Re: zFS SMF problems
Do you have MXG? Or have you joined Dr. Merrill's List? www.mxg.com That would be a good place to report an issue with SMF Data Or see if Cheryl Watson has seen this issue. Lizette -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Colin Paice Sent: Monday, May 31, 2021 8:56 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: zFS SMF problems I've been looking into the SMF records produced by zFS and have found a couple of problems. Who can I report them to? I cannot raise a PMR as I only have a zPDT license. Example problems 1. The SMF 92-59 records say there are 14 sections - but there is data for only 13 sections. The field is SMF92DON-1 2. In the SMF 92-11 it reports data on the individual files used. It reports the file as used, for example ./write.c I expected it to say /u/adcd/write.c. The data as is, is pretty useless, as I do not know which write.c was used. Other records have /usr/lib/nls/msg/C/fsumrcat.cat as expected (because that is what the program used) Colin -- 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: zFS SMF problems
Charles, I'm very familiar with SMF records ... I have a program which formats many of them (including SMF 92's) the 14th section has a partly blank name, and other value are all hex 00's I am planning on blogging about ZFS, concepts and how to look at the performance data; and documenting it warts and all, it would have been nice to pass it by IBM first for comment and to be able to say "fixes are coming". Colin On Mon, 31 May 2021 at 17:42, Charles Mills wrote: > Good luck! > > I share your pain on PMRs. The same is true for Dallas "Innovation Center" > customers. > > On your specific issues I would *guess* > > 1. Is it perhaps a misunderstanding on your part? Do they perhaps mean > "there are 14 possible sections; look at each relevant triplet to see if > section X is part of a given record"? Many SMF records -- SMF 30 comes to > mind -- have lots of potential sections and most records as cut do not have > them all. > > 2. I suspect Working as Designed. It is what the program opened, not the > true full path name. I suspect you are looking at a request for > enhancement, not a PMR. I hear you -- "./somefile" is pretty useless for > auditing or troubleshooting purposes -- but perhaps it is what it is. > > Charles > > > -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On > Behalf Of Colin Paice > Sent: Monday, May 31, 2021 8:56 AM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: zFS SMF problems > > I've been looking into the SMF records produced by zFS and have found a > couple of problems. Who can I report them to? I cannot raise a PMR as I > only have a zPDT license. > Example problems > >1. The SMF 92-59 records say there are 14 sections - but there is data >for only 13 sections. The field is SMF92DON-1 >2. In the SMF 92-11 it reports data on the individual files used. It >reports the file as used, for example ./write.c I expected it to say >/u/adcd/write.c. The data as is, is pretty useless, as I do not know > which >write.c was used. Other records have /usr/lib/nls/msg/C/fsumrcat.cat as >expected (because that is what the program used) > > Colin > > -- > 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: Best catch up resources for MVS / ZOS Technologies (CA Migration tips?)
Everyone, I want to thank all for the ideas / suggestions / references on catching up on ZOS - I am now finding out the mainframe environment is very heavy CA/Broadcom vendor product centric (Top Secret, CA7, CA1, OpsMVS, MIM, etc) and am pretty green in that world (I predominantly worked in heavy IBM shops) and strategic plan is to migrate to IBM equivalents in near future. Any ideas, tips, suggestions to help jumpstart such planning and due diligence efforts? Is there an equivalent in the CA world to IBM Redbooks or anything like it? Any Share (or equivalent) presentations out there on experiences in such migrations? Thanks all for your input/suggestions. Very much appreciated. Steve Estle sest...@gmail.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: zFS SMF problems
Good luck! I share your pain on PMRs. The same is true for Dallas "Innovation Center" customers. On your specific issues I would *guess* 1. Is it perhaps a misunderstanding on your part? Do they perhaps mean "there are 14 possible sections; look at each relevant triplet to see if section X is part of a given record"? Many SMF records -- SMF 30 comes to mind -- have lots of potential sections and most records as cut do not have them all. 2. I suspect Working as Designed. It is what the program opened, not the true full path name. I suspect you are looking at a request for enhancement, not a PMR. I hear you -- "./somefile" is pretty useless for auditing or troubleshooting purposes -- but perhaps it is what it is. Charles -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Colin Paice Sent: Monday, May 31, 2021 8:56 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: zFS SMF problems I've been looking into the SMF records produced by zFS and have found a couple of problems. Who can I report them to? I cannot raise a PMR as I only have a zPDT license. Example problems 1. The SMF 92-59 records say there are 14 sections - but there is data for only 13 sections. The field is SMF92DON-1 2. In the SMF 92-11 it reports data on the individual files used. It reports the file as used, for example ./write.c I expected it to say /u/adcd/write.c. The data as is, is pretty useless, as I do not know which write.c was used. Other records have /usr/lib/nls/msg/C/fsumrcat.cat as expected (because that is what the program used) Colin -- 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
zFS SMF problems
I've been looking into the SMF records produced by zFS and have found a couple of problems. Who can I report them to? I cannot raise a PMR as I only have a zPDT license. Example problems 1. The SMF 92-59 records say there are 14 sections - but there is data for only 13 sections. The field is SMF92DON-1 2. In the SMF 92-11 it reports data on the individual files used. It reports the file as used, for example ./write.c I expected it to say /u/adcd/write.c. The data as is, is pretty useless, as I do not know which write.c was used. Other records have /usr/lib/nls/msg/C/fsumrcat.cat as expected (because that is what the program used) Colin -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: SMF 30 record
Never mind. I printed the SMF 30 expansion and somehow the line with SMF30TF2 flag byte got deleted. PF. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: SMF 30 record
Thanks to all. The equates from SMF30_TIME_ON_ZIIP_F to SMF30_DEPENC_TIME_SUP_ON_CP_F are failure flags. What flag byte are they associated with ? It can't be SMF30TF2 not SMF30T33 as they have their own bit definitions. Regards, Pierre. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Meta languages [was: RE: Assembler Language Programming for IBM System z Servers]
On Fri, 30 Apr 2021 07:17:29 +0800, David Crayford wrote: >On 30/04/2021 4:30 am, Charles Mills wrote: >> Hmmm. I shared David's impression but >> http://publibfp.dhe.ibm.com/epubs/pdf/i1357010.pdf lists LE as a "Target >> System Mandatory Operational Requisite." > >The xlclang++ compiler is IBMs fork of LLVM which uses the clang front >end to produce intermediate code for the TOBY back-end. That is part of >the XL C/C++ compiler and relies on LE. > >This is different. If you read the link again IBM clearly state they are >porting the open source LLVM/Clang with the libc++ runtime. This is not >LE. You can see that IBM are already commiting changes >to LLVM. This is open source stuff >https://reviews.llvm.org/rGcb2d2ae56ae3f0554c40c2d7f231ca5058e4d50c > > >> Charles >> >> >> -Original Message- >> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On >> Behalf Of Linda Chui >> Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2021 12:11 PM >> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU >> Subject: Re: Meta languages [was: RE: Assembler Language Programming for IBM >> System z Servers] >> >> On Thu, 8 Apr 2021 18:27:06 +0800, David Crayford >> wrote: >> >>> On 6/04/2021 9:53 pm, Charles Mills wrote: > You don't use templates I certainly do use templates. Not sure how you get "don't use templates" from what I wrote. Heck, I *over* used templates in the first large C++ project I ever did, and boy, does that make a mess! Now I think I am down to a happy medium. I don't see them as "competitive" (in a design sense) with macros. >>> Overusing as in template meta-programming? >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_metaprogramming >>> >>> The XL C++ compiler is withering on the vine. The word is that IBM don't >>> the resources to keep it up to date with the current standards so the >>> xlclang++ port of clang using the existing Toby back-end is the way to >>> go. If you use PDS data sets for your source your SOL as it's z/OS UNIX >>> only and only produces 64-bit modules. >>> >>> But what I find exciting is that IBM have stated their intentions to >>> fully port LLVM/clang/libc[++] to z/OS without a reliance on LE so >>> supervisor state programming in C++ will be a reality without the >>> nightmare of LE ESPIE/ESTAE condition handlers. >>> >>> https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2020-June/142174.html >>> >>> Charles -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of David Crayford Sent: Tuesday, April 6, 2021 5:15 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Meta languages [was: RE: Assembler Language Programming for IBM System z Servers] On 6/04/2021 1:23 am, Charles Mills wrote: >> But IMHO none easy to learn or use. > I am generally not a fan of meta languages at all. I think writing > programs is hard enough, without having to write two effective programs: > one that runs at compile time and one that runs at run time. > > In my C++, which is now my primary language, I eschew the use of C macros > as much as reasonably possible. Reasonableness is a key here. For a few > things, macros make sense. That's interesting. You don't use templates which are one the most powerful features of C++? >> >> Well, I didn't see a reference to LE in our statement of direction at >> https://community.ibm.com/community/user/ibmz-and-linuxone/blogs/robert-barrington1/2020/08/04/ibm-cc-and-fortran-compilers-to-adopt-llvm >> >> I believe the compiler will require LE for the foreseeable future, though if >> you want to request an LE free mode, I’m sure you can put in a request for >> it at the RFE site https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/rfe/ >> >> Hope this helps. >> >> -- >> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, >> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN (apologies for late response . I missed seeing the follow on posts :-( Again, from our dev team: libc++ under the covers still uses the C runtime, which is still LE. As an aside, we are shipping libc++ under LE as well so even if there was no C dependency, there would still be an LE dependency. Hope this helps. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: SMF 30 record
"SUP" was the during-development term for "zIIP" (as "IFA" was the during-development term for "zAAP"). The SUP vs zIIP fields have not been "redefined". They have just had more-suitably-named alternatives provided. Use either name. No SMF 30 records are currently written with bit SMF30_zCBP on. Maybe that will change in the future; maybe it won't. Peter Relson z/OS Core Technology Design -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: SMF 30 record
Right. Go with IIP and IFA. SUP will do fine for IIP. Ignore ZCBP. The fields haven't changed. (I haven't seen a zAAP in a long time, though.) Cheers, Martin Martin Packer WW z/OS Performance, Capacity and Architecture, IBM Technology Sales +44-7802-245-584 email: martin_pac...@uk.ibm.com Twitter / Facebook IDs: MartinPacker Blog: https://mainframeperformancetopics.com Mainframe, Performance, Topics Podcast Series (With Marna Walle): https://anchor.fm/marna-walle Youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCu_65HaYgksbF6Q8SQ4oOvA From: Attila Fogarasi To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Date: 31/05/2021 05:18 Subject:[EXTERNAL] Re: SMF 30 record Sent by:IBM Mainframe Discussion List What distinction do you expect from TIME_ON_ZIIP and TIME_ON_SUP? My understanding is that SUP is historical name kept for compatibility and identical to ZIIP in the past decade or more. It seems that way from my personal experience but I haven't tried to research it. Note the TIMEUSED macro exposes SUP as a name, fwiw (and returns ZIIP cpu time), so the term is part of a published interface (making it harder to change). On Mon, May 31, 2021 at 7:18 AM Pierre Fichaud wrote: > In the accounting section (DSECT SMF30CAS), fields are redefined. > SMF30_TIME_ON_ZCBP is redefined as SMF30_TIME_ON_IFA. > You determine which label to use by testing the bit SMF30_zCBP that is > defined in the product section. > > There is a series of other fields in the accounting section that are > redefined also. > SMF30_TIME_ON_ZIIP is redefined as SMF30_TIME-ON_SUP. > What piece of information can I use to choose between the 2 fields? > I've looked in the type 30 record description but can't find anything. > > Thanks in advance, Pierre. > > -- > 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 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
