date:20140214

Hello,
 I am trying to setup BPX.UNIQUE.USER.


While upgrading RACf template, I am getting below issues.

//RACFAIM JOB (657),'VENKAT',CLASS=A,MSGCLASS=X,NOTIFY=SYSUID
//STEP EXEC PGM=IRRIRA00,PARM=STAGE(3)
//SYSPRINT DD SYSOUT=*



 IRR66017I The system is currently operating in stage 2.
 IRR66016I Unexpected RACF manager return code deleting entry G0 in class
UNIXMAAP. Return code 80. Reason code 0.


80 (128) This is a data sharing mode return code. A coupling facility
function had a problem when dealing with the ICB

Can anybody help.


Regards



On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 7:36 PM, Staller, Allan allan.stal...@kbmg.comwrote:

 BPX.DEFAULT.USER is ignored in z/OS 2.1. This has widely been reported in
 IBM announcements
 The Migration Guide and this forum.

 Check the archives.

 Your choices are:
 1) create the OMVS segment for this user manually.
 2) Set up the BPX.UNIQUE.USER/BPX.NEXT.USER environment as described in
 the manuals.

 HTH,


 snip

On  newly installed z/OS 2.1 system we experiencing
 OMVS segment not defined issue

 $HASP373 EZAZSSI  STARTED
 ICH408I JOB(OSNMPD  ) STEP(OSNMPD  ) CL(PROCESS ) 807
   OMVS SEGMENT NOT DEFINED

 etc...

 We already defined Steps for setting up default OMVS segments.

 /snip

 --
 For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
 send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN


--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: SMF record 62 and SMF62MC1 byte meaning.

On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 10:55:27 +0100, Massimo Biancucci wrote:

Hi all,

we started analyzing SMF62 to trace which A.S. use VSAM datasets and their
intent (Read or Update).

To do the task we analyze the SMF62MC1 flag (zOS 1.13).

So, a Cobol program does the following:

..
  SELECT ARCAPPU  ASSIGN TOTITAR02U
  ORGANIZATION IS INDEXED
  ACCESS MODE  IS DYNAMIC
  RECORD KEY   IS APP-KEY
  FILE STATUS  IS STATUS-ARCAPPU.
..
  OPEN I-OARCAPPU.
..

Here the SMF62:

 1 2 3 4 5
POSN12345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890

1  CHAR =}MVSAJTIMAN19...SSYSPROD h...ICFUCAT.
   ZONE 13007D0102DEECDECDCDFF007E0102EEEDDDC48000CCCECCE4
   NUMR EE04E0143F4521139415190482143F2827964080009364313B
   +-+-+-+-+-+
   51  CHAR APPLJP0 SCATF1JTIP.VSB
   ZONE CDF4ECCECFDECD4EEC
   NUMR 177317002313611397B522
   +-+-+-+-+-+
  101  CHAR W0M.APPOGGIO.TITOLIXX   ..LRPRD3PA
   ZONE EFD4CDDDCCCD4ECEDDCEE44400CF3320DC
   NUMR 604B17767796B393639771397943000F71
   +-+-+-+-+-+
  151  CHAR XXBW01PAPRBW01UEFVS000..=.
   ZONE EECEFFDCDDCEFFECCEEFFF007B0102*9*000
   NUMR 77260171792601456524EF143F*A*000
   +-+-+-+-+-+

So the SMF62MC1 is x'9A' = 1001 1010 in binary.

According to the manual:

1 = Record is identified by a KEY (it matches with Organization is indexed
from Cobol)
0 = RBA access NO
0 = CI access NO
1 = Sequential Processing (Access mode in Dynamic from Cobol)
1 = Direct Processing (Access mode in Dynamic from Cobol)
0 = Input Processing NO (???)
1 = Output Processing YES
0 = User Supplied Buffer Space NO

The program does all of READ, START, WRITE and REWRITE.

So, about the Input Processing flag,  I'm not able to pair the SMF record
with the behaviour (SMF64 states the read and update were done) of the
program.
In the past, if I well remember, I did some tests and at the I-O OPEN the
flags seemed to be OK.

What's wrong in my understanding ?

Thanks a lot for your support.
Massimo


The program can do a READ even though the MACRF=IN bit is not set.

In the description of the MACRF option of the ACB macro in DFSMS Macro 
Instructions for Data Sets, it says:

If you specify OUT and want merely to retrieve some records and also update, 
delete, or insert others, you need not also specify IN.

http://publibz.boulder.ibm.com/cgi-bin/bookmgr_OS390/BOOKS/DGT2D580/1.2.4

Bill

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Query group capacity settings

2014-02-14 Thread Scott Chapman

Since RMF has it, I would presume that it's in a control block somewhere, but 
where I can't say. Maybe it's only internal to RMF.

If you have the RMF Distributed Dataserver up, you can access:
http://{rmfsys}:{port}/gpm/reports/CPC?resource=,{lpar},MVS_IMAGE

Where {rmfsys} is the system where GPMSERVE is running, {port} is its port, and 
{lpar} is the LPAR you're interested in. The results will include {lpar}'s 
capacity group and group limit. If you want the xml to parse simply add the 
.xml extension:
http://{rmfsys}:{port}/gpm/reports/CPC.xml?resource=,{lpar},MVS_IMAGE

I presume you can get it through the RMF APIs as well. 

That is rather higher-level than looking at a control block as you requested, 
but perhaps it will trigger an idea of someplace else to look.

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: SMF record 62 and SMF62MC1 byte meaning.

Is this [SMF record] flags byte recording behavior?  Or is it
recording [only] open option(s) specified?

If the latter, should not opening for update set both the IN and the
OUT bits?   How otherwise is the specification of update reflected in
this byte?

I think Massimo has an adequate basis for consulting IBM, and I should
myself be interested in its explanation of this behavior.  There may
be some simple rationale for what is being observed here, but the
implementation of this byte appears to me to have been botched.

John Gilmore, Ashland, MA 01721 - USA

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

RACF AIM Stage 3 Issue

Hello,
 I am trying to setup BPX.UNIQUE.USER.


While upgrading RACF template, I am getting below issues.

//RACFAIM JOB (657),'VENKAT',CLASS=A,MSGCLASS=X,NOTIFY=SYSUID
//STEP EXEC PGM=IRRIRA00,PARM=STAGE(3)
//SYSPRINT DD SYSOUT=*



 IRR66017I The system is currently operating in stage 2.
 IRR66016I Unexpected RACF manager return code deleting entry G0 in class
UNIXMAAP. Return code 80. Reason code 0.


80 (128) This is a data sharing mode return code. A coupling facility
function had a problem when dealing with the ICB

Can anybody help.









--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Checking Years( was - Re: Storage Obtain .....)

Lloyd Fuller wrote:

Actually in some products quite a lot. 

Some other applications like your example: 

1. Astronomy: (Calculating position/movements of space things from x 
year/month/day/etc to y year/etc...)
2. Statistics and Mathematics: Census processing of population of people, 
animals, disease growth, etc. Only for really bored students. ;-D
3. Deeds registration: Registration of property.
4. Laws: Writing down laws and refering to year when past laws were made.

Internal dates went from 1/1/1600 to a time VERY long in the future (year 
1 something).

It depends on language used.

In fact, after discussion we even implemented the leap year calendar in the 
past by using negative dates.

In what format? (COBOL, Assembler, other?) Just curious if you dont mind, 
please?


Kees Vernooij wrote:

If I only had a Euro for each program that has this code and will not live 
until 2100...

From your industry, you probably know that Boeing was already implementing Y2K 
fixes since about 1990 [1] due to long ordering period of about 12 years and 
more of aeroplanes from various clients.

Groete / Greetings
Elardus Engelbrecht

[1] - I can't remember the exact year but it was certainly in those [ flying 
;-D ] times. I would be grateful if someone can post a source confirming it. :-)

I warned my management in around 1996 about the upcoming Y2K monster and I used 
the Boeing example as part of my motivation. But as you probably guessed it, 
the management got active around 1998 and then only because IBM was getting 
paranoid ( shame! ;-D ) about that undying Y2K monster. ;-)
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: SMF record 62 and SMF62MC1 byte meaning.

On Fri, 14 Feb 2014 07:39:24 -0500, John Gilmore wrote:

Is this [SMF record] flags byte recording behavior?  Or is it
recording [only] open option(s) specified?

If the latter, should not opening for update set both the IN and the
OUT bits?   How otherwise is the specification of update reflected in
this byte?

I think Massimo has an adequate basis for consulting IBM, and I should
myself be interested in its explanation of this behavior.  There may
be some simple rationale for what is being observed here, but the
implementation of this byte appears to me to have been botched.


The mapping macro for the SMF record has the comment ACBMACR1 MACR FIELD on 
the line for SMF62MC1.

The ACBMACR1 field is defined in the IFGACB macro, as are the bits within it.

The bits are set by the ACB macro, or by MODCB before OPEN. I've never heard of 
any MACRF bits ever being changed during or after OPEN. I'd expect such 
behavior to be extremely rare, if it exists.

I don't think there is any way to distinguish between output and update in this 
byte or in the type 62 record, and it might not matter to the OP, who says he 
wants to check for Read or Update intent. The bit for MACRF=OUT might be 
enough to go by.

Bill

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: WER027A control field beyond record

2014-02-14 Thread Chase, John

 -Original Message-
 From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Micheal Butz
 
 Seems like one of my sort fields maybe beyond a short record Anything I can 
 do about this

DFSORT has an OPTION VLSHRT to handle that situation.  I'm confident that 
Syncsort has something similar if not identical.

-jc-

**
Information contained in this e-mail message and in any attachments thereto is 
confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy this 
message, delete any copies held on your systems, notify the sender immediately, 
and refrain from using or disclosing all or any part of its content to any 
other person.

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: SMF record 62 and SMF62MC1 byte meaning.

2014-02-14 Thread Massimo Biancucci

Thanks to Bill for his update.

I agree with John that IBM should better explain the meaning of the byte
and, furthermore, the Cobol behaviour.

In my opinion, from version to version (or single PTF) the Cobol Behaviour
could had been changing. Puzzling !

Thanks to everybody, of course I'll give you details as soon as I will
receive news from IBM.

Massimo


2014-02-14 13:39 GMT+01:00 John Gilmore jwgli...@gmail.com:

 Is this [SMF record] flags byte recording behavior?  Or is it
 recording [only] open option(s) specified?

 If the latter, should not opening for update set both the IN and the
 OUT bits?   How otherwise is the specification of update reflected in
 this byte?

 I think Massimo has an adequate basis for consulting IBM, and I should
 myself be interested in its explanation of this behavior.  There may
 be some simple rationale for what is being observed here, but the
 implementation of this byte appears to me to have been botched.

 John Gilmore, Ashland, MA 01721 - USA

 --
 For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
 send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN


--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: SMF record 62 and SMF62MC1 byte meaning.

2014-02-14 Thread Martin Packer

It's SMF 64 which gives you a clue as to what actually HAPPENED - with 
Read, Update, Insert and Delete counters, plus the CI / CA Split counts, 
level changes etc. No 62. 64 is CLOSE, 62 is OPEN.

Cheers, Martin

Martin Packer,
zChampion, Principal Systems Investigator,
Worldwide Banking Center of Excellence, IBM

+44-7802-245-584

email: martin_pac...@uk.ibm.com

Twitter / Facebook IDs: MartinPacker
Blog: 
https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/mydeveloperworks/blogs/MartinPacker



From:   Bill Godfrey yak36...@yahoo.com
To: IBM-MAIN@listserv.ua.edu
Date:   14/02/2014 13:36
Subject:Re: SMF record 62 and SMF62MC1 byte meaning.
Sent by:IBM Mainframe Discussion List IBM-MAIN@listserv.ua.edu



On Fri, 14 Feb 2014 07:39:24 -0500, John Gilmore wrote:

Is this [SMF record] flags byte recording behavior?  Or is it
recording [only] open option(s) specified?

If the latter, should not opening for update set both the IN and the
OUT bits?   How otherwise is the specification of update reflected in
this byte?

I think Massimo has an adequate basis for consulting IBM, and I should
myself be interested in its explanation of this behavior.  There may
be some simple rationale for what is being observed here, but the
implementation of this byte appears to me to have been botched.


The mapping macro for the SMF record has the comment ACBMACR1 MACR FIELD 
on the line for SMF62MC1.

The ACBMACR1 field is defined in the IFGACB macro, as are the bits within 
it.

The bits are set by the ACB macro, or by MODCB before OPEN. I've never 
heard of any MACRF bits ever being changed during or after OPEN. I'd 
expect such behavior to be extremely rare, if it exists.

I don't think there is any way to distinguish between output and update in 
this byte or in the type 62 record, and it might not matter to the OP, who 
says he wants to check for Read or Update intent. The bit for MACRF=OUT 
might be enough to go by.

Bill

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN



Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 
741598. 
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Checking Years( was - Re: Storage Obtain .....)

2014-02-14 Thread Lloyd Fuller

Actually NOMAD.  The dates can be stored in NOMAD internal databases, IMS, 
IDMS, DB2, SQL/VM.

And the suggestion to use the input window for dates dated to 1979 or so.  It 
was actually implemented in the early 1990s.
 
Lloyd
 
 


 From: Elardus Engelbrecht elardus.engelbre...@sita.co.za
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU 
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2014 8:29 AM
Subject: Checking Years( was - Re: Storage Obtain .)
  

Lloyd Fuller wrote:

Actually in some products quite a lot. 

Some other applications like your example: 

1. Astronomy: (Calculating position/movements of space things from x 
year/month/day/etc to y year/etc...)
2. Statistics and Mathematics: Census processing of population of people, 
animals, disease growth, etc. Only for really bored students. ;-D
3. Deeds registration: Registration of property.
4. Laws: Writing down laws and refering to year when past laws were made.

Internal dates went from 1/1/1600 to a time VERY long in the future (year 
1 something).

It depends on language used.

In fact, after discussion we even implemented the leap year calendar in the 
past by using negative dates.

In what format? (COBOL, Assembler, other?) Just curious if you dont mind, 
please?


Kees Vernooij wrote:

If I only had a Euro for each program that has this code and will not live 
until 2100...

From your industry, you probably know that Boeing was already implementing Y2K 
fixes since about 1990 [1] due to long ordering period of about 12 years and 
more of aeroplanes from various clients.

Groete / Greetings
Elardus Engelbrecht

[1] - I can't remember the exact year but it was certainly in those [ flying 
;-D ] times. I would be grateful if someone can post a source confirming it. 
:-)

I warned my management in around 1996 about the upcoming Y2K monster and I 
used the Boeing example as part of my motivation. But as you probably guessed 
it, the management got active around 1998 and then only because IBM was 
getting paranoid ( shame! ;-D ) about that undying Y2K monster. ;-)
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN




--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: RACF AIM Stage 3 Issue

2014-02-14 Thread Dennis Trojak

Well if you check the manual you'll see that you need to be at STAGE 3 to setup 
BPX.UNIQUE.USER.
RACF Security Administrator's Guide 17.4.2.1

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf 
Of venkat kulkarni
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2014 6:55 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: RACF AIM Stage 3 Issue

Hello,
 I am trying to setup BPX.UNIQUE.USER.

While upgrading RACF template, I am getting below issues.

//RACFAIM JOB (657),'VENKAT',CLASS=A,MSGCLASS=X,NOTIFY=SYSUID
//STEP EXEC PGM=IRRIRA00,PARM=STAGE(3)
//SYSPRINT DD SYSOUT=*

 IRR66017I The system is currently operating in stage 2.
 IRR66016I Unexpected RACF manager return code deleting entry G0 in class 
UNIXMAAP. Return code 80. Reason code 0.

80 (128) This is a data sharing mode return code. A coupling facility function 
had a problem when dealing with the ICB

Can anybody help.

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to 
lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: RACF AIM Stage 3 Issue

Yes, I checked it before. It just talked about UNIXMAP class should be
active and profile should be defined under that. But the return code
Return code 80. Reason code 0.


80 (128) This is a data sharing mode return code. A coupling facility
function had a problem when dealing with the ICB

talks about CF with ICB issue, and I have no idea on this to solve this
issue.




On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 7:42 PM, Dennis Trojak dennis.tro...@radioshack.com
 wrote:

 Well if you check the manual you'll see that you need to be at STAGE 3 to
 setup BPX.UNIQUE.USER.
 RACF Security Administrator's Guide 17.4.2.1

 -Original Message-
 From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
 Behalf Of venkat kulkarni
 Sent: Friday, February 14, 2014 6:55 AM
 To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
 Subject: RACF AIM Stage 3 Issue

 Hello,
  I am trying to setup BPX.UNIQUE.USER.


 While upgrading RACF template, I am getting below issues.

 //RACFAIM JOB (657),'VENKAT',CLASS=A,MSGCLASS=X,NOTIFY=SYSUID
 //STEP EXEC PGM=IRRIRA00,PARM=STAGE(3)
 //SYSPRINT DD SYSOUT=*



  IRR66017I The system is currently operating in stage 2.
  IRR66016I Unexpected RACF manager return code deleting entry G0 in class
 UNIXMAAP. Return code 80. Reason code 0.


 80 (128) This is a data sharing mode return code. A coupling facility
 function had a problem when dealing with the ICB

 Can anybody help.







 

 --
 For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email
 to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

 --
 For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
 send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN


--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: SMF record 62 and SMF62MC1 byte meaning.

Bill,

I value your contributions here.  They are always appropriately
informed, as was your last post in this thread.

That said, it seems clear to me beyond argument that the appropriate
way to record an open-for-update macro instruction is to set BOTH the
in and the out bits, which is not being done.  Now that I understand
that this byte is intended to reflect just in-effect open options, I
conclude that its implementation was indeed botched.

In this OCO era I cannot look at the source code to be certain, but it
seems very likely that these bit settings can also be fixed readily
(without raising the spectre of compatibility breaches).

John Gilmore, Ashland, MA 01721 - USA

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: RACF AIM Stage 3 Issue

venkat kulkarni wrote:

80 (128) This is a data sharing mode return code. A coupling facility function 
had a problem when dealing with the ICB

talks about CF with ICB issue, and I have no idea on this to solve this issue.

Show us the result of RVARY. Is it in DATASHARE or not?


Groete / Greetings
Elardus Engelbrecht

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: RACF AIM Stage 3 Issue

2014-02-14 Thread Dennis Trojak

You are looking at the wrong return code I think. Decimal 80, Hex 50.
50 (80) An attempt was made to update one of the following (by a request other 
than ALTERI):  
The RACF database that has been locked by a RACF utility  
The RACF database from a system that is in read-only mode (in a RACF sysplex 
data sharing environment)

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf 
Of venkat kulkarni
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2014 8:19 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: RACF AIM Stage 3 Issue

Yes, I checked it before. It just talked about UNIXMAP class should be active 
and profile should be defined under that. But the return code Return code 80. 
Reason code 0.


80 (128) This is a data sharing mode return code. A coupling facility function 
had a problem when dealing with the ICB

talks about CF with ICB issue, and I have no idea on this to solve this issue.




On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 7:42 PM, Dennis Trojak dennis.tro...@radioshack.com
 wrote:

 Well if you check the manual you'll see that you need to be at STAGE 3 
 to setup BPX.UNIQUE.USER.
 RACF Security Administrator's Guide 17.4.2.1

 -Original Message-
 From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] 
 On Behalf Of venkat kulkarni
 Sent: Friday, February 14, 2014 6:55 AM
 To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
 Subject: RACF AIM Stage 3 Issue

 Hello,
  I am trying to setup BPX.UNIQUE.USER.


 While upgrading RACF template, I am getting below issues.

 //RACFAIM JOB (657),'VENKAT',CLASS=A,MSGCLASS=X,NOTIFY=SYSUID
 //STEP EXEC PGM=IRRIRA00,PARM=STAGE(3) //SYSPRINT DD SYSOUT=*



  IRR66017I The system is currently operating in stage 2.
  IRR66016I Unexpected RACF manager return code deleting entry G0 in class
 UNIXMAAP. Return code 80. Reason code 0.


 80 (128) This is a data sharing mode return code. A coupling facility
 function had a problem when dealing with the ICB

 Can anybody help.







 

 --
 For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email
 to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

 --
 For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
 send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN


--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: RACF AIM Stage 3 Issue

1) My RACFDB was not locked.
2) Yes, my RACF DB is in SYSPLEX Env. . But how can I check that its in
READ only mode.


On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 8:27 PM, Dennis Trojak dennis.tro...@radioshack.com
 wrote:

 You are looking at the wrong return code I think. Decimal 80, Hex 50.
 50 (80) An attempt was made to update one of the following (by a request
 other than ALTERI):
 The RACF database that has been locked by a RACF utility
 The RACF database from a system that is in read-only mode (in a RACF
 sysplex data sharing environment)

 -Original Message-
 From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
 Behalf Of venkat kulkarni
 Sent: Friday, February 14, 2014 8:19 AM
 To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
 Subject: Re: RACF AIM Stage 3 Issue

 Yes, I checked it before. It just talked about UNIXMAP class should be
 active and profile should be defined under that. But the return code Return
 code 80. Reason code 0.


 80 (128) This is a data sharing mode return code. A coupling facility
 function had a problem when dealing with the ICB

 talks about CF with ICB issue, and I have no idea on this to solve this
 issue.




 On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 7:42 PM, Dennis Trojak 
 dennis.tro...@radioshack.com
  wrote:

  Well if you check the manual you'll see that you need to be at STAGE 3
  to setup BPX.UNIQUE.USER.
  RACF Security Administrator's Guide 17.4.2.1
 
  -Original Message-
  From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU]
  On Behalf Of venkat kulkarni
  Sent: Friday, February 14, 2014 6:55 AM
  To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
  Subject: RACF AIM Stage 3 Issue
 
  Hello,
   I am trying to setup BPX.UNIQUE.USER.
 
 
  While upgrading RACF template, I am getting below issues.
 
  //RACFAIM JOB (657),'VENKAT',CLASS=A,MSGCLASS=X,NOTIFY=SYSUID
  //STEP EXEC PGM=IRRIRA00,PARM=STAGE(3) //SYSPRINT DD SYSOUT=*
 
 
 
   IRR66017I The system is currently operating in stage 2.
   IRR66016I Unexpected RACF manager return code deleting entry G0 in class
  UNIXMAAP. Return code 80. Reason code 0.
 
 
  80 (128) This is a data sharing mode return code. A coupling facility
  function had a problem when dealing with the ICB
 
  Can anybody help.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
  --
  For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send
 email
  to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
 
  --
  For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
  send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
 

 --
 For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
 send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

 --
 For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
 send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN


--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: RACF AIM Stage 3 Issue

Are you sure you're in Sysplex, Data Sharing Mode? On our system it says 
this;


ICH15013I RACF DATABASE STATUS:
ACTIVE USE  NUM VOLUME   DATASET
-- ---  --- --   ---
 YES   PRIM   1 XRACF1   SYS1.RACF.PRIM.DBASE
 YES   BACK   1 XRACF2   SYS1.RACF.BACK.DBASE
MEMBER  IS SYSPLEX COMMUNICATIONS ENABLED  IN DATA SHARING MODE.
ICH15020I RVARY COMMAND HAS FINISHED PROCESSING.

Mark Jacobs

On 02/14/14 10:26, venkat kulkarni wrote:

1) My RACFDB was not locked.
2) Yes, my RACF DB is in SYSPLEX Env. . But how can I check that its in
READ only mode.


On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 8:27 PM, Dennis Trojak dennis.tro...@radioshack.com

wrote:
You are looking at the wrong return code I think. Decimal 80, Hex 50.
50 (80) An attempt was made to update one of the following (by a request
other than ALTERI):
The RACF database that has been locked by a RACF utility
The RACF database from a system that is in read-only mode (in a RACF
sysplex data sharing environment)

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
Behalf Of venkat kulkarni
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2014 8:19 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: RACF AIM Stage 3 Issue

Yes, I checked it before. It just talked about UNIXMAP class should be
active and profile should be defined under that. But the return code Return
code 80. Reason code 0.


80 (128) This is a data sharing mode return code. A coupling facility
function had a problem when dealing with the ICB

talks about CF with ICB issue, and I have no idea on this to solve this
issue.




On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 7:42 PM, Dennis Trojak 
dennis.tro...@radioshack.com

wrote:
Well if you check the manual you'll see that you need to be at STAGE 3
to setup BPX.UNIQUE.USER.
RACF Security Administrator's Guide 17.4.2.1

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU]
On Behalf Of venkat kulkarni
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2014 6:55 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: RACF AIM Stage 3 Issue

Hello,
  I am trying to setup BPX.UNIQUE.USER.


While upgrading RACF template, I am getting below issues.

//RACFAIM JOB (657),'VENKAT',CLASS=A,MSGCLASS=X,NOTIFY=SYSUID
//STEP EXEC PGM=IRRIRA00,PARM=STAGE(3) //SYSPRINT DD SYSOUT=*



  IRR66017I The system is currently operating in stage 2.
  IRR66016I Unexpected RACF manager return code deleting entry G0 in class
UNIXMAAP. Return code 80. Reason code 0.


80 (128) This is a data sharing mode return code. A coupling facility
function had a problem when dealing with the ICB

Can anybody help.











--
Mark Jacobs
Time Customer Service
Tampa, FL


The quiet ones are the ones that change the universe...
The loud ones only take the credit.

Londo Mollari - Babylon 5

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: RACF AIM Stage 3 Issue

RACF DATABASE STATUS:
ACTIVE USE  NUM VOLUME   DATASET
-- ---  --- --   ---
 YES   PRIM   1 RCF051   SYS1.V2R1.RACFP
 YES   BACK   1 RCF052   SYS1.V2R1.RACFB
RVARY COMMAND HAS FINISHED PROCESSING.
***




On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 8:16 PM, Elardus Engelbrecht 
elardus.engelbre...@sita.co.za wrote:

 venkat kulkarni wrote:

 80 (128) This is a data sharing mode return code. A coupling facility
 function had a problem when dealing with the ICB

 talks about CF with ICB issue, and I have no idea on this to solve this
 issue.

 Show us the result of RVARY. Is it in DATASHARE or not?


 Groete / Greetings
 Elardus Engelbrecht

 --
 For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
 send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN


--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: SMF record 62 and SMF62MC1 byte meaning.

On Fri, 14 Feb 2014 09:43:28 -0500, John Gilmore jwgli...@gmail.com wrote:

Bill,

I value your contributions here.  They are always appropriately
informed, as was your last post in this thread.

That said, it seems clear to me beyond argument that the appropriate
way to record an open-for-update macro instruction is to set BOTH the
in and the out bits, which is not being done.  Now that I understand
that this byte is intended to reflect just in-effect open options, I
conclude that its implementation was indeed botched.

In this OCO era I cannot look at the source code to be certain, but it
seems very likely that these bit settings can also be fixed readily
(without raising the spectre of compatibility breaches).


Are you saying that the IN bit should be set for updates, and not for writing 
new records, as a way of distinguishing between the two? 

I presume you are not saying the IN bit should be required to be set in the ACB 
prior to OPEN, if updates are to be done, as that would introduce a 
compatibility problem.

Are you saying that even if the IN bit is not set in the ACB, it should be set 
in the SMF record? If so, the SMF record ceases to reflect the actual state of 
the ACB. The issue becomes what is the purpose of SMF record 62?

At OPEN time, when record 62 is written, it is not possible for OPEN to 
determine whether records will be updated or inserted or both. There is no 
OUTPUT or UPDAT option on the OPEN macro for VSAM ACBs. All that is known 
is that if the OUT bit is set, updates and insertions are allowed.

Bill

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: RACF AIM Stage 3 Issue

venkat kulkarni wrote:

1) My RACFDB was not locked.

Really? How did you see it?

2) Yes, my RACF DB is in SYSPLEX Env. . But how can I check that its in READ 
only mode.

How are you sure it is in SYSPLEX Env? Your reply on my question shows it is 
not in a CF environment. Check your SYSLOG. Or IPL to see some interesting 
messages. You will quickly see some worrying messages about READ only mode. 
Depending on what you see, you will have to decide what route you will follow. 
It is not an easy route to follow, of course.

Or go to RACF-L. There are good gurus hanging out there.

I would have an IBM guy/gal hanging around just to be safe in such a scenario.

Groete / Greetings
Elardus Engelbrecht

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: SMF record 62 and SMF62MC1 byte meaning.

Bill Godfrey wrote:

Are you saying that the IN bit should be set for updates, and not for writing 
new records, as a way of distinguishing between the two? 

[... snipped ...] 

I think the documentation about those SMF records are somewhat not clear. I 
really wish someone from IBM Storage would comment on this thread about SMF 62 
and 64.

Groete / Greetings
Elardus Engelbrecht

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

DFSMSrmm Command Log for audit

2014-02-14 Thread Minoru Massaki

Is there any way to take log for auditing RMM CHANGEVOLUME and DELETEVOLUME?

I think that RMM journal may be used but format of RMM journal is not
disclosed.

Your help would be highly appreciated.


-- 

全先 実  -  Minoru Massaki  (M*M)
E-mail: mmass...@gmail.com

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

CPU Model Change -- Required activities

Are there any activities that operations has to perform when a CPU model 
change is dynamically made by IBM for it to take effect? We're going 
from a 406 to a 603 on our z196 processor soon, and we're not sure if 
zOS will disable three of the six CPU's automatically, or if we have to 
do something ourselves.


--
Mark Jacobs
Time Customer Service
Tampa, FL


The quiet ones are the ones that change the universe...
The loud ones only take the credit.

Londo Mollari - Babylon 5

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: SMF record 62 and SMF62MC1 byte meaning.

Bill,

The 'compatibility problem' you mention is not obvious to me.
Currently--I have tested all of the permutations---either the IN bit
is set or the OUT bit is set.  Both are never set.

My view is, yes, that both the IN bit and the OUT bit should be set in
the ACB at open time when the file is opened for update and, of
course, only in this case.   Currently, usage for update is
indistinguishable from [admittedly already impure] usage for output.

I now suspect that if this were done the SMF flag-bytes problem would
be fixed too as a byproduct.

John Gilmore, Ashland, MA 01721 - USA

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: CPU Model Change -- Required activities

Mark Jacobs wrote:

Are there any activities that operations has to perform when a CPU model 
change is dynamically made by IBM for it to take effect? We're going from a 
406 to a 603 on our z196 processor soon, and we're not sure if zOS will 
disable three of the six CPU's automatically, or if we have to do something 
ourselves.

Same z196 machine or new machine? It depends.

Groete / Greetings
Elardus Engelbrecht

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: CPU Model Change -- Required activities


On 02/14/14 14:52, Elardus Engelbrecht wrote:

Mark Jacobs wrote:


Are there any activities that operations has to perform when a CPU model change 
is dynamically made by IBM for it to take effect? We're going from a 406 to a 
603 on our z196 processor soon, and we're not sure if zOS will disable three of 
the six CPU's automatically, or if we have to do something ourselves.

Same z196 machine or new machine? It depends.

Groete / Greetings
Elardus Engelbrecht

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN




Same machine and the zOS lpar on that processor will remain active 
during the model change. We also have an ICF and a zVM lpar there, but 
we're not expecting any disruption to those environments.


--
Mark Jacobs
Time Customer Service
Tampa, FL


The quiet ones are the ones that change the universe...
The loud ones only take the credit.

Londo Mollari - Babylon 5

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: CPU Model Change -- Required activities

2014-02-14 Thread Ed Finnell

What did the vendor say in the PASR?
 
 
In a message dated 2/14/2014 1:52:19 P.M. Central Standard Time,  
elardus.engelbre...@sita.co.za writes:

Same  z196 machine or new machine? It  depends

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: CPU Model Change -- Required activities

2014-02-14 Thread Skip Robinson

We do periodic CBU activation for DR testing. At the end of a test, we 
turn off CBU and the extra CPs go away. By that time however we've shut 
down the DR systems that used them, and no extras have been configured 
online to the SDM/XRC systems. In other words, not quite the same 
situation.

I'm guessing that some LPARs on the 406 have more than three CPs online. 
It would be prudent ahead of time to configure offline any CPs beyond the 
count you will end up with. 

.
.
J.O.Skip Robinson
Southern California Edison Company
Electric Dragon Team Paddler 
SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager
626-302-7535 Office
323-715-0595 Mobile
jo.skip.robin...@sce.com



From:   Elardus Engelbrecht elardus.engelbre...@sita.co.za
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU, 
Date:   02/14/2014 11:52 AM
Subject:Re: CPU Model Change -- Required activities
Sent by:IBM Mainframe Discussion List IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU



Mark Jacobs wrote:

Are there any activities that operations has to perform when a CPU model 
change is dynamically made by IBM for it to take effect? We're going from 
a 406 to a 603 on our z196 processor soon, and we're not sure if zOS will 
disable three of the six CPU's automatically, or if we have to do 
something ourselves.

Same z196 machine or new machine? It depends.

Groete / Greetings
Elardus Engelbrecht


--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: CPU Model Change -- Required activities

You're right, the zOS lpar currently has all six CPs assigned to it. 
I'll pass the information to the right parties asap.


Thanks.

Mark Jacobs

On 02/14/14 15:05, Skip Robinson wrote:

We do periodic CBU activation for DR testing. At the end of a test, we
turn off CBU and the extra CPs go away. By that time however we've shut
down the DR systems that used them, and no extras have been configured
online to the SDM/XRC systems. In other words, not quite the same
situation.

I'm guessing that some LPARs on the 406 have more than three CPs online.
It would be prudent ahead of time to configure offline any CPs beyond the
count you will end up with.

.
.
J.O.Skip Robinson
Southern California Edison Company
Electric Dragon Team Paddler
SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager
626-302-7535 Office
323-715-0595 Mobile
jo.skip.robin...@sce.com



From:   Elardus Engelbrecht elardus.engelbre...@sita.co.za
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU,
Date:   02/14/2014 11:52 AM
Subject:Re: CPU Model Change -- Required activities
Sent by:IBM Mainframe Discussion List IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU



Mark Jacobs wrote:


Are there any activities that operations has to perform when a CPU model

change is dynamically made by IBM for it to take effect? We're going from
a 406 to a 603 on our z196 processor soon, and we're not sure if zOS will
disable three of the six CPU's automatically, or if we have to do
something ourselves.

Same z196 machine or new machine? It depends.

Groete / Greetings
Elardus Engelbrecht


--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN





--
Mark Jacobs
Time Customer Service
Tampa, FL


The quiet ones are the ones that change the universe...
The loud ones only take the credit.

Londo Mollari - Babylon 5

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: CPU Model Change -- Required activities


On 02/14/14 15:02, Ed Finnell wrote:

What did the vendor say in the PASR?
  
  
In a message dated 2/14/2014 1:52:19 P.M. Central Standard Time,

elardus.engelbre...@sita.co.za writes:

Same  z196 machine or new machine? It  depends

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN




They're looking into it too. No answers yet from them, but in the 
meantime I'm asking my peers.


--
Mark Jacobs
Time Customer Service
Tampa, FL


The quiet ones are the ones that change the universe...
The loud ones only take the credit.

Londo Mollari - Babylon 5

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: CPU Model Change -- Required activities

2014-02-14 Thread Skip Robinson

At the time you perform the conversion, expect to see this message from 
WLM:

   IWM063I WLM POLICY WAS REFRESHED DUE TO A PROCESSOR SPEED CHANGE

This message can indicate a true hardware problem, but we also see it 
routinely as part of CBU activate/deactivate. Just don't freak out. 

.
.
J.O.Skip Robinson
Southern California Edison Company
Electric Dragon Team Paddler 
SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager
626-302-7535 Office
323-715-0595 Mobile
jo.skip.robin...@sce.com



From:   Mark Jacobs mark.jac...@custserv.com
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU, 
Date:   02/14/2014 12:09 PM
Subject:Re: CPU Model Change -- Required activities
Sent by:IBM Mainframe Discussion List IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU



You're right, the zOS lpar currently has all six CPs assigned to it. 
I'll pass the information to the right parties asap.

Thanks.

Mark Jacobs

On 02/14/14 15:05, Skip Robinson wrote:
 We do periodic CBU activation for DR testing. At the end of a test, we
 turn off CBU and the extra CPs go away. By that time however we've shut
 down the DR systems that used them, and no extras have been configured
 online to the SDM/XRC systems. In other words, not quite the same
 situation.

 I'm guessing that some LPARs on the 406 have more than three CPs online.
 It would be prudent ahead of time to configure offline any CPs beyond 
the
 count you will end up with.

 .
 .
 J.O.Skip Robinson
 Southern California Edison Company
 Electric Dragon Team Paddler
 SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager
 626-302-7535 Office
 323-715-0595 Mobile
 jo.skip.robin...@sce.com



 From:   Elardus Engelbrecht elardus.engelbre...@sita.co.za
 To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU,
 Date:   02/14/2014 11:52 AM
 Subject:Re: CPU Model Change -- Required activities
 Sent by:IBM Mainframe Discussion List IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU



 Mark Jacobs wrote:

 Are there any activities that operations has to perform when a CPU 
model
 change is dynamically made by IBM for it to take effect? We're going 
from
 a 406 to a 603 on our z196 processor soon, and we're not sure if zOS 
will
 disable three of the six CPU's automatically, or if we have to do
 something ourselves.

 Same z196 machine or new machine? It depends.

 Groete / Greetings
 Elardus Engelbrecht


--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: SMF record 62 and SMF62MC1 byte meaning.

On Fri, 14 Feb 2014 14:33:03 -0500, John Gilmore jwgli...@gmail.com wrote:

Bill,

The 'compatibility problem' you mention is not obvious to me.
Currently--I have tested all of the permutations---either the IN bit
is set or the OUT bit is set.  Both are never set.

My view is, yes, that both the IN bit and the OUT bit should be set in
the ACB at open time when the file is opened for update and, of
course, only in this case.   Currently, usage for update is
indistinguishable from [admittedly already impure] usage for output.

I now suspect that if this were done the SMF flag-bytes problem would
be fixed too as a byproduct.

John,

When you say should be set in the ACB at open time I'm not sure if you mean 
it should be set by OPEN or that it should be set prior to OPEN, using the 
MACRF operand of ACB. I think you mean the former.

If the former, there is nothing for OPEN to check to see if the program will be 
updating records. You say when the file is opened for update but there is no 
open for update with ACBs.

If the latter (both IN and OUT bits must be set prior to OPEN if updates are to 
be allowed) then compatibility would be a problem because of all the existing 
code that does updates with the IN bit off.

Bill

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: WER027A control field beyond record

2014-02-14 Thread Robert A. Rosenberg

At 13:28 + on 02/14/2014, Chase, John wrote about Re: WER027A 
control field beyond record:



  -Original Message-

 From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Micheal Butz

 Seems like one of my sort fields maybe beyond a short record 
Anything I can do about this


DFSORT has an OPTION VLSHRT to handle that situation.  I'm confident 
that Syncsort has something similar if not identical.


-jc-



I agree. If you are going to allow short fields, you need a way to 
note that this will occur OR you need to throw an error (not silently 
ignore the situation) when encountered. If you want to make accepting 
short records a default action (by doing something like I describe in 
my next paragraph) AT LEAST issue a warning level alter (even if you 
do not issue a non-zero return code). Otherwise abort the sort and/or 
throw a non-zero return code.


For purposes of doing the actual sorting, all that is needed is for 
the sort to add a constant field to the sort fields it associates 
with each record when the record is shorter than the end of the last 
listed sort field in the SORT command. This would not affect the 
record being output and since the added content is a constant the 
sort order will be the same as if the record was long enough to 
contain this field.


--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: WER027A control field beyond record

2014-02-14 Thread Ed Gould


Robert:

My memory has faded a lot but IIRC there are regularly SMF records  
that are short all the time.
Without digging into the books too much I would print a few out and  
find which type is the short ones and exclude those before the sort.
It seems to me that most SMF recs(except for the short ones) are at  
least 100 bytes long.

That is why I would exclude them (minor issue for sort) to exclude them.
I wish I could remember off the top of my head which SMF records tend  
to be short but the memory is failing with age (that is why we have  
manuals).


Ed


On Feb 14, 2014, at 3:56 PM, Robert A. Rosenberg wrote:

At 13:28 + on 02/14/2014, Chase, John wrote about Re: WER027A  
control field beyond record:



  -Original Message-

 From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Micheal Butz

 Seems like one of my sort fields maybe beyond a short record  
Anything I can do about this


DFSORT has an OPTION VLSHRT to handle that situation.  I'm  
confident that Syncsort has something similar if not identical.


-jc-



I agree. If you are going to allow short fields, you need a way to  
note that this will occur OR you need to throw an error (not  
silently ignore the situation) when encountered. If you want to  
make accepting short records a default action (by doing something  
like I describe in my next paragraph) AT LEAST issue a warning  
level alter (even if you do not issue a non-zero return code).  
Otherwise abort the sort and/or throw a non-zero return code.


For purposes of doing the actual sorting, all that is needed is for  
the sort to add a constant field to the sort fields it associates  
with each record when the record is shorter than the end of the  
last listed sort field in the SORT command. This would not affect  
the record being output and since the added content is a constant  
the sort order will be the same as if the record was long enough to  
contain this field.


--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN


--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Is there a C macro for is z/OS

2014-02-14 Thread Charles Mills

Is there a standard IBM z/OS XLC macro for is compiling on z/OS? I looked
for __ZOS and __MVS and so forth but did not find anything.

I have code that runs Windows or z/OS and I have just been using #ifdef
WIN32 to differentiate the two cases, but now I need code that will run
Windows, z/OS or Linux so a Boolean check is no longer adequate.

I don't need tremendous granularity - this release versus that release or
USS command versus batch - just is z/OS rather than Windows or Linux. And
obviously I could kludge something, but I thought most systems had a
standard this is who I am macro.

Thanks,

Charles 

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: WER027A control field beyond record

2014-02-14 Thread Blaicher, Christopher Y.

There is the VLTEST parameter that can be specified as a PARM= option or as a 
$ORTPARM parameter.  There are eight possible tests that it can perform, but 
for the OPS case there is only one answer.
He should specify VLTEST=0, which says, for purposes of comparison, any short 
key fields will be padded with binary zeroes and the method of comparison will 
be CLC.  Note, the zeroes are removed before the record is written to SORTOUT 
or passed to an E35.
The default value is VLTEST=1, which is what he must have to have the problem 
he is having.

Chris Blaicher
Principal Software Engineer, Software Development
Syncsort Incorporated
50 Tice Boulevard, Woodcliff Lake, NJ 07677
P: 201-930-8260  |  M: 512-627-3803
E: cblaic...@syncsort.com






ATTENTION: -

The information contained in this message (including any files transmitted with 
this message) may contain proprietary, trade secret or other confidential 
and/or legally privileged information. Any pricing information contained in 
this message or in any files transmitted with this message is always 
confidential and cannot be shared with any third parties without prior written 
approval from Syncsort. This message is intended to be read only by the 
individual or entity to whom it is addressed or by their designee. If the 
reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are on notice that 
any use, disclosure, copying or distribution of this message, in any form, is 
strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please 
immediately notify the sender and/or Syncsort and destroy all copies of this 
message in your possession, custody or control.

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Is there a C macro for is z/OS

2014-02-14 Thread Sam Siegel

Macros as you suggest (slightly different names) should be fully documented
in the c/c++ users guide or language reference.


On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Charles Mills charl...@mcn.org wrote:

 Is there a standard IBM z/OS XLC macro for is compiling on z/OS? I looked
 for __ZOS and __MVS and so forth but did not find anything.

 I have code that runs Windows or z/OS and I have just been using #ifdef
 WIN32 to differentiate the two cases, but now I need code that will run
 Windows, z/OS or Linux so a Boolean check is no longer adequate.

 I don't need tremendous granularity - this release versus that release or
 USS command versus batch - just is z/OS rather than Windows or Linux. And
 obviously I could kludge something, but I thought most systems had a
 standard this is who I am macro.

 Thanks,

 Charles

 --
 For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
 send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN


--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Is there a C macro for is z/OS

2014-02-14 Thread Paul Gilmartin

On Fri, 14 Feb 2014 15:14:44 -0800, Charles Mills wrote:

Is there a standard IBM z/OS XLC macro for is compiling on z/OS? I looked
for __ZOS and __MVS and so forth but did not find anything.

I have code that runs Windows or z/OS and I have just been using #ifdef
WIN32 to differentiate the two cases, but now I need code that will run
Windows, z/OS or Linux so a Boolean check is no longer adequate.
 
All you need to do is to leave out Windows and a binary choice will
work OK for you again.  You'll be the better for it.

I don't need tremendous granularity - this release versus that release or
USS command versus batch - just is z/OS rather than Windows or Linux. And
obviously I could kludge something, but I thought most systems had a
standard this is who I am macro.

See:


http://pic.dhe.ibm.com/infocenter/zos/v2r1/topic/com.ibm.zos.v2r1.cbclx01/xlmacros.htm

Macros indicating the z/OS XL C/C++ compiler product
z/OS XL C/C++ Language Reference
SC14-7308-00 

-- gil

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Is there a C macro for is z/OS

2014-02-14 Thread Charles Mills

Thanks for your incredibly helpful answer. Stupid me -- I looked at
Appendix A. XL C/C++ Macros in the library reference.

Charles

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
Behalf Of Sam Siegel
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2014 3:57 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Is there a C macro for is z/OS

Macros as you suggest (slightly different names) should be fully documented
in the c/c++ users guide or language reference.

On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Charles Mills charl...@mcn.org wrote:

 Is there a standard IBM z/OS XLC macro for is compiling on z/OS? I 
 looked for __ZOS and __MVS and so forth but did not find anything.

 I have code that runs Windows or z/OS and I have just been using 
 #ifdef
 WIN32 to differentiate the two cases, but now I need code that will 
 run Windows, z/OS or Linux so a Boolean check is no longer adequate.

 I don't need tremendous granularity - this release versus that release 
 or USS command versus batch - just is z/OS rather than Windows or 
 Linux. And obviously I could kludge something, but I thought most 
 systems had a standard this is who I am macro.

 Thanks,

 Charles

 --
 For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send 
 email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email
to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Is there a C macro for is z/OS

2014-02-14 Thread Charles Mills

Thanks.

Charles

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf 
Of Paul Gilmartin
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2014 4:05 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Is there a C macro for is z/OS

On Fri, 14 Feb 2014 15:14:44 -0800, Charles Mills wrote:

Is there a standard IBM z/OS XLC macro for is compiling on z/OS? I 
looked for __ZOS and __MVS and so forth but did not find anything.

I have code that runs Windows or z/OS and I have just been using #ifdef
WIN32 to differentiate the two cases, but now I need code that will run 
Windows, z/OS or Linux so a Boolean check is no longer adequate.

All you need to do is to leave out Windows and a binary choice will work OK for 
you again.  You'll be the better for it.

I don't need tremendous granularity - this release versus that release 
or USS command versus batch - just is z/OS rather than Windows or 
Linux. And obviously I could kludge something, but I thought most 
systems had a standard this is who I am macro.

See:

http://pic.dhe.ibm.com/infocenter/zos/v2r1/topic/com.ibm.zos.v2r1.cbclx01/xlmacros.htm

Macros indicating the z/OS XL C/C++ compiler product
z/OS XL C/C++ Language Reference
SC14-7308-00 

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Is there a C macro for is z/OS

2014-02-14 Thread David Crayford

__MVS__

On 15/02/2014, at 7:14 AM, Charles Mills charl...@mcn.org wrote:

 Is there a standard IBM z/OS XLC macro for is compiling on z/OS? I looked
 for __ZOS and __MVS and so forth but did not find anything.
 
 I have code that runs Windows or z/OS and I have just been using #ifdef
 WIN32 to differentiate the two cases, but now I need code that will run
 Windows, z/OS or Linux so a Boolean check is no longer adequate.
 
 I don't need tremendous granularity - this release versus that release or
 USS command versus batch - just is z/OS rather than Windows or Linux. And
 obviously I could kludge something, but I thought most systems had a
 standard this is who I am macro.
 
 Thanks,
 
 Charles 
 
 --
 For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
 send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: WER027A control field beyond record

2014-02-14 Thread Robert A. Rosenberg

I do not have access to the SMF Record formats at hand but I have the 
impression that if you are doing a mass sort of SMF records (as 
opposed to sorting a subset of the records), you are going to run 
into problems. All SMF records share a common prefix (type, 
timestamp, and maybe some other fields) but once you get past that 
prefix the records have different formats. Thus any attempt to sort 
past the prefix can cause problems unless you have filtered your 
input to only contain records of similar formats. The first and last 
record in a SMF dump are start of dump and end of dump records which 
I have the impression are short since all they contain is the prefix. 
Normally in handling SMF records you run the full dump file and 
select only the records types you want so you tend to have similar 
formats in the post-selection file.





At 16:09 -0600 on 02/14/2014, Ed Gould wrote about Re: WER027A 
control field beyond record:



Robert:

My memory has faded a lot but IIRC there are regularly SMF records 
that are short all the time.
Without digging into the books too much I would print a few out and 
find which type is the short ones and exclude those before the sort.
It seems to me that most SMF recs(except for the short ones) are at 
least 100 bytes long.

That is why I would exclude them (minor issue for sort) to exclude them.
I wish I could remember off the top of my head which SMF records 
tend to be short but the memory is failing with age (that is why we 
have manuals).


Ed


On Feb 14, 2014, at 3:56 PM, Robert A. Rosenberg wrote:

At 13:28 + on 02/14/2014, Chase, John wrote about Re: WER027A 
control field beyond record:



  -Original Message-

 From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Micheal Butz

 Seems like one of my sort fields maybe beyond a short record 
Anything I can do about this


DFSORT has an OPTION VLSHRT to handle that situation.  I'm 
confident that Syncsort has something similar if not identical.


-jc-



I agree. If you are going to allow short fields, you need a way to 
note that this will occur OR you need to throw an error (not 
silently ignore the situation) when encountered. If you want to 
make accepting short records a default action (by doing something 
like I describe in my next paragraph) AT LEAST issue a warning 
level alter (even if you do not issue a non-zero return code). 
Otherwise abort the sort and/or throw a non-zero return code.


For purposes of doing the actual sorting, all that is needed is for 
the sort to add a constant field to the sort fields it associates 
with each record when the record is shorter than the end of the 
last listed sort field in the SORT command. This would not affect 
the record being output and since the added content is a constant 
the sort order will be the same as if the record was long enough to 
contain this field.


--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN


--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN


--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Yes, UNLOADED IRRUT400 worked for me and now RACF is at AIM stage 3. As
I mentioned earlier, we have we have z/OS 1.13 and z/OS 2.1 system in
sysplex. So, As per document upto z/OS 1.13, we can use BPX.DEFAULT.USER
and then on z/OS 2.1, we will have to use BPX.UNIQUE.USER .

But when I followed below link to setup BPX.UNIQUE.USER .

http://pic.dhe.ibm.com/infocenter/zos/v1r12/index.jsp?topic=%2Fcom.ibm.zos.r12.icha700%2Fautosvc.htm

still I am getting omvs segment issue while working with any user, who is
trying to get into omvs segment.

1) See your system programmer to ensure that your RACF database is
enabled for AIM stage 3
2) Define the SHARED.IDS profile, if not already defined, in the UNIXPRIV
class and activate and RACLIST the UNIXPRIV class
3) Define the BPX.NEXT.USER profile in the FACILITY class, if not already
defined. For instructions,
4) Define a user profile to use as a model profile from which RACF can
extract OMVS segment information

ADDUSER BPXMODEL NAME('OMVS model user profile')
OMVS(NOUID HOME('/tmp'))
NOPASSWORD RESTRICTED

5) Define the BPX.UNIQUE.USER profile in the FACILITY class and specify the
name of the model profile in the APPLDATA field.

RDEFINE FACILITY BPX.UNIQUE.USER APPLDATA('BPXMODEL')

6) If the FACILITY class is RACLISTed, activate your new FACILITY profiles by
refreshing the FACILITY class.

SETROPTS RACLIST(FACILITY) REFRESH

Please suggest.

On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 10:48 PM, Russell D Hardgrove hardg...@us.ibm.com
wrote:

Has to have been UT400.
UT200 never locks it.
DBU00 can LOCK it but it UNLOCKS it at EOJ.
UT400 needs an explicit UNLOCK.

.
--
Russ Hardgrove / RACF Lvl2
IBM - z/OS Software Service
Dept. EC8A (working remotely)
Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
hardg...@us.ibm.com 845-435-3279 (a voicemail box only)
--
RACF: Guilty, until proven innocent !!RdH 2004
RACF, praesumitur malus donec probetur bonusRdH MMX
Continually proving this (innocence) is not just a JOB, it's an
-ADVENTURE- :-b ..
...

From: Lennie J Dymoke-Bradshaw lennie_brads...@uk.ibm.com
To: rac...@listserv.uga.edu,
Date: 02/14/2014 12:14 PM
Subject:Re: RACF AIM Stage 3 Issue
Sent by:RACF Discussion List rac...@listserv.uga.edu

Is it possible you have run IRRUT400 or IRRUT200 against the database and
left it in locked status?

You can unlock it again using the UNLOCKINPUT parameter on IRRUT400.

http://pic.dhe.ibm.com/infocenter/zos/v1r13/index.jsp?topic=%2Fcom.ibm.zos.r13.icha200%2Fichza2c0118.htm

See Example 7.

Lennie Dymoke-Bradshaw MBCS CITP
Accredited Senior I/T Specialist, System z, Security and Cryptography, IBM
Software Group
Mail:Lennie J Dymoke-Bradshaw/UK/IBM@IBMGB or
lennie_brads...@uk.ibm.com
There are two types of people in the world; those who have been hacked,
and those who will be hacked.

From: venkat kulkarni venkatkulkarn...@gmail.com
To: rac...@listserv.uga.edu,
Date: 14/02/2014 17:00
Subject:RACF AIM Stage 3 Issue
Sent by:RACF Discussion List rac...@listserv.uga.edu

Hello,
I am trying to setup BPX.UNIQUE.USER.

While upgrading RACF template, I am getting below issues.

//RACFAIM JOB (657),'VENKAT',CLASS=A,MSGCLASS=X,NOTIFY=SYSUID
//STEP EXEC PGM=IRRIRA00,PARM=STAGE(3)
//SYSPRINT DD SYSOUT=*

IRR66017I The system is currently operating in stage 2.
IRR66016I Unexpected RACF manager return code deleting entry G0 in class
UNIXMAAP. Return code 80. Reason code 0.

50 (80) An attempt was made to update one of the following (by a request
other than ALTERI):
The RACF database that has been locked by a RACF utility
The RACF database from a system that is in read-only mode (in a RACF
sysplex data sharing environment)

In My RACF TABLE

In my RACF table, we using

ICHRDSNT CSECT
DCAL1(1)
DCCL44'SYS1.V2R1.RACFP'
DCCL44'SYS1.V2R1.RACFB'
DCAL1(255)
DCX'80'
END

Can anybody help.

Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: SMF record 62 and SMF62MC1 byte meaning.

Does this existing code do updates only after checking to ensure
that the In bit is not set (off)?

I doubt that.  Compatibility arguments are certainly not dismissible;
some, even many, of them are substantive; but they are too often
advanced as a convenient, not at all substantive rationale for doing
nothing.

However that may be, I have now devoted more time to this issue than
it perhaps deserves.  Enough!

John Gilmore, Ashland, MA 01721 - USA

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: SMF record 62 and SMF62MC1 byte meaning.