Re: IBM BLSR subsystem
BLSR was initially developed by Washinton System Center as an assembler language sample program to go along with a book they were writing about using the Subsystem Interface. At the time, IBM was desperately looking for "ESA Exclusives" in order to sell 3090 machines vs the PCM manufacturers, who machines had not yet implemented ESA. This sample program happened to use one BAKR/PR, which meant that it did require ESA. So MVS management wanted to instead ship the program an OCO part of the MVS BCP, and I was commanded to review the code to see what that would entail. I raised several objections concerning the maintainability of the code, the lack of serviceability (no ESTAEs, no dumping, no control block eyecatchers, we didn't want new assembler code), no message IDs, lack of messages and message control, an integrity exposure, etc, etc. Also, VSAM functionality was not really in the BCP's bailiwick, and we would end up having to support this code for decades. So I recommended that we should not do this. But, since selling machines trumps everything, I lost that argument, and was instead assigned to remediate all of my objections to the sample code. I recoded the whole thing in PL/AS and fixed all of the issues, and wrote lots of testcases, and it got shipped as a PTF on top of MVS/ESA SP3.1.3. MVS Project Management did contribute the "Batch LSR" name. Decades later, we continue to support it and probably always will, but at least the right solution eventually got implemented by SMB in DFSMS. And now you know... the rest of the story. James Harvey Mulder z/OS Diagnosis, Design, Development, Test IBM Corp. Poughkeepsie NY From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of Dave Barry <00a5644c6d08-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2022 5:43 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: IBM BLSR subsystem >IIRC, Batch LSR was developed at IBM by the BCP team; SMB was later developed >by the DFdfp team. SMB is not BLSR under-the-covers, but it offers the same >advantages. >SMB is the more modern solution. It has worked wonders at my shop. Just mind >your REGION size. If you haven't converted some VSAM files to Extended >Format, this is a good reason to do so. >The VSAM Demystified Redbook is a good resource. Lots on the Web, e.g. >https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/zos/2.5.0?topic=resource-tuning-system-managed-buffering -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Mark your calendars for July 10, 2022 - CustomPac intended removal date
I understand, but in this case the z13s is a supported processor for z/OS 2.5, but is almost completely incapable of running z/OSMF. It can run z/OSMF, but the response time is unacceptable. We finally got IBM to compare z/OSMF on a z13s without any zIIP and they came back to say that the one they ran all of their testing on was a 4CP 400MIP box (with a zIIP), and they did agree to at least state that in the redbook they put out. However, that didn't change the ability to execute acceptably on a z13s at 80 mip. Brian On Wed, 18 May 2022 05:53:46 +, Timothy Sipples wrote: >Andrew Rowley wrote: >>It would benefit customers, software vendors and IBM if IBM could get >>these small systems onto more reasonably sized hardware. We get a >>certain pleasure from extracting everything possible from a small >>system, but in reality it's not productive work. > >That�s been happening, actually. Take a look at the minimum configurable CP >(general purpose processor) �PCIs� per IBM�s LSPR data: > >z10BC: 25 >z114: 26 >zBC12: 50 >z13s: 80 >z14 ZR1: 88 >z15 T02: 98* > >As I recall the Multiprise 2000 went down as low as ~3.5 PCIs. So over roughly >25 years it�s been about 3.5 to 98 PCIs as the minimum available CP >configuration, or about a 28X increase. Insert the usual caveats that �PCI� >comparisons are perilous, particularly over this broad range of machines. > >IBM doesn�t mandate configuring a zIIP in part because z/VSE and VSEn cannot >use a zIIP. But IBM generally recommends configuring at least one zIIP if you >run z/OS. zIIPs are (or were) available for all of these models and also for >the z9BC. > >* As Marna mentioned the IBM z15 models have System Recovery Boost. The IBM >z15 T02 capacity model A01 would actually run equivalently to a Z01 capacity >model during System Recovery Boost (60 minutes), or with even greater capacity >if equipped with a zIIP. An IBM z15 T02 capacity model Z01 has a PCI rating of >1,761. > >� � � � � >Timothy Sipples >Senior Architect >Digital Assets, Industry Solutions, and Cyber Security >IBM zSystems and LinuxONE >sipp...@sg.ibm.com > > >-- >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: [EXTERNAL] Re: IBM BLSR subsystem
IIRC, Batch LSR was developed at IBM by the BCP team; SMB was later developed by the DFdfp team. SMB is not BLSR under-the-covers, but it offers the same advantages. SMB is the more modern solution. It has worked wonders at my shop. Just mind your REGION size. If you haven't converted some VSAM files to Extended Format, this is a good reason to do so. The VSAM Demystified Redbook is a good resource. Lots on the Web, e.g. https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/zos/2.5.0?topic=resource-tuning-system-managed-buffering -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of kekronbekron Sent: Monday, May 16, 2022 11:07 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: IBM BLSR subsystem CAUTION! This email originated outside of the organization. Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin. == Oh I wonder why Infinidat isn't brought up here. If only they also developed an alternative to CFCC with their neural cache tech, IBM Z would be boosted to hell and back. - KB --- Original Message --- On Tuesday, May 17th, 2022 at 5:39 AM, Michael Watkins <032966e74d0f-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Mark your calendars for July 10, 2022 - CustomPac intended removal date
Purchase of an Intel XEON system to run a Linux system with zPDT could be used purely to run Z/OSMF. Would that be good enough? I think that might be cheaper than real Z upgrades, but I have not done any arithmetic on software costs. z/OS volume images could then be transferred using FTP when needed. Lennie Dymoke-Bradshaw https://rsclweb.com ‘Dance like no one is watching. Encrypt like everyone is.’ -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Andrew Rowley Sent: 18 May 2022 01:35 To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Mark your calendars for July 10, 2022 - CustomPac intended removal date On 17/05/2022 2:27 pm, Brian Westerman wrote: > What will be done for the smaller systems z13s level that only have 15MSU > (80MIP) in the entire box? I have a certain sympathy with the z/OSMF developers. 80 MIPS was a small system even back in the late 1990s wasn't it? Hardware limitations due to software pricing is strangling the low end mainframe market in particular. It would benefit customers, software vendors and IBM if IBM could get these small systems onto more reasonably sized hardware. We get a certain pleasure from extracting everything possible from a small system, but in reality it's not productive work. I would love to see IBM say the smallest system they will sell is e.g. equivalent computing power to a low-mid Intel system, maybe minimum 4 CPU and 200 MSU - and no sub capacity measurement below that size. (On my Dallas RDP system z/OSMF starts in about 40s. That system runs single threaded Java work at a similar speed to my desktop PC. Roughly converting, I think that makes my 6 core desktop PC equivalent to 600-700 MSU.) Vendors would be forced to rework their pricing for small systems. If the jump is big enough and forced by IBM you can't just tell customers to suck it up and fork out the big bucks or you lose the customer. It would cause pain for vendor pricing teams, but would benefit their developers and the mainframe market in the long run. It would be more practical to run new work on the mainframe (including z/OSMF), reduce the pressure to move work off small systems, and eliminate many performance problems. zIIPs, System Recovery Boost etc are really just workarounds for the fact that the smallest Z systems are too small. So much effort expended to limit system capacity to last century levels... -- Andrew Rowley Black Hill Software -- 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: [EXTERNAL] Re: Mark your calendars for July 10, 2022 - CustomPac intended removal date
Yes IBM allows for soft capping but that doesn't take care of the problem in 2 ways. First the soft cap only reduces a portion of the software license fees. Second, you still have the larger hardware costs of buying the bigger machine just to kneecap it. Rex -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Mike Schwab Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2022 2:57 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Mark your calendars for July 10, 2022 - CustomPac intended removal date Doesn't IBM also allow software capping to a lower capacity than the slowest uniprocessor through the operating system? On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 5:54 AM Timothy Sipples wrote: > > Andrew Rowley wrote: > >It would benefit customers, software vendors and IBM if IBM could get > >these small systems onto more reasonably sized hardware. We get a > >certain pleasure from extracting everything possible from a small > >system, but in reality it's not productive work. > > That’s been happening, actually. Take a look at the minimum configurable CP > (general purpose processor) “PCIs” per IBM’s LSPR data: > > z10BC: 25 > z114: 26 > zBC12: 50 > z13s: 80 > z14 ZR1: 88 > z15 T02: 98* > > As I recall the Multiprise 2000 went down as low as ~3.5 PCIs. So over > roughly 25 years it’s been about 3.5 to 98 PCIs as the minimum available CP > configuration, or about a 28X increase. Insert the usual caveats that “PCI” > comparisons are perilous, particularly over this broad range of machines. > > IBM doesn’t mandate configuring a zIIP in part because z/VSE and VSEn cannot > use a zIIP. But IBM generally recommends configuring at least one zIIP if you > run z/OS. zIIPs are (or were) available for all of these models and also for > the z9BC. > > * As Marna mentioned the IBM z15 models have System Recovery Boost. The IBM > z15 T02 capacity model A01 would actually run equivalently to a Z01 capacity > model during System Recovery Boost (60 minutes), or with even greater > capacity if equipped with a zIIP. An IBM z15 T02 capacity model Z01 has a PCI > rating of 1,761. > > — — — — — > Timothy Sipples > Senior Architect > Digital Assets, Industry Solutions, and Cyber Security IBM zSystems > and LinuxONE sipp...@sg.ibm.com > > > -- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send > email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN -- 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...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN -- The information contained in this message is confidential, protected from disclosure and may be legally privileged. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, distribution, copying, or any action taken or action omitted in reliance on it, is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to this message and destroy the material in its entirety, whether in electronic or hard copy format. Thank you. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Mark your calendars for July 10, 2022 - CustomPac intended removal date
On 18/05/2022 3:53 pm, Timothy Sipples wrote: So over roughly 25 years it’s been about 3.5 to 98 PCIs as the minimum available CP configuration, or about a 28X increase. I did say "a small" system in the 1990s, not the smallest available. But your 28X illustrates the point. Over the same period, other platforms have increased what, 1000X? More? Another 20X on top of your 28X for the minimum system would put it around 600X and maybe 300MSU which would be much more usable. Everything has multiple CPUs now which solves many performance problems, so I don't think you want less than 4. And if z/OSMF started 20X faster (90s instead of 30 minutes) on small systems, you would have a lot less complaints about it. IBM generally recommends configuring at least one zIIP if you run z/OS. zIIPs are (or were) available for all of these models and also for the z9BC. zIIPs are a great marketing point for my product which is written in Java (as long as the customer has them), but they are just a workaround for the restricted capacity of the GCPs. Andrew Rowley Black Hill Software -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: How to keep the response from HSENDCMD batch
Hello Mike, Thank you for your comment. But QUERY command doesn't support ODS parameter and HSENDCMD itself has no option. I have found the solution provided in HSM.SAMPLE.TOOL(QUERYSET) which uses extended console support. Best regards, Nobuhiko Furuya(古谷信彦) V-SOL Inc. e-mail:furu...@v-sol.co.jp On 2022/05/18 17:01, Mike Schwab wrote: HSEND Q CDS ODS(my.output.file) On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 6:08 AM Nobuhiko Furuya wrote: Hello all, Could you give me your advice ? We are converting CA-Disk to DFSMShsm. In this situation, we are to use HSENDCMD in TSO batch as follows. //STEP1EXEC PGM=IKJEFT01 //SYSPRINT DD SYSOUT=* //SYSTSPRT DD SYSOUT=* //SYSTSIN DD * HSENDCMD WAIT SETSYS SSMSTART(0005 0100) HSENDCMD WAIT QUERY SETSYS /* But the response from SETSYS or QUERY commands from HSENDCMD returned to just the TSO terminal where we submitted the job. So we can't keep the response from the above job as sysout or so. Can anyone give me your advice to keep the response ? Best regards, Nobuhiko Furuya(古谷信彦) V-SOL Inc. e-mail:furu...@v-sol.co.jp -- 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: How to keep the response from HSENDCMD batch
HSEND Q CDS ODS(my.output.file) On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 6:08 AM Nobuhiko Furuya wrote: > > Hello all, > > Could you give me your advice ? > > We are converting CA-Disk to DFSMShsm. > In this situation, we are to use HSENDCMD in TSO batch as follows. > > //STEP1EXEC PGM=IKJEFT01 > //SYSPRINT DD SYSOUT=* > //SYSTSPRT DD SYSOUT=* > //SYSTSIN DD * > HSENDCMD WAIT SETSYS SSMSTART(0005 0100) > HSENDCMD WAIT QUERY SETSYS > /* > > But the response from SETSYS or QUERY commands from HSENDCMD returned to > just the TSO terminal where we submitted the job. > So we can't keep the response from the above job as sysout or so. > Can anyone give me your advice to keep the response ? > > Best regards, > > Nobuhiko Furuya(古谷信彦) > V-SOL Inc. > e-mail:furu...@v-sol.co.jp > > -- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN -- 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...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Mark your calendars for July 10, 2022 - CustomPac intended removal date
Doesn't IBM also allow software capping to a lower capacity than the slowest uniprocessor through the operating system? On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 5:54 AM Timothy Sipples wrote: > > Andrew Rowley wrote: > >It would benefit customers, software vendors and IBM if IBM could get > >these small systems onto more reasonably sized hardware. We get a > >certain pleasure from extracting everything possible from a small > >system, but in reality it's not productive work. > > That’s been happening, actually. Take a look at the minimum configurable CP > (general purpose processor) “PCIs” per IBM’s LSPR data: > > z10BC: 25 > z114: 26 > zBC12: 50 > z13s: 80 > z14 ZR1: 88 > z15 T02: 98* > > As I recall the Multiprise 2000 went down as low as ~3.5 PCIs. So over > roughly 25 years it’s been about 3.5 to 98 PCIs as the minimum available CP > configuration, or about a 28X increase. Insert the usual caveats that “PCI” > comparisons are perilous, particularly over this broad range of machines. > > IBM doesn’t mandate configuring a zIIP in part because z/VSE and VSEn cannot > use a zIIP. But IBM generally recommends configuring at least one zIIP if you > run z/OS. zIIPs are (or were) available for all of these models and also for > the z9BC. > > * As Marna mentioned the IBM z15 models have System Recovery Boost. The IBM > z15 T02 capacity model A01 would actually run equivalently to a Z01 capacity > model during System Recovery Boost (60 minutes), or with even greater > capacity if equipped with a zIIP. An IBM z15 T02 capacity model Z01 has a PCI > rating of 1,761. > > — — — — — > Timothy Sipples > Senior Architect > Digital Assets, Industry Solutions, and Cyber Security > IBM zSystems and LinuxONE > sipp...@sg.ibm.com > > > -- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN -- 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...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
