Re: [EXTERNAL]Re: SMF type 89 records reporting RMF usage
Yeah if you have MXG there's ANAL30DD PROC that will point out pgms and EXCPs. With slight modification could only look for ERB* modules. In a message dated 7/14/2016 4:33:43 P.M. Central Daylight Time, vicky.toble...@americannational.com writes: Well - now we have RMF disabled in IFAPRD00. We have deleted all start up PROCS and are working to identify TSO panels and batch jobs as well as any remaining RMF load modules. Yes we are using SDSF. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: [EXTERNAL]Re: SMF type 89 records reporting RMF usage
Well - now we have RMF disabled in IFAPRD00. We have deleted all start up PROCS and are working to identify TSO panels and batch jobs as well as any remaining RMF load modules. Yes we are using SDSF. -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of patrickfalcone7 Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2016 3:33 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL]Re: SMF type 89 records reporting RMF usage Are all references to RMF libraries also removed...are you using SDSF? Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone American National has changed its email addresses to firstname.lastn...@americannational.com. Please update my email address in your contact list, if applicable, at your earliest convenience. Confidentiality: This transmission, including any attachments, is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). This transmission may contain information that is confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. The use or disclosure of the information contained in this transmission, including any attachments, for any purpose other than that intended by its transmittal is strictly prohibited. Unauthorized interception of this email is a violation of federal criminal law. If you are not an intended recipient of this transmission, please immediately destroy all copies received and notify the sender. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: [EXTERNAL]Re: SMF type 89 records reporting RMF usage
[Default] On 14 Jul 2016 12:45:43 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main vicky.toble...@americannational.com (Tobleman, Vicky) wrote: >The issue was in an IBM software audit ... in addition to the SCRT reports, >which did not report on RMF, the audit required us to run Usage Reports. @ >the time we had 3 separate environments - two of them had RMF enabled in >IFAPRD00, the 3rd plex did not. > >There was usage listed on one of the plex's - almost every day for months, >even though we can find no record of RMF tasks being started (we run CMF). >The other plex that had RMF enabled only had one day in 3 months were it >showed RMF usage. We also used a CMF utility to look for RMF records mixed in >with CMF records (all type 70's) but did not find any - so we are fairly >confident that the main RMF tasks were not running anywhere. > >So I'm thinking that "enabled" is not the only thing causing the usage >reporting. We did get a message from IBM support center that talks about >generating RMF usage if you initiate the monitor tasks from TSO or batch - >neither of which would cut RMF records but would cause RMF usage of modules. >Perhaps we had a batch job that was scheduled on that plex that ran one of the >RMF monitors and we didn't realize. We'll explore that avenue - unless anyone >has something else to suggest. Check the step completion type 30 records for any of the program names used by RMF. Clark Morris > >vicky.tobleman > >-Original Message- >From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On >Behalf Of Cheryl Watson >Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2016 7:57 AM >To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU >Subject: [EXTERNAL]Re: SMF type 89 records reporting RMF usage > >Hi Peter, > >I think it still goes back to the original contract that has you entitled to >RMF, so I would check that first. > >Best regards, >Cheryl > >-Original Message- >From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On >Behalf Of Peter Ten Eyck >Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2016 8:56 AM >To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU >Subject: Re: SMF type 89 records reporting RMF usage > >After some research... I am starting to think this might be the case. It >appears we had RMF enabled in IFAPRD00, but were not running it. We are >running CMF. > >Can a SMF type 89 record indicating RMF use be cut under these circumstances? > >-- >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 > > > >American National has changed its email addresses to >firstname.lastn...@americannational.com. Please update my email address in >your contact list, if applicable, at your earliest convenience. > >Confidentiality: This transmission, including any attachments, is solely for >the use of the intended recipient(s). This transmission may contain >information that is confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. The >use or disclosure of the information contained in this transmission, including >any attachments, for any purpose other than that intended by its transmittal >is strictly prohibited. Unauthorized interception of this email is a violation >of federal criminal law. If you are not an intended recipient of this >transmission, please immediately destroy all copies received and notify the >sender. > >-- >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: SMF type 89 records reporting RMF usage
Are all references to RMF libraries also removed...are you using SDSF? Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone Original message From: "Tobleman, Vicky" <vicky.toble...@americannational.com> Date: 07/14/2016 3:35 PM (GMT-05:00) To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL]Re: SMF type 89 records reporting RMF usage The issue was in an IBM software audit ... in addition to the SCRT reports, which did not report on RMF, the audit required us to run Usage Reports. @ the time we had 3 separate environments - two of them had RMF enabled in IFAPRD00, the 3rd plex did not. There was usage listed on one of the plex's - almost every day for months, even though we can find no record of RMF tasks being started (we run CMF). The other plex that had RMF enabled only had one day in 3 months were it showed RMF usage. We also used a CMF utility to look for RMF records mixed in with CMF records (all type 70's) but did not find any - so we are fairly confident that the main RMF tasks were not running anywhere. So I'm thinking that "enabled" is not the only thing causing the usage reporting. We did get a message from IBM support center that talks about generating RMF usage if you initiate the monitor tasks from TSO or batch - neither of which would cut RMF records but would cause RMF usage of modules. Perhaps we had a batch job that was scheduled on that plex that ran one of the RMF monitors and we didn't realize. We'll explore that avenue - unless anyone has something else to suggest. vicky.tobleman -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Cheryl Watson Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2016 7:57 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: [EXTERNAL]Re: SMF type 89 records reporting RMF usage Hi Peter, I think it still goes back to the original contract that has you entitled to RMF, so I would check that first. Best regards, Cheryl -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Peter Ten Eyck Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2016 8:56 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: SMF type 89 records reporting RMF usage After some research... I am starting to think this might be the case. It appears we had RMF enabled in IFAPRD00, but were not running it. We are running CMF. Can a SMF type 89 record indicating RMF use be cut under these circumstances? -- 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 American National has changed its email addresses to firstname.lastn...@americannational.com. Please update my email address in your contact list, if applicable, at your earliest convenience. Confidentiality: This transmission, including any attachments, is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). This transmission may contain information that is confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. The use or disclosure of the information contained in this transmission, including any attachments, for any purpose other than that intended by its transmittal is strictly prohibited. Unauthorized interception of this email is a violation of federal criminal law. If you are not an intended recipient of this transmission, please immediately destroy all copies received and notify the sender. -- 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: SMF type 89 records reporting RMF usage
The issue was in an IBM software audit ... in addition to the SCRT reports, which did not report on RMF, the audit required us to run Usage Reports. @ the time we had 3 separate environments - two of them had RMF enabled in IFAPRD00, the 3rd plex did not. There was usage listed on one of the plex's - almost every day for months, even though we can find no record of RMF tasks being started (we run CMF). The other plex that had RMF enabled only had one day in 3 months were it showed RMF usage. We also used a CMF utility to look for RMF records mixed in with CMF records (all type 70's) but did not find any - so we are fairly confident that the main RMF tasks were not running anywhere. So I'm thinking that "enabled" is not the only thing causing the usage reporting. We did get a message from IBM support center that talks about generating RMF usage if you initiate the monitor tasks from TSO or batch - neither of which would cut RMF records but would cause RMF usage of modules. Perhaps we had a batch job that was scheduled on that plex that ran one of the RMF monitors and we didn't realize. We'll explore that avenue - unless anyone has something else to suggest. vicky.tobleman -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Cheryl Watson Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2016 7:57 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: [EXTERNAL]Re: SMF type 89 records reporting RMF usage Hi Peter, I think it still goes back to the original contract that has you entitled to RMF, so I would check that first. Best regards, Cheryl -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Peter Ten Eyck Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2016 8:56 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: SMF type 89 records reporting RMF usage After some research... I am starting to think this might be the case. It appears we had RMF enabled in IFAPRD00, but were not running it. We are running CMF. Can a SMF type 89 record indicating RMF use be cut under these circumstances? -- 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 American National has changed its email addresses to firstname.lastn...@americannational.com. Please update my email address in your contact list, if applicable, at your earliest convenience. Confidentiality: This transmission, including any attachments, is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). This transmission may contain information that is confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. The use or disclosure of the information contained in this transmission, including any attachments, for any purpose other than that intended by its transmittal is strictly prohibited. Unauthorized interception of this email is a violation of federal criminal law. If you are not an intended recipient of this transmission, please immediately destroy all copies received and notify the sender. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
