Re: Omegamon use?

[Norman Hollander on Desertwiz]

TEMS and TEPS run better on zLinux and Windows platforms.  Plus no major MIPS
consumed that way.  TEPS does have a lot of additional metrics on it.  There was
intent to move a lot of into the e3270UI over time.  But really don't think 
that will
happen given the state of IBM lately.
zN

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf 
Of Lizette Koehler
Sent: Monday, May 1, 2017 11:01 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Omegamon use?

If you are not adverse to looking at other tools, what functions do you really 
need?  Real time or after the fact?  

Some functions will require a lot of resources, some - not so much.  For 
example, if they have to schedule something to run in the address space to 
collect data.

Once you have the list you can look at other options.

Pare down Omegamon

BMC Mainview

CA SYSVIEW

IBM TIVOLI Performance monitors(Not sure of the name)



And I am sure others


Lizette

> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] 
> On Behalf Of Lester, Bob
> Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 10:23 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Omegamon use?
> 
> Hi Folks,
> 
>  Looking for opinions on this.
> 
>  We've been running Omegamon (MVS + CICS) forever.  We're a small 
> shop.  2 lpars, not shared - monoplexes.
> 
>  As I upgrade these products, it seems that the GUI stuff (TEMS?) 
> - which we've been avoiding - is more and more prevalent.
> 
>  What are folks in my position doing?  I'm tempted to configure 
> all of it, but notice that the DSST task is a resource pig, even when 
> it's just out of the box.
> 
>  Is it worth the resource usage?  Does it provide additional 
> functionality?  (Yes, I have RTFM and I still pose the question).  Do 
> I even have a choice?
> 
>  What are y'all doing?
> 
> Thanks!
> BobL
> 

--
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: P370-L [was: p370 & p390]

[Norman Hollander on Desertwiz]

Do you have the IBM Redbook for P370/P390?

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf 
Of Neil Duffee
Sent: Friday, December 16, 2016 1:47 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: P370-L [was: p370 & p390]

I have the following snippet from the listserv that you could use...

To: L-Soft list server at Princeton University (1.8e) 

Subject: Re: SUBSCRIBE p370-l  

SUBSCRIBE p370-l  

-Original Message-
From: W Mainframe [mailto:mainfra...@yahoo.com]
Sent: December 14, 2016 12:47
Subject: p370 & p390

Guys,I am looking for people who is running a P390 or P370 for IBM parts and 
features.Thank youDAN


--
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: zOSMF and CMF?

[Norman Hollander on Desertwiz]

IIRC, about 95% of the record data is the same.  Has anyone tried chatting
with CMF Support at BMC?
zN

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
Behalf Of Barry Merrill
Sent: Wednesday, December 7, 2016 7:43 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: zOSMF and CMF?

The only difference in the CMF and RMF SMF records is the value in the
PRODUCT name in CMF is either CMF-CPM or CMF-IPF.

But I don't know if those records are accepted by zOSMF.

Barry


Merrilly yours,

 Herbert W. Barry Merrill, PhD
 President-Programmer
 Merrill Consultants
 MXG Software
 10717 Cromwell Drive  technical questions: supp...@mxg.com
 Dallas, TX 75229
 http://www.mxg.comadmin questions: ad...@mxg.com
 tel: 214 351 1966
 fax: 214 350 3694



-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
Behalf Of Dyck, Lionel B. (TRA)
Sent: Tuesday, December 6, 2016 10:31 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: zOSMF and CMF?

Does anyone know if CMF can interface with the zOSMF Performance modules in
place of RMF?

I've not found anything in the CMF pubs (so far)

--
Lionel B. Dyck
Mainframe Systems Programmer - TRA
Enterprise Operations (Station 200) (005OP6.3.10) Information and
Technology, IT Operations and Services


--
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: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer

[Norman Hollander on Desertwiz]

You should request it from them.  If there is a change to the channel 
subsystem, and afterwards yours jobs start running
slowly, you may want to see if it is I/O related, for example...

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf 
Of Farley, Peter x23353
Sent: Friday, October 14, 2016 11:29 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer

Thanks Norman, but as I am not a sysprog I am not involved in those types of 
changes.  I/we depend on our facilities management team to handle those issues.

Peter

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf 
Of Norman Hollander on Desertwiz
Sent: Friday, October 14, 2016 1:45 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer

You should request the Hardware Buckets for microcode updates.  Sometimes, 
there could be a necessary OS PTF to support/exploit new microcode.  Is there a 
chance that microcode code cause a production problem?
You know the answer...  Can the update be backed out?  Not always... 

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf 
Of Farley, Peter x23353
Sent: Friday, October 14, 2016 10:00 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer

I don’t know how other installations perform processor model upgrades, but our 
facilities manager moves in one new processor (CEC) at a time on a weekend 
during an extended maintenance window and activates only the development/QA 
LPAR's on it for at least a week (sometimes more) of "active use" of the new 
model before migrating production LPAR's to the new model.  Remaining CEC's are 
migrated in similar fashion over a period of months.

A "live" regression test, if you will, with only Development/QA LPAR's affected 
by any issues.  I suppose a similar procedure could work for ABO translations, 
but I suspect that hardware change is "different" from the company's 
perspective, not under full company control if you will.  Individual programs 
*are* under full company control and thus subject to the regression test rules.

I don’t know how we handle microcode updates, so I can't comment accurately on 
that, but I suspect it is done one CEC at a time with backout procedures in 
place in case of issues.

Peter

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf 
Of Paul Gilmartin
Sent: Friday, October 14, 2016 12:31 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer

On Fri, 14 Oct 2016 11:29:46 -0400, Farley, Peter x23353 wrote:

>Timothy,
>
>You missed two crucial issues:
>
>1. Auditors don't believe in "verification" and management requires audits to 
>pass.  IT does not control auditors (quite the reverse in fact).  And we lowly 
>programmers have no input to auditors at all.
>2. There is no existing independent verification tool for a company to use on 
>ABO's output.  And if someone creates one, it has to be from a company OTHER 
>than IBM so that IBM's ABO results are independently verifiable.
>
>"Smart" testing is of course a valid and desirable goal, but lacking an 
>existing *independent* verification tool there is no option but full 
>regression testing.  Manual verification is not reasonable or cost effective, 
>especially for very large programs and program suites.
>
>And again, I am not trashing ABO, which on its face is an amazing tool BUT it 
>changes object code.  Lacking independent automated verification, in any sane 
>definition of a program life cycle system that is a change that requires full 
>regression testing.
>
Do the above apply likewise to moving to a different processor model, or even 
to a microcode upgrade?

-- 


This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the addressee 
and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. If the reader 
of the message is not the intended recipient or an authorized representative of 
the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination of this 
communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication 
in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and delete the message and any 
attachments from your system.


--
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: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer

[Norman Hollander on Desertwiz]

You should request the Hardware Buckets for microcode updates.  Sometimes, 
there could be a necessary
OS PTF to support/exploit new microcode.  Is there a chance that microcode code 
cause a production problem?
You know the answer...  Can the update be backed out?  Not always... 

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf 
Of Farley, Peter x23353
Sent: Friday, October 14, 2016 10:00 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer

I don’t know how other installations perform processor model upgrades, but our 
facilities manager moves in one new processor (CEC) at a time on a weekend 
during an extended maintenance window and activates only the development/QA 
LPAR's on it for at least a week (sometimes more) of "active use" of the new 
model before migrating production LPAR's to the new model.  Remaining CEC's are 
migrated in similar fashion over a period of months.

A "live" regression test, if you will, with only Development/QA LPAR's affected 
by any issues.  I suppose a similar procedure could work for ABO translations, 
but I suspect that hardware change is "different" from the company's 
perspective, not under full company control if you will.  Individual programs 
*are* under full company control and thus subject to the regression test rules.

I don’t know how we handle microcode updates, so I can't comment accurately on 
that, but I suspect it is done one CEC at a time with backout procedures in 
place in case of issues.

Peter

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf 
Of Paul Gilmartin
Sent: Friday, October 14, 2016 12:31 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer

On Fri, 14 Oct 2016 11:29:46 -0400, Farley, Peter x23353 wrote:

>Timothy,
>
>You missed two crucial issues:
>
>1. Auditors don't believe in "verification" and management requires audits to 
>pass.  IT does not control auditors (quite the reverse in fact).  And we lowly 
>programmers have no input to auditors at all.
>2. There is no existing independent verification tool for a company to use on 
>ABO's output.  And if someone creates one, it has to be from a company OTHER 
>than IBM so that IBM's ABO results are independently verifiable.
>
>"Smart" testing is of course a valid and desirable goal, but lacking an 
>existing *independent* verification tool there is no option but full 
>regression testing.  Manual verification is not reasonable or cost effective, 
>especially for very large programs and program suites.
>
>And again, I am not trashing ABO, which on its face is an amazing tool BUT it 
>changes object code.  Lacking independent automated verification, in any sane 
>definition of a program life cycle system that is a change that requires full 
>regression testing.
>
Do the above apply likewise to moving to a different processor model, or even 
to a microcode upgrade?

-- 


This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the addressee 
and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. If the reader 
of the message is not the intended recipient or an authorized representative of 
the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination of this 
communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication 
in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and delete the message and any 
attachments from your system.


--
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: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer

[Norman Hollander on Desertwiz]

Back in my banking days, we Sysprogs worked with OPs and APPs to create several 
Jobstreams to
create a group of critical/typical transactions to exercise various 
applications (such as Loan Origination,
ATM, Retail, and Financial, along with File Transfer, Statement Printing, 
etc.).  These were used for any
major changes, like Processor changes, Microcode, DASD changes, Channel 
changes, Printer mods (we had
3900 Duplex printers), OS changes, Middleware changes, and Application changes. 
 These were used as a vehicle
to exercise major components, and were a good indicator that a change appeared 
successful.  If you've ever been
through an Operational Audit, you know that the "process" must be in place for 
changes, and you must routinely
exercise them.  While all changes might not be subjected to this process, a 
robust Change Management process
will determine the need, and will satisfy most auditors.  Satisfying auditors 
is not really a SysProg daily job, but it
is something often required.  If your shop does not need such time consumers, 
consider yourself lucky.  AFAIK, many
industries still require these today.  

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf 
Of Paul Gilmartin
Sent: Friday, October 14, 2016 9:31 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer

On Fri, 14 Oct 2016 11:29:46 -0400, Farley, Peter x23353 wrote:

>Timothy,
>
>You missed two crucial issues:
>
>1. Auditors don't believe in "verification" and management requires audits to 
>pass.  IT does not control auditors (quite the reverse in fact).  And we lowly 
>programmers have no input to auditors at all.
>2. There is no existing independent verification tool for a company to use on 
>ABO's output.  And if someone creates one, it has to be from a company OTHER 
>than IBM so that IBM's ABO results are independently verifiable.
>
>"Smart" testing is of course a valid and desirable goal, but lacking an 
>existing *independent* verification tool there is no option but full 
>regression testing.  Manual verification is not reasonable or cost effective, 
>especially for very large programs and program suites.
>
>And again, I am not trashing ABO, which on its face is an amazing tool BUT it 
>changes object code.  Lacking independent automated verification, in any sane 
>definition of a program life cycle system that is a change that requires full 
>regression testing.
>
Do the above apply likewise to moving to a different processor model, or even 
to a microcode upgrade?

-- gil

--
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: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer

[Norman Hollander on Desertwiz]

Coming from the banking and Utilities background, it was required that any 
changes made in a
production environment be tested prior to implementation, and include backout 
capabilities.
While I believe that ABO can very much help old COBOL modules (and even those 
sites that don't
have corresponding source code), it is a change.  Your industry may have 
different compliance
requirements.  From a performance analyst perspective, I'd have much interest 
in the before and
after effect of implanting ABO.  Seems like a good session for SHARE for anyone 
who can collect the
statistics...

zN

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf 
Of Jesse 1 Robinson
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2016 9:13 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer

The idea of making any kind of last-minute change just before production makes 
my skin crawl. Even when we (rarely) install an emergency PTF, we insist on 
running the code at least on the sandbox and preferably on the development 
system before hitting production. I would call it irresponsible to move any 
object-code instance to production without at least some testing, including 
compiled COBOL. 

If I were in charge, OPT would be specified from the get-go. Likewise I would 
expect ABO code to be tested at least cursorily before jumping into prime time.

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

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf 
Of Charles Mills
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2016 8:39 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: (External):Re: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer

Call me conservative after many years in this business but I say Yes. In my 
experience optimization sometimes exposes bugs that previously were masked. I 
have little experience with COBOL, but COBOL is notorious for allowing invalid 
constructs like array subscript over-cleverness.

Charles

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf 
Of Tom Marchant
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2016 7:00 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer

On Thu, 13 Oct 2016 05:44:51 -0500, Bill Woodger wrote:

>Recompiling a program with no changes. Do you "regression test"? No.

...

So, if someone compiles their COBOL program without optimization and tests it, 
then compiles it with optimization before putting it into production, does it 
need to be tested again?


--
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: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer

[Norman Hollander on Desertwiz]

2 Thoughts to consider:

- ABO only runs on z/OS 2.1 and above
- ABO creates a new load module that (IMHO) needs as much Q/A testing as
compiling in the newest compiler.
IIRC, back in the day, going to Enterprise COBOL, there was less
than 8% of COBOL source that needed
to be remediated.  That is, certain COBOL verbs needed to be updated
to new ones.  Things like INSPECT
may have been flagged.  

A good Life Cycle Management tool (did I say Endevor?) could help with an
easy migration to a new compiler.
You could try a minor application and see how difficult in may be...

zN

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
Behalf Of Charles Mills
Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2016 8:48 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer

Nope. Agree 100% with what @Tom says. The ABO is not a source code migration
tool, it is a compiler. Really -- a very weird compiler. Most compilers take
source code in and produce object code out. The ABO is a compiler that takes
object code in and produces object code out. What good is that? It takes
System 370 object code in and produces z13 object code out.

Why is that useful? Because the speed gains in the last several generations
of mainframe are not in clock/cycle speed. System 370 object code does not
run any faster on a z13 than on a z10. The gains are in new instructions.
The same functionality as that S/370 object code expressed in z13 object
code runs a lot faster.

(Please, no quibbles. Many shortcuts and generalizations in the above. If I
had been perfectly precise it would have read like a legal document. The
general points are correct.)

Charles

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
Behalf Of Lopez, Sharon
Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2016 7:51 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer

Does anyone know if this product, Automatic Binary Optimizer, will actually
migrate Cobol V4 to V6 for you?  Our IBM reps are telling us that it will
actually do the migration for you.  Based on what I've read, it is a
performance product and I didn't see that capability.

--
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: SDSF security with TSS ?

[Norman Hollander on Desertwiz]

Why not ask support at CA?  They've done this so many times...

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf 
Of Lizette Koehler
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2016 11:22 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: SDSF security with TSS ?

Haver you reviewed the SDSF Operations Manual?  There is a security section in 
there.  Just translate for TSS if needed.

http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=pub1sa22767015

Lizette


> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] 
> On Behalf Of Steve Mann
> Sent: Monday, September 12, 2016 10:22 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: SDSF security with TSS ?
> 
> We're looking at a new implementation of SDSF.  Has anyone setup SDSF 
> security using CA-Top Secret (TSS)?  Any tips, recommendation, 
> pitfalls, etc. that can be shared would be appreciated.
> 
> Thanks.
> 

--
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: WLM Question

[Norman Hollander on Desertwiz]

>From the ISPF app (IWA0), under the file tab, there are options to extract 
>to a dataset,
print, or create a GML (Script) file.

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf 
Of Scott Chapman
Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2016 4:32 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: WLM Question

To extract the policy in an automated fashion, I believe you'll have to write 
some code--I don't believe there's a provided utility to do so.

You could use the IWMDEXTR macro to extract the current service definition from 
the WLM couple dataset. See: 
http://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/en/SSLTBW_2.2.0/com.ibm.zos.v2r2.ieaw200/ieaw200108.htm
There is also an IWMDINST:
http://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/en/SSLTBW_2.2.0/com.ibm.zos.v2r2.ieaw200/dinst.htm

In principle, it seems that z/OSMF should have a REST API for extracting and 
installing the policy, but I can't find it documented.

It may be also possible to automate driving the ISPF application. 

Note that I haven't personally tried any of these. 

Scott Chapman

--
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: SHARE Atlanta proceedings

[Norman Hollander on Desertwiz]

Too bad they didn't ask for our preference.  I like being able to download
individual sessions, rather than then 
entire thing.  Don't know if an ISO image is that much smaller than all of
the individual files.

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
Behalf Of Mark Post
Sent: Sunday, August 14, 2016 10:50 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: SHARE Atlanta proceedings

>>> On 8/14/2016 at 06:17 AM, Art Gutowski  wrote: 
> I went to San Antonio in March, and not a word about a DVD or an ISO 
> image or anything.  Remember the Alamo?  Guess not.

I made a query to SHARE Operations, and they said that the San Antonio
proceedings would also be an ISO image, but still needed a few touches to be
complete.


Mark Post

--
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: Any Gotchas going from V1.13 to V2.2

[Norman Hollander on Desertwiz]

zIIPs were available on z9 servers.

>From IBM announcements:
The IBM z Systems Integrated Information Processor (zIIP) is available on the 
IBM z13 processor, IBM zEnterprise (zEnterprise™), System z10, and System z9 
servers. It is designed to help free-up general computing capacity and lower 
overall total cost of computing for select data and transaction processing 
workloads for business intelligence (BI), ERP and CRM, and select network 
encryption workloads on the mainframe.

There are other conversations one could have about migrations.  In our history, 
going from version to version 
of the OS has had hurdles.  Think about MVS/XA to MVS/ESA to OS/390.  But I 
would say those hurdles are
minimal to non-existent today.  Going from a release to a release to z/OS could 
be compared to a maintenance
upgrade.  1.13 to 2.2 is not earth shattering.  Now the discussion of 
exploiting the new features in new releases
may have some effort needed to implement. See Marna Walle's SHARE sessions on 
Migration.  They are the defacto
word on migration (IMHO), and will point to PARMLIB and Exit reviews. 

The other conversation about hardware upgrades could be discussed from a 
monetary point of view.  Certainly new
hardware has costs.  But the benefit of new technology and exploitation might 
lead to needing less expensive resources
than what was previously required.  Examples might be old COBOL programs using 
new compiler technology on new
processors could lead to reducing batch windows.  SMT for zIIP and IFL 
workloads could possibly reduce the number of
specialty engines required.  One could say that the cost of MIPS on newer 
hardware is less than the predecessors.  Certainly
the is a z13 or z13S size that would fit most workloads and wallets.  Value to 
cost is definitely a good topic for discussion.

zN

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf 
Of Ed Jaffe
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2016 8:29 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Any Gotchas going from V1.13 to V2.2

On 7/15/2016 4:59 AM, Vernooij, CP (ITOPT1) - KLM wrote:
> The gotcha with the z9 is, that it out of support and you can't have anything 
> modified or built into the machine anymore. Even converting a built-in 
> processor into a zIIP is 'buying new hardware' which is not possible anymore. 
> Anyway not by IBM.

The z9 "gotcha" is even more significant than that. zIIP was introduced with 
z10.

--
Edward E Jaffe
Phoenix Software International, Inc
831 Parkview Drive North
El Segundo, CA 90245
http://www.phoenixsoftware.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: Already logged on message - Wrong System ID

[Norman Hollander on Desertwiz]

2 of my faves.  Thanks for posting for the group.  If you haven't seen these 
recently, you should!

zNorman

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf 
Of Tom Conley
Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2016 2:25 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Already logged on message - Wrong System ID

On 7/14/2016 1:26 PM, Tom Conley wrote:
> On 7/14/2016 1:08 PM, Jesse 1 Robinson wrote:
>> Absolutely. My logon proc contains this:
>>
>> //ISPPROF  DD  DISP=SHR,DSN=TSOSKIP.$SYS
>>
>> This DD resolves correctly on each member of the plex.
>
> I must respectfully disagree with my good friend, the distinguished 
> gentleman from the great state of California.  Using a system-specific 
> ISPF profile in a sysplex is a really bad idea.  If you use edit 
> recovery, you will likely lose data if you have a recovery pending on 
> one system, but edit the same dataset on another system.  You really 
> need to use a shared profile in a sysplex.
>
> Regards,
> Tom Conley
>
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send 
> email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

A good friend politely requested that I put my monay where my yapper is. 
  So here are two links, the first to my article on multiple logon, and the 
second to my Configuring ISPF for Fun and Profit session.  Please let me know 
if you have any questions or concerns.  WTW.

http://enterprisesystemsmedia.com/article/simultaneous-logons-to-multiple-lpars-in-a-sysplex#sr=g=o=or=-tmc=(opu%20qspwjefe)=1468531411

http://www.newera.com/INFO/Configuring_ISPF.pdf

Regards,
Tom Conley

--
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: WLM Resource Group not working.

[Norman Hollander on DesertWiz]

Instead of calculating Service Units, why not use the method specifying the
% of
A Processor or the % of the LPAR weight?  Of course, that might be broken
for you, too.

zNorman

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
Behalf Of Staller, Allan
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2012 7:59 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: WLM Resource Group not working.

snip
3) The LPAR involved runs on a 2817-503, so a 3 CP, 204 MSU z196, of which I
want to give and limit 2 MSU to CICS Devl/Acc. 200 SU/hr =
555 SU/sec. I also tried 3 CP percents (option 3) which also equals 2 MSU
(204/3*.03=2) but this gives similar results. WLM is not willing to cut the
users in the RG to the desired consumption.
/snip


In that case, I can only suggest opening an issue w/IBM or using the
empirical method.
i.e. adjust the RG value until the desired results are achieved.

HTH,  

--
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: [z390] Anyone want Source code listing of last VSE program product Supervisor?

[Norman Hollander on DesertWiz]

I would not assume that a license holder has the ability to transfer his
license on his own.
You should check with the vendor to be sure you are in compliance with the
TC of that license.

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
Behalf Of Timothy Sipples
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 11:02 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: [z390] Anyone want Source code listing of last VSE program
product Supervisor?

Lizette Koehler passes along an offer from Steve Donato:
This was from when IBM use to distribute VSE supervisor Source 
code I could send it snail mail as BOOK RATE, which is cheap 
Listing was assembled Oct. 1999.
This is good reference material only, since it is IBM Program Product 
5686-066. I purchased this product for my IBM P370. It was legally 
licensed to me. I want to give the listing to someone or group, that 
might be able to make use of this as reference material, since I no 
longer use it. I had the actual code destroyed.

Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't a licensed and copyrighted program a
licensed and copyrighted program -- either in part or as a whole? If I print
that licensed program on paper, does it stop being a licensed program? (No.)
If one keeps a copy of the licensed program on paper but destroys the
electronic version, has one destroyed the code? (No.)

As Sgt. Phil Esterhaus used to say, Hey, let's be careful out there. Just
ask the vendor if you've got any questions about what your license does and
does not allow you to do.

I appreciate that we all want to share stuff. It's a good impulse. But there
are some limitations we should be careful to respect.

If I'm totally misinterpreting the post, mea culpa in advance.



Timothy Sipples
Resident Enterprise Architect (Based in Singapore)
E-Mail: timothy.sipp...@us.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: Replacing CA products

[Norman Hollander on DesertWiz]

Your Destination vendor will have appropriate services and tools for your
migration.
Be sure to ask about them. The vendors are there to help make you
successful.

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
Behalf Of John A Zoppetti
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2012 8:20 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Replacing CA products

We are planning to replace our CA products with similar products from other
vendors.  Listed below are the replacements we are investigating.   Any
recommendations for different software than what we have identified and/or
user experiences in the following migrations would be appreciated.

We plan to migrate each of these CA products to the listed product:
ACF2 -   IBM RACF (we have had RACF on some LPARs)
CA-1 -   IBM DFSMS RMM
PMO -  IBM LLA
QFETCH -   IBM VLF
Platinum DB2 tools -   IBM DB2 tools

We plan to investigate these candidate products as replacements:
CA-7 -  BMC Control-M, Tivoli Workload Scheduler, ASG Zeke
CA-11 -   Tivoli Workload Scheduler, ASG Zebb Easytrieve -   PSG Z-Writer,
IBM Migration Utility Panvalet/PanAPT -   ISPW, SCLM, RDZ

Thank you,

John Zoppetti
U. S. Steel
--
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

REMINDER: Call for Session Chairs for EWCP at SHARE in Anaheim CA

[Norman Hollander on DesertWiz]

Hello SHARE and EWCP members -

 

The SHARE conference in Anaheim, CA is approaching quickly.  There are many
new sessions with a lot of good information

waiting to be shared. It will be held at the Marriott Hotel, August 5th
through August 10th, 2012.  

 

The Enterprise Wide Capacity and Performance (EWCP) Project has quite a
program of sessions to offer and we are currently looking 

for volunteers to be Session Chairs.  If you are interested in being an
active participant and would be willing to chair sessions for us, 

please contact Mary Astley at  mailto:ast...@us.ibm.com ast...@us.ibm.com
or me, at the address below.  See you in Anaheim! 

 

Norman Hollander, Project Manager 

EWCP 

Enterprise-Wide Capacity and Performance Project 

Office:   +1 760-992-5068  

eMail:znor...@desertwiz.biz 

 

Below are the currently scheduled Sessions for Anaheim:

 


Date

Time

Room

Speaker

#

Title

Chairperson


Mon March 12

8:00 AM

0001

Share General Session



9:30 AM

0002

System z Technical Keynote



11:00 AM

Salon J

Muench

11608

RMF: The Latest and Greatest 

 


12 noon

Lunch



1:30 PM

Plat 1

Walsh/Hollander

11463

EWCP Project Opening and ATS z/OS Performance Hot Topics



3:00 PM

Salon J

Sinram

11609

Workload Management Update for z/OS 1.13 and 1.12 



4:30 PM

Salon J

Muench

11613

Manage Your Workloads and Performance with z/OSMF 



6:00 PM

SHARE Technology Exchange (STE)




Tue March 13

8:00 AM

0003

Keynote



9:30 AM

Salon J

Burg

11599

zPCR Capacity Sizing Lab - Part 1, Introduction and Overview



11:00 AM

OC 2/3

Burg/Snyder

11497

zPCR Capacity Sizing Lab - Part 2, Hands-on Lab



11:00 AM

Salon J

Astley

11604

Introduction to SMF and RMF Data Collection 



12 noon

Lunch



1:30 PM

Plat 5

Watson

11309

The many CPU fields of SMF



3:00 PM

Salon J

Sinram

11612

Workload Management of Transactional Workloads



4:30 PM

Salon J

Snyder

11605

z/OS Workload Manager: What Are You Thinking?



6:00 PM

SHARE Technology Exchange (STE)




Wed March 14

8:00 AM

Salon J

Enrico

11500

Introduction to WLM Management of CICS and IMS Workloads



9:30 AM

Salon E/F

Temel

11491

Analyzing/Monitoring Performance of z/OS I/O Operations: DASD and Tape -
Performance View



11:00 AM

Salon E/F

Walsh

11598

System z Capacity Planning: Where the Mistakes Are  (Long Session)



11:30 AM

SHARE Technology Exchange (STE)



12 noon

Lunch



1:30 PM

Salon E/F

Woods

11479

Predictive Analytics and IT Service Management



3:00 PM

Salon J

Ukelson

11558

Behavioral Analysis  Predictive Analytics meet SLA's, Prevent Problems, and
Reduce Costs in a Mainframe Production Environment



 

4:30 PM

Salon J

Burg

11600

CPU MF - 2012 Update and WSC Experiences



6:00 PM

Salon J

Bonnett

11524

The IBM Tivoli Monitoring Infrastructure on System z and zEnterprise



7:15 PM

11468

EWCP Project Dinner




Thu March 15

8:00 AM

Salon J

Anderson

11601

zEnterprise eXposed! Part 1 of 2: Introduction to zEnterprise Performance
Management



9:30 AM

Salon J

Astley/Snyder

11603

zEnterprise eXposed! Part 2 of 2: Experiences with the zEnterprise Unified
Resource Manager



11:00 AM

Salon J

Temel

11365

Analyzing/Measuring/Monitoring Memory Usage and Understanding z/OS Memory
Management: Performance View



12 noon

Lunch



1:30 PM

Salon J

Mavashev

11979

Ensuring Business-Critical Apps are Performing in the Cloud



3:00 PM

Salon J

Johnson

11948

360 Degree Capacity Management: Get All the Angles Covered



4:30 PM

Salon J

Bonnett

11523

Forecasting Performance Metrics using the IBM Tivoli Performance Analyzer



6:00 PM

 

MVS Program Closing and Ask the Experts




Fri March 16

8:00 AM

11465

EWCP Project Closing



8:00 AM

Salon J

Quinn

11544

CA SYSVIEW r13.5 Update



12 noon

End of Conference



 

 

.


--
For