS 1.6 on our systems.
Just tried on z/OS 1.7 and getting an error.
I will debug and get back to you all with changes if required.
Thanks
Bruce Hewson
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: UNIX File - PDS via ISPF LM Services?
o If I attempt to allocate OUTDD with DISP=OLD, it fails with IKJ56241I DATA SET IS ALLOCATED TO ANOTHER JOB OR USER if another session is editing even a different member of the same PDS. Disposition does not protect PDS(e)s at the member level. o If I allocate OUTDD with DISP=SHR, don't I have an integrity exposure? Yes you do with PDS. There are two (3) more ENQ resources with PDSE, that protect members. Also, ISPF EDIT and LM has its own scheme to (partially) protect at the member level. - Too busy driving to stop for gas! -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: PSI MIPS (was: Links to decent 'why the mainframe thrives' article)
HOWEVER, the TCO and TCO (ownership, operation) IS known (regardless of physical config). The ROI can be plotted. There is very little HIDDEN costs (HCO) in a mature system such as the z/Architecture. Yes, but: 1. TCA (acquisition) is what scares management. 2. People costs are often a political, rather than a technical argument. - Too busy driving to stop for gas! -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: What happened to Phil Payne's page?
I wonder if it happened when all the .country nomenclature came into more wide use. -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Kopischke Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 7:18 PM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: What happened to Phil Payne's page? On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 15:30:09 -0500, Pommier, Rex R. wrote: Considering that isham-research.com is actually registered to something called Nextnet Tech in Woodside, NY (at least according to enom, the registrar), I doubt if Phil is involved in it. It looks like somebody registered it hoping to turn around and sell it. The .com URL was Phil's URL at some point. I wouldn't have bookmarked it and put it under IBM Stuff otherwise. I have a Blonde folder for this kind of URL. I'm not sure when it changed, but I seem to recall Phil commenting about having to change it because of some silly new EU rule. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
KEY8 CSA: Pro/JCL and Info/XE
We recently reported an issue with ASG for their Pro/JCL and Info/XE products regarding their use of Key 8 CSA. As a result of our problem report, I believe the vendor is looking into what it would take for them to fix this. If you are interested in the resolution of this issue for these products, it would be an excellent idea to open an issue with ASG to request this fix. Brian P.S. Our tech LPAR has been running VSM ALLOWUSERKEYCSA(NO) since last Saturday. In the dark days (like six months ago), I never thought I'd see the day when we'd have even one LPAR IPL successfully with this option set. Progress! -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: PSI MIPS (was: Links to decent 'why the mainframe thrives' article)
On 17 Jul 2007 12:09:37 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dean Kent) wrote: I agree with your first point, but not your second. There *is* a reason that SPEC (and other benchmarking organizations) exist. These customers want a common performance metric to identify the value they are getting for the money they spend. Yes, reliability, fault-tolerance, data integrity, etc. are all factors too - but the mainframe does not have a lock on these features, other platforms do as well, including those based on x86. If I was making a decision about my shop's hardware, a Standard benchmarking test is a start, as long as they are benchmarking real data processing - but I'm really interested in benchmarking my particular needs. The System is what determines my throughput, response time, and capacity. If a PC has a faster chip than a mainframe, I cannot assume that it will give me better response time with a thousand concurrent users. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: PSI MIPS
Howard Brazee wrote: [...] If I was making a decision about my shop's hardware, a Standard benchmarking test is a start, as long as they are benchmarking real data processing - but I'm really interested in benchmarking my particular needs. If I was making a decision, the H/W platform would be one of the last things to consider. Companies don't need bemchmarks, they need *applications*. It is possible to have good application on poor platform, and it doesn't mean performance or RAS problems. On the other hand it is possible to have poor application on good platform. Poor could mean functionality, or poor design, infinite CPU needs, etc. etc. BTW: Most companies I know, when considering *new application* (written from scratch), they try to *avoid* mainframe. Reason claimed: costs. At least in some cases I agree with such approach. Of course I'm talking about companies already having mainframes. -- Radoslaw Skorupka Lodz, Poland -- BRE Bank SA ul. Senatorska 18 00-950 Warszawa www.brebank.pl Sd Rejonowy dla m. st. Warszawy XII Wydzia Gospodarczy Krajowego Rejestru Sdowego, nr rejestru przedsibiorców KRS 025237 NIP: 526-021-50-88 Wedug stanu na dzie 01.01.2007 r. kapita zakadowy BRE Banku SA (w caoci opacony) wynosi 118.064.140 z. W zwizku z realizacj warunkowego podwyszenia kapitau zakadowego, na podstawie uchwa XVI WZ z dnia 21.05.2003 r., kapita zakadowy BRE Banku SA moe ulec podwyszeniu do kwoty 118.760.528 z. Akcje w podwyszonym kapitale zakadowym bd w caoci opacone. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: PSI MIPS (was: Links to decent 'why the mainframe thrives' article)
-Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ted MacNEIL Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 9:01 AM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: PSI MIPS (was: Links to decent 'why the mainframe thrives' article) HOWEVER, the TCO and TCO (ownership, operation) IS known (regardless of physical config). The ROI can be plotted. There is very little HIDDEN costs (HCO) in a mature system such as the z/Architecture. Yes, but: 1. TCA (acquisition) is what scares management. 2. People costs are often a political, rather than a technical argument. SNIP If your point 1 were accurate, management would dump those servers. However, because they are pleasing to the eye and would make one wise... Later, Steve Thompson -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: PSI MIPS
On 18 Jul 2007 07:33:07 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote: If I was making a decision, the H/W platform would be one of the last things to consider. Companies don't need bemchmarks, they need *applications*. It is possible to have good application on poor platform, and it doesn't mean performance or RAS problems. On the other hand it is possible to have poor application on good platform. Poor could mean functionality, or poor design, infinite CPU needs, etc. etc. BTW: Most companies I know, when considering *new application* (written from scratch), they try to *avoid* mainframe. Reason claimed: costs. At least in some cases I agree with such approach. Of course I'm talking about companies already having mainframes. I don't see a lot of companies considering *new application* (written from scratch), at the level that a mainframe is a consideration. Enterprise systems like that start off as purchases. Which means that IBM's most significant customers should be companies providing enterprise level software.Then those companies can show their customers that their systems will work with IBM, Sun, server farms, or whatever - and supply performance benchmarks for the end-users. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: What happened to Phil Payne's page?
Search the archives. On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 05:08:21 -0700, Phil Payne [EMAIL PROTECTED] RESEARCH.FREESERVE.CO.UK wrote: | | What's up? I was just checking links in my presentation for next week and | http://www.isham-research.com/ looks like been squatted on my something | else. Sorry - not paying attention at the time. The .com TLD is temporarily suspended for (erm) disputed reasons. http://www.isham-research.co.uk is a substitute, but I hope to return to the .com TLD eventually. I guess he won't be going back there. -- Tom Marchant -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: PSI MIPS (was: Links to decent 'why the mainframe thrives' article)
If your point 1 were accurate, management would dump those servers. Two points that substantiate the TCA argument (or, to be more presice ICA (initial cost of acquisition)): 1. Mainframe DASD costs more than midrange disk. (Even IBM's DS series). 2. IFL's cost arounnd 100K (US). (I can buy a lot of servers for that price -- a manager I know). - Too busy driving to stop for gas! -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: width of postings
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 00:01:26 -0500, Bruce Hewson wrote: I suppose you could call this post a little gripe. :-) Since we're griping today I follow the list through the web browser. Occasionally, I notice the last word of a line is duplicated on the next line. At first I thought it was just people with similar typing skills as myself, but I noticed it on a lot of posts. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: PSI MIPS (was: Links to decent 'why the mainframe thrives' article)
Dean Kent wrote: After all, IBM does use these benchmarks for POWER and x86 based systems that they sell into those markets. Regards, Dean -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html A different benchmark is described here: http://www.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/21044.wss Would be interesting to see such an application with this number of transactions on other platforms as well. Birger Heede IBM Denmark -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: PSI MIPS (was: Links to decent 'why the mainframe thrives' article)
Two points that substantiate the TCA argument (or, to be more presice ICA (initial cost of acquisition)): 1. Mainframe DASD costs more than midrange disk. (Even IBM's DS series). I ascribe this to you get what you pay for, to a large degree. 2. IFL's cost arounnd 100K (US). (I can buy a lot of servers for that price -- a manager I know). FWIW, I was quoted $41k earlier this month, at WAVV it was mentioned they could be had in the 30s (although I haven't found one that cheap). Neither of which alters your point appreciably. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: width of postings
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 10:45:21 -0500, Dave Kopischke wrote: I follow the list through the web browser. Occasionally, I notice the last word of a line is duplicated on the next line. At first I thought it was just people with similar typing skills as myself, but I noticed it on a lot of posts. I've seen that too, and it is somewhat annoying. It doesn't happen with all posts. Only those that seem to have long lines that the browser has to wrap to the next line. It depends upon the window size. If the width is adjusted a little, the duplication will disappear. Sometimes if the width is changed back to where it was, it willl return, sometimes not until the page is refreshed. One message that I've seen this phenomenon with is Radoslaw's recent post, On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 16:32:02 +0200, R.S. wrote: Howard Brazee wrote: [...] If I was making a decision about my shop's hardware, a Standard benchmarking test is a start, as long as they are benchmarking real data processing - but I'm really interested in benchmarking my particular needs. If I was making a decision, the H/W platform would be one of the last things to consider. Companies don't need bemchmarks, they need *applications*. It is possible to have good application If the screen is wide enough that good from the line above is the last word on the line, with enough room left in the window for about two more characters, good repeats on the next line. In fact, the next two lines also have the last word repeated on the following lines. -- Tom Marchant -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: PSI MIPS (was: Links to decent 'why the mainframe thrives' article)
-Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ted MacNEIL Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 10:43 AM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: PSI MIPS (was: Links to decent 'why the mainframe thrives' article) If your point 1 were accurate, management would dump those servers. Two points that substantiate the TCA argument (or, to be more presice ICA (initial cost of acquisition)): 1. Mainframe DASD costs more than midrange disk. (Even IBM's DS series). 2. IFL's cost arounnd 100K (US). (I can buy a lot of servers for that price -- a manager I know). What kind and size of Server? How much business processing can it do by itself? I know that the Enterprise class Intel/AMD servers here are very expensive, compared to desktop class. Unfortunately, I don't know even the approximate cost. I have have been told that the combined hardware+software cost of the Open Systems servers (mainly Windows) costs more than the hardware+software cost of the z9BC we have. I don't know the personnel costs. Oh, and the z9BC is still doing at least 80% of the core business. And people are constantly complaining about server response time. CICS response time stays sub-second. Batch, on the other hand, sometimes gets bogged down. -- John McKown Senior Systems Programmer HealthMarkets Keeping the Promise of Affordable Coverage Administrative Services Group Information Technology The information contained in this e-mail message may be privileged and/or confidential. It is for intended addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, reproduction, distribution or other use of this communication is strictly prohibited and could, in certain circumstances, be a criminal offense. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by reply and delete this message without copying or disclosing it. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: PSI MIPS (was: Links to decent 'why the mainframe thrives' article)
It was my experience that the main cost difference is not the hardware, it's software. Open system software was lisenced by the processor. So doing a little math. 1 IFL = 1 processor = $100,000 AP Websphere = $10,000 (very old price) Total = $110,000 30 servers ( 4 way ) @ $3000 each = $90,000 AP WS = $10,000 30 servers * 4 processor each * 10,000 = $1,200,000 Total = $1,290,000 So where is the cost savings from using the server farm? We won't even get into personel costs or environmentals. Jimmy -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Specialty Engine Loaner Program
This looks interesting. Specialty Engine Loaner Program Abstract: The Specialty Engine Loaner program is a pre-sales trial for IFL, zAAP and zIIP engines. Selected customers will be given the use of these additional capacity engines for a period of 90 days. Sales teams can offer their customers loaner engines as part of a trial or proof of concept. http://www.ibm.com/support/techdocs/atsmastr.nsf/WebIndex/PRS2545 - Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha! Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's updated for today's economy) at Yahoo! Games. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: PSI MIPS (was: Links to decent 'why the mainframe thrives' article)
Depending on the deal, you can get an IFL in the low $30's. I agree too, the RS6000's that we are installing have LPAR's and cost as much as the z9 in some cases. If you load up a four or eight way Xeon server box, you are looking at $30-50K in many instances. I think that to some degree, many new managers equate mainframe and expensive, and servers and inexpensive, when it is simply not true in many cases. Let us not begin to talk about security and viruses either.. Doug snip What kind and size of Server? How much business processing can it do by itself? I know that the Enterprise class Intel/AMD servers here are very expensive, compared to desktop class. Unfortunately, I don't know even the approximate cost. I have have been told that the combined hardware+software cost of the Open Systems servers (mainly Windows) costs more than the hardware+software cost of the z9BC we have. I don't know the personnel costs. Oh, and the z9BC is still doing at least 80% of the core business. And people are constantly complaining about server response time. CICS response time stays sub-second. Batch, on the other hand, sometimes gets bogged down. -- John McKown Senior Systems Programmer HealthMarkets Keeping the Promise of Affordable Coverage Administrative Services Group Information Technology snip Doug Fuerst Consultant BK Associates Brooklyn, NY (718) 921-2620 (Office) (718) 921-0952 (Fax) (917) 572-7364 (Cell) [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: PSI MIPS (was: Links to decent 'why the mainframe thrives' article)
- Original Message - From: Birger Heede [EMAIL PROTECTED] Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 8:55 AM Subject: Re: PSI MIPS (was: Links to decent 'why the mainframe thrives' article) A different benchmark is described here: http://www.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/21044.wss Would be interesting to see such an application with this number of transactions on other platforms as well. One that I have wondered about is SAP, as it runs on mainframes, minis and micros (to use the legacy terms), and is a fairly widely used application. Might be license issues, of course... Regards, Dean Birger Heede IBM Denmark -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: PSI MIPS (was: Links to decent 'why the mainframe thrives' article)
-Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Ted MacNEIL If your point 1 were accurate, management would dump those servers. Two points that substantiate the TCA argument (or, to be more presice ICA (initial cost of acquisition)): 1. Mainframe DASD costs more than midrange disk. (Even IBM's DS series). 2. IFL's cost arounnd 100K (US). (I can buy a lot of servers for that price -- a manager I know). Yep And each one of those servers requires a physical connection to electrical power; each requires an operating system license; each one that runs a database requires a DBMS license, etc., etc. Oh, did you want Test/Development and QA copies too? More $. It is also true, assuming you already have a z/Box, that you can run a lot of servers on one IFL, with ONE operating system license, ONE DBMS license, ZERO physical connections to electrical power, etc., etc. Depending on the application set, the break-even crossover point could occur at as low as 5 servers (or server images). And for T/D and QA copies, just copy a few files, share a few others, create user IDs and profiles, and XAUTOLOG them on. No extra $. -jc- -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: PSI MIPS (was: Links to decent 'why the mainframe thrives' article)
Yep And each one of those servers requires a physical connection to electrical power; each requires an operating system license; each one that runs a database requires a DBMS license, etc., etc. Oh, did you want Test/Development and QA copies too? More $. I did state that management had the issues, not me. I pointed out their concerns and saw the arguments re-iterated for the n-th time. We are not the problem. IBM is pointing this all out to the techies! Nobody is properly presenting this to management. All we are doing is b*tching about the fact that they are not listening. - Too busy driving to stop for gas! -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: PSI MIPS (was: Links to decent 'why the mainframe thrives' article)
Well of course, Dean, Timothy makes perfect sense. You should believe everything your vendors say, without any verification, right? ;-) At the last shop I worked at (a government shop), they had a study done to evaluate what platform they should be running on, and the study proposed Oracle running on Sun servers. I later found out (to my utter lack of surprise), that the study had been done free of charge. I will give you exactly one guess who it was that did the study gratis. Of course, the conclusion was the one that was desired by those that asked for the study (upper management), who are convinced that the mainframe is obsolete and expensive. The study is being used as a justification to spend 10's of millions of dollars to replace the mainframe. Of course, the complete lack of public benchmarks for the mainframe make it impossible to refute the performance conclusions of the so called study, so I think it actually hurts IBM, even if the benchmarks would not be in favor of the mainframe. IBM's refusal to submit (or allow others to do so) mainframe benchmark scores allows others to make wild claims about how slow mainframes are, without any way to refute such claims, leaving us (the mainframe proponents) completely unarmed. Dean Kent 7/17/2007 3:03:45 PM Instead, Timothy Sipples suggests (and I paraphrase from his reply to me) if you don't know, talk to your IBM rep - he'll tell you what you need. Sure, he'll tell me I need a Sun system instead of an IBM system - right? Or perhaps I should go talk to Sun or HP or Dell to find out what best suits my needs. If you care about the platform, you should care about the problem... or so it seems to me. Regards, Dean
Question? Difference from z9/703 to a z9/506
We recently moved from z/OS Release 1.4 running on a z900/1C8 to running z/OS Release 1.7 on a z9/703. Now that we know this was just not enough machine power to keep our business processes running as they did on the z900 we have decided to move to a z9/506. My question is what are the MIPs and MSUs of the z9/506? Since our ISVs software charges are by one or the other. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: PSI MIPS (was: Links to decent 'why the mainframe thrives' article)
I was not going to comment on this as I am finding it quite enjoyable and I am learning some things. I would like to interject a performance comparison between an IBM 3081 and a Sun System and a PC. I don't know if this is a good one or not, I will leave it up to the reader. Approximately 15 years ago we had an application that during its processing needed to create a random number for every options trade. This was written in COBOL (the random number was a psuedo random number) A performance person was asked to look into it and figured out that SAS had a better random number generator (the COBOL was OK for the designer ie it didn't have to be truly random). At the time there were the usual wars between the pc and the MF as to which was better. SAS beat COBOL hands down. The performance person was able to duplicate the test on a PC and a SUN system. Funny thing in just raw cpu time the 3081 was 1/3 less than the Sun system and 50 percent less than the PC. The only I/O involved was to read a file that had the options trade in it, no output was written. Again I was not the person involved in the test but he was partial to the Sun system going into the test. I will take his word that all other things were equal. He was getting his timing from the standard ways. I looked at the source briefly and it seemed on the up and up, I did not have any reason to doubt him. Ed -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Question? Difference from z9/703 to a z9/506
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My question is what are the MIPs and MSUs of the z9/506? Since our ISVs software charges are by one or the other. http://www.ibm.com/servers/eserver/zseries/lspr/ http://www.tech-news.com/publib/ -- Edward E Jaffe Phoenix Software International, Inc 5200 W Century Blvd, Suite 800 Los Angeles, CA 90045 310-338-0400 x318 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.phoenixsoftware.com/ -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
z/OS NFS Client to Linux NFS
I have been asked to set up z/OS NFS client to access Linux files on Redhat. I have searched the archives and found little information. Documentation on z/OS client is very sparse. Any pointers/problems/gotchas etc I should be aware of. The requirement is to have 100 plus user accessing 50 or so folders on Linux to update files on Linux system/s. Crispin Hugo Systems Programmer, Macro 4 http://www.macro4.com/ This email has been scanned for all known viruses by the MessageLabs Email Security Service and the Macro 4 plc internal virus protection system. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Question? Difference from z9/703 to a z9/506
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 15:08:32 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We recently moved from z/OS Release 1.4 running on a z900/1C8 to running z/OS Release 1.7 on a z9/703. Now that we know this was just not enough machine power to keep our business processes running as they did on the z900 we have decided to move to a z9/506. My question is what are the MIPs and MSUs of the z9/506? Since our ISVs software charges are by one or the other. I don't show a z9/703 on my list, but the 2094-506 is listed at 279 MSU's and 2053 MIPS with 6 engines. This list is from April 2006 and has every number caveated with PRELIM. Good Luck -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
