Re: Modernizing the BCP code ?
In eca05fed-2f46-42eb-be35-50536de31...@yahoo.com, on 04/12/2012 at 12:34 PM, Scott Ford scott_j_f...@yahoo.com said: What about folks not running Z9 for z/os 2.1 ? Preumably like any levelset; stay backlevel or upgrade. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT ISO position; see http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress. (S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003) -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
0C4 pic 4
Hi, I am getting S0C4 04 within a wait which leads me to believe that the storage key of the ECB storage key is not the same as the PSW STORAGE KEY 8- 11 Does the following code make sense to resolve this address TESTAUTH FCTN=1 TEST APF AUTORIZATION LTR R15,R5 CHECK R15 BNZ NAPFSYSNDXNOT APF MODESET MODE=SUP,KEY=NZERO TURN ON BIT 15 IN PSW LAR0,REPLY_ECB GET ECB ADDRESS IVSK R1,R0 GET STORAGE KEY MODESET KEYREG=R1,SAVEKEY=OLDKEY SET STORAGE KEY IN PSW WAIT=REPLY_ECB MODESET MODE=PROB,KEY=NZERO back to current TCB key -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: 0C4 pic 4
No, because if you arbitrarily use the key as determined by IVSK, why not simply do it in Key 0? On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 13:29:55 -0400 Micheal Butz michealb...@optonline.net wrote: :Hi, : : : : : : I am getting S0C4 04 within a wait which leads me to believe that the :storage key of the ECB storage key is not the same as the PSW STORAGE KEY :8- 11 : : : : : :Does the following code make sense to resolve this address : : : : : :TESTAUTH FCTN=1 TEST APF AUTORIZATION : :LTR R15,R5 CHECK R15 : :BNZ NAPFSYSNDXNOT APF : :MODESET MODE=SUP,KEY=NZERO TURN ON BIT 15 IN PSW : :LAR0,REPLY_ECB GET ECB ADDRESS : :IVSK R1,R0 GET STORAGE KEY : :MODESET KEYREG=R1,SAVEKEY=OLDKEY SET STORAGE KEY IN PSW : : : : WAIT=REPLY_ECB : : : : MODESET MODE=PROB,KEY=NZERO back to current TCB key -- Binyamin Dissen bdis...@dissensoftware.com http://www.dissensoftware.com Director, Dissen Software, Bar Grill - Israel 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 lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: 0C4 pic 4
Being in PSW Key 0 is good for any storage 0 - 16 -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Binyamin Dissen Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2012 1:42 PM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: Re: 0C4 pic 4 No, because if you arbitrarily use the key as determined by IVSK, why not simply do it in Key 0? On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 13:29:55 -0400 Micheal Butz michealb...@optonline.net wrote: :Hi, : : : : : : I am getting S0C4 04 within a wait which leads me to believe that the :storage key of the ECB storage key is not the same as the PSW STORAGE KEY :8- 11 : : : : : :Does the following code make sense to resolve this address : : : : : :TESTAUTH FCTN=1 TEST APF AUTORIZATION : :LTR R15,R5 CHECK R15 : :BNZ NAPFSYSNDXNOT APF : :MODESET MODE=SUP,KEY=NZERO TURN ON BIT 15 IN PSW : :LAR0,REPLY_ECB GET ECB ADDRESS : :IVSK R1,R0 GET STORAGE KEY : :MODESET KEYREG=R1,SAVEKEY=OLDKEY SET STORAGE KEY IN PSW : : : : WAIT=REPLY_ECB : : : : MODESET MODE=PROB,KEY=NZERO back to current TCB key -- Binyamin Dissen bdis...@dissensoftware.com http://www.dissensoftware.com Director, Dissen Software, Bar Grill - Israel 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 lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: 0C4 pic 4
Exactly. Why overcomplicate? On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 14:48:20 -0400 Micheal Butz michealb...@optonline.net wrote: :Being in PSW Key 0 is good for any storage 0 - 16 : : : :-Original Message- :From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf :Of Binyamin Dissen :Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2012 1:42 PM :To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu :Subject: Re: 0C4 pic 4 : :No, because if you arbitrarily use the key as determined by IVSK, why not :simply do it in Key 0? : :On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 13:29:55 -0400 Micheal Butz michealb...@optonline.net :wrote: : ::Hi, :: :: :: :: :: :: I am getting S0C4 04 within a wait which leads me to believe that the ::storage key of the ECB storage key is not the same as the PSW STORAGE KEY ::8- 11 :: :: :: :: :: ::Does the following code make sense to resolve this address :: :: :: :: :: ::TESTAUTH FCTN=1 TEST APF AUTORIZATION :: ::LTR R15,R5 CHECK R15 :: ::BNZ NAPFSYSNDXNOT APF :: ::MODESET MODE=SUP,KEY=NZERO TURN ON BIT 15 IN PSW :: ::LAR0,REPLY_ECB GET ECB ADDRESS :: ::IVSK R1,R0 GET STORAGE KEY :: ::MODESET KEYREG=R1,SAVEKEY=OLDKEY SET STORAGE KEY IN PSW :: :: :: :: WAIT=REPLY_ECB :: :: :: :: MODESET MODE=PROB,KEY=NZERO back to current TCB key -- Binyamin Dissen bdis...@dissensoftware.com http://www.dissensoftware.com Director, Dissen Software, Bar Grill - Israel 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 lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
GO TO cobol
Hi All, Apology for asking a basic question and Being Ignorant. We know that GO TO statments are a big NO in many production sites and one of the reason being it monopolizes the entire CPU. Are there any documentation explaining about the GO TO statements which clearly describes how it effects the System CPU and performances ? Apology again if the question is not really sensible or else it requires more information. Jake -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: GO TO cobol
On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 8:49 PM, Jake anderson justmainfra...@gmail.comwrote: Hi All, Apology for asking a basic question and Being Ignorant. We know that GO TO statments are a big NO in many production sites and one of the reason being it monopolizes the entire CPU. Are there any documentation explaining about the GO TO statements which clearly describes how it effects the System CPU and performances ? I don't think a GO TO statement in COBOL monopolizes the CPU. A poorly designed program (with or without GO TO statements) can needlessly monopolizes the CPU. Typically GO TO statements can be avoided by having a good design. A local GO TO here and there is not so bad. The non-local GO TO statements can make long-term maintenance of a program problematic and expensive. Saam Apology again if the question is not really sensible or else it requires more information. Jake -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: GO TO cobol
On 4/15/2012 9:49 PM, Jake anderson wrote: Hi All, Apology for asking a basic question and Being Ignorant. We know that GO TO statments are a big NO in many production sites and one of the reason being it monopolizes the entire CPU. Really? Well, as they say, It ain't what you know, it's what you 'know' that ain't so Are there any documentation explaining about the GO TO statements which clearly describes how it effects the System CPU and performances ? Apology again if the question is not really sensible or else it requires more information. Jake The root of it all is a paper Go To Statement Considered Harmful by E. Dijkstra; get Ed Yourdon's book Classics in Software Engineering; lots of classic papers in there, including this one. But the Go To in and of itself does not have a significant effect on CPU utilization. I guess you could have a problem with: here. Go to here. Don't take anything for granted. Recieved wisdom is often based on misunderstandings of old folklore. -- Kind regards, -Steve Comstock The Trainer's Friend, Inc. 303-355-2752 http://www.trainersfriend.com * To get a good Return on your Investment, first make an investment! + Training your people is an excellent investment * Try our tool for calculating your Return On Investment for training dollars at http://www.trainersfriend.com/ROI/roi.html -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: GO TO cobol
Even a structured IF THEN ELSE END-IF or SELECT WHEN WHEN OTHERWISE END-SELECT does gotos at the object code levels. This is why hyperthreading is so helpful. One thread starts processing the GOTO instructions and the other thread starts processing the fall through instructions. Once the branch is finalized, the wrong branch is discarded. On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 11:31 PM, Steve Comstock st...@trainersfriend.com wrote: On 4/15/2012 9:49 PM, Jake anderson wrote: Hi All, Apology for asking a basic question and Being Ignorant. We know that GO TO statments are a big NO in many production sites and one of the reason being it monopolizes the entire CPU. Really? Well, as they say, It ain't what you know, it's what you 'know' that ain't so deleted -- 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 lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
brand new CF LPAR
Dear Lister We are replacing our mainframe i.e. Power off old mainframe, rip it apart, move power supply, I/O cages, OSA cards on to the new box and IML/IPL new CF and other LPARs. I have defined brand new Coupling datasets , ARM, BMPXMCDS, CFRM, SFM, LOGR, WLM dataset and have updated COUPLExx parmlib members. Are there other gottchas I should look out for. Our target is to Activate CF partition and IPL production LPAR in parallel sysplex ASAP after HW migration. All help is appreciated. I have gone through RTFM - setting up sysplex , CFSIZER tool etc. Regards, Munif. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: GO TO cobol
For devotees of Jackson Structured programming, the GOTO is a must for POSIT and ADMIT processing. Otherwise it can be messy avoiding a GOTO. I'm a devotee FWIW On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 2:43 PM, Mike Schwab mike.a.sch...@gmail.com wrote: Even a structured IF THEN ELSE END-IF or SELECT WHEN WHEN OTHERWISE END-SELECT does gotos at the object code levels. This is why hyperthreading is so helpful. One thread starts processing the GOTO instructions and the other thread starts processing the fall through instructions. Once the branch is finalized, the wrong branch is discarded. On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 11:31 PM, Steve Comstock st...@trainersfriend.com wrote: On 4/15/2012 9:49 PM, Jake anderson wrote: Hi All, Apology for asking a basic question and Being Ignorant. We know that GO TO statments are a big NO in many production sites and one of the reason being it monopolizes the entire CPU. Really? Well, as they say, It ain't what you know, it's what you 'know' that ain't so deleted -- 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 lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN -- Wayne V. Bickerdike -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
