Re: What is 'MVS-recognized' disablement?
In a message dated 11/23/2007 4:42:06 P.M. Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Peter Hunkeler said Interrupt Status: An FRR gets control and is entered disabled if, at the time of the error, the mainline is disabled. Any FRR entered disabled must remain disabled. This is correct if you legally got disabled. If you got disabled using the nonsupported way using STNSM, your FRR will be entered enabled. At least this is how I understand Peter's statement. Yes, I got that. The point is that the fine manual makes no such distinction. The various manuals describe disabled aspects of several functions, such as using FRRs and acquiring storage in certain subpools. There are at least three different ways to test for disablement: (1) holding any lock, (2) having any super bit turned on, and (3) having I/O and external interrupts masked off in the current PSW. The problem, in my opinion, or perhaps another problem, is that not all services allow for all 3 possible ways of being disabled at every point in their instruction paths where a test for being disabled must be made. Bill Fairchild Franklin, TN **Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest products. (http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop000301) -- 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: Archives for IBM-MAIN
IMHO last 5 years would be fine. I would strongly suggest to fill default value 'since date'. My $0.02 -- 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: Archives for IBM-MAIN
- Original Message - From: Darren Evans-Young [EMAIL PROTECTED] Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main Sent: Friday, November 23, 2007 2:22 PM Subject: Archives for IBM-MAIN Question for the list I currently have the IBM-MAIN-ARCHIVES list containing archives from 1986-2000. Current archives for IBM-MAIN are from 2001 forward. What this means is searches take longer unless you restrict your searches to a specific time frame. I would like to move more archives from IBM-MAIN to IBM-MAIN-ARCHIVES. What years do you guys want to remain on IBM-MAIN? I only have a couple days to make this change. D, I work with a number of clients running older hardware and software, so I'd like to see a minimum of 5 years on the current system. If possible, I'd like to see everything stay where it is, and as others have suggested, prime the starting date in the Since field. Regards, Tom Conley -- 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: HFS Vs ZFs
Could someone please explain what has been going on with zFS recommendations etc. I have also seen recommendations that we should all move from HFS to zFS file systems. Now, we are told that we should not use zFS Milti-File Mode (MFM) aggregates in shared systems. If I was running a non-shared environment, I would avoid migrating to zFS Multi-File Mode aggregates in case I may later move to a shared environment in the future. That seems a reasonable stand to take and would mean that zFS MFM Aggregates would be little used. If we are all therefore to use compatibility mode aggregates, do we still get the documented benefits of zFS? Namely, read only clones, performance benefits and increase integrity when using Compatibility Mode aggregates? The recommendation telling us not to use zFS MFM aggregates in a shared HFS environment were not there in the first announcements of zFS, so what happened to cause such a drastic U-turn? -- 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: significant fixes to my product (MFNetDisk).
Much better PC Server performance. Fix error of the handle of CTL_C to the PC Server. All installation, Documentation and PowerPoint files can now be downloaded as a ZIP file and not RAR file. Still, everyone can use my product and my PowerPoint presentation to solve customers needs. It is free to use and you can present it as it or if you like you can change it (better the changes will be for the product and not againest it...). And again, It is also OK with me that you make money from the presentation of my product. I mean it. Some people ask me what if they help me to sell the product? OK, right now I am happy with the idea to let the people use, enjoy and maybe love my product. Maybe one day I or a big company (IBM, EMC, HDS) will change my mind. Thanks, Shai -- 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: HFS Vs ZFs
Mike, The compatibility mode of zFS is soon to be the only mode of zFS. The multi-file mode aggregates are being phased out in all environments, not just in a SYSPLEX. The costs associated with maintaining multiple file systems in a single zFS container were found to outweigh the benefits in all environments, even more so in a SYSPLEX. However, even in single file mode (compatibility was a bad name choice in my opinion), you do get all the performance and other benefits of zFS over HFS. Note that HFS has been functionally stabilized so no new enhancements will be made to it, and zFS is the replacement, so migrating from HFS to zFS should a project in the pipeline. Wayne Driscoll Product Developer JME Software LLC NOTE: All opinions are strictly my own. -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Hill Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2007 1:44 PM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: HFS Vs ZFs Could someone please explain what has been going on with zFS recommendations etc. I have also seen recommendations that we should all move from HFS to zFS file systems. Now, we are told that we should not use zFS Milti-File Mode (MFM) aggregates in shared systems. If I was running a non-shared environment, I would avoid migrating to zFS Multi-File Mode aggregates in case I may later move to a shared environment in the future. That seems a reasonable stand to take and would mean that zFS MFM Aggregates would be little used. If we are all therefore to use compatibility mode aggregates, do we still get the documented benefits of zFS? Namely, read only clones, performance benefits and increase integrity when using Compatibility Mode aggregates? The recommendation telling us not to use zFS MFM aggregates in a shared HFS environment were not there in the first announcements of zFS, so what happened to cause such a drastic U-turn? -- 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: Installing/Updating SVC
SETPROG LPA,ADD,MODNAME=,DSN=USER.LPALIB,SVCNUMDEC=nnn This is intentionally not documented. It is not supported at this time. Maybe someday... It never hurts to submit requirements (especially from user groups). It is never a good idea to experiment to discover what command might or might not be accepted. You of course are welcome to take whatever risk(s) you want with your own system, but please do not come calling for help afterwards. A good point was made that you cannot, with this option, identify the type of SVC or its entry requirements (APF, lock, for example). Peter Relson z/OS Core Technology Design -- 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: Archives for IBM-MAIN
On 23 Nov 2007 11:22:45 -0800, in bit.listserv.ibm-main (Message-ID:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Darren Evans-Young) wrote: I currently have the IBM-MAIN-ARCHIVES list containing archives from 1986-2000. Current archives for IBM-MAIN are from 2001 forward. What this means is searches take longer unless you restrict your searches to a specific time frame. I would like to move more archives from IBM-MAIN to IBM-MAIN-ARCHIVES. What years do you guys want to remain on IBM-MAIN? I don't search the archives that way. I'd normally search via Google Groups. So you can take this as totally immaterial or as valid commentary from a disinterested party. If it's possible to program the default Since date to current date minus n years, that could obviate the whole question, except what 'n' should be. The comments I'm seeing seem to show that 'n' should be either 2 or 3. If that programming is not possible, maybe the cut-off should be GA date of 1.6? -- I cannot receive mail at the address this was sent from. To reply directly, send to ar23hur at intergate dot 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
