Re: Difference between MVS and z / OS systems
Anne Lynn Wheeler wrote: unfortuantely ibm management blocked me sending a replay for nearly a year http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006w.html#email821019 WTF? Why did they blocked you? Perhaps the reasons are written in your web-pages, but I have missed it. I was being blamed for online computer conferencing on the internal network in the late 70s and early 80s ... folklore is that when the executive committee (chairman, ceo, pres, etc) was told about online computer conferencing (and the internal network), 5of6 wanted to fire me. In any case, hopefully IBM management blocking my sending a reply was somehow viewed as punishment for online computer conferencing (rather than taking sides in the academic dispute). What you did, seemed Ok and great, now after all these years, but why did they tried to get rid of you? Are they bored or just p*ssed off because you are miles ahead? Please keep up with your good posts. I value them and learn a lot of them! :-) 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: Difference between MVS and z / OS systems
elardus.engelbre...@sita.co.za (Elardus Engelbrecht) writes: What you did, seemed Ok and great, now after all these years, but why did they tried to get rid of you? Are they bored or just p*ssed off because you are miles ahead? re: http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014d.html#84 Difference between MVS and z / OS systems well there is also this (about the same time) ... mentioned upthread, the MVS RAS group would have gotten me fired ... if they could have figured out how ... but failing in that ... they tried to make things as unpleasant as possible ... including precluding any corporate-level awards for any of the work http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014d.html#56 Difference between MVS and z / OS systems part of the issue, in the wake of the future system failure http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submain.html#futuresys ... and the change in corporate culture to sycophancy and make no waves ... recent reference http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014d.html#28 Write Inhibit one of the side-effects was that some of the organizations started carefully managing information up the executive chain ... any reference to MVS MTBF of 15mins (even internal only) would have disturbed a carefully managed image. When the MVS RAS group originally tracked me down and called me up ... I thought they were going to ask me for help on correcting all the problems ... but the first thing they wanted to know was who my management chain was ... I then realized I was going to be in trouble ... they didn't actually want to know how to fix things ... they were interested in much more important things. -- virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970 -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Difference between MVS and z / OS systems
When the MVS RAS group originally tracked me down and called me up ... I thought they were going to ask me for help on correcting all the problems ... but the first thing they wanted to know was who my management chain was ... I then realized I was going to be in trouble ... they didn't actually want to know how to fix things ... they were interested in much more important things. One of the much more important things, as Lynn Wheeler has mentioned in earlier posts, to any given highly placed executive is the maximization of his own compensation under whatever specific details are in his signed contract with his employer. Sometimes such people make decisions that maximize their own immediate compensation at the long-term minimization of other less important things, such as the continued existence of the employer. Bill Fairchild Nolensville, TN - Original Message - From: Anne Lynn Wheeler l...@garlic.com To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Sent: Monday, March 24, 2014 10:23:43 AM Subject: Re: Difference between MVS and z / OS systems one of the side-effects was that some of the organizations started carefully managing information up the executive chain ... any reference to MVS MTBF of 15mins (even internal only) would have disturbed a carefully managed image. When the MVS RAS group originally tracked me down and called me up ... I thought they were going to ask me for help on correcting all the problems ... but the first thing they wanted to know was who my management chain was ... I then realized I was going to be in trouble ... they didn't actually want to know how to fix things ... they were interested in much more important things. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Difference between MVS and z / OS systems
No, no, Bill. You're mistaken. That never happens. People are much too ethical for that. On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 11:41 AM, DASDBILL2 dasdbi...@comcast.net wrote: When the MVS RAS group originally tracked me down and called me up ... I thought they were going to ask me for help on correcting all the problems ... but the first thing they wanted to know was who my management chain was ... I then realized I was going to be in trouble ... they didn't actually want to know how to fix things ... they were interested in much more important things. One of the much more important things, as Lynn Wheeler has mentioned in earlier posts, to any given highly placed executive is the maximization of his own compensation under whatever specific details are in his signed contract with his employer. Sometimes such people make decisions that maximize their own immediate compensation at the long-term minimization of other less important things, such as the continued existence of the employer. Bill Fairchild Nolensville, TN - Original Message - From: Anne Lynn Wheeler l...@garlic.com To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Sent: Monday, March 24, 2014 10:23:43 AM Subject: Re: Difference between MVS and z / OS systems one of the side-effects was that some of the organizations started carefully managing information up the executive chain ... any reference to MVS MTBF of 15mins (even internal only) would have disturbed a carefully managed image. When the MVS RAS group originally tracked me down and called me up ... I thought they were going to ask me for help on correcting all the problems ... but the first thing they wanted to know was who my management chain was ... I then realized I was going to be in trouble ... they didn't actually want to know how to fix things ... they were interested in much more important things. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN -- zMan -- I've got a mainframe and I'm not afraid to use it -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Difference between MVS and z / OS systems
Would you be interested in a slightly used, but very lucrative stake in a bridge in NYC? grin/ On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 11:04 AM, zMan zedgarhoo...@gmail.com wrote: No, no, Bill. You're mistaken. That never happens. People are much too ethical for that. On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 11:41 AM, DASDBILL2 dasdbi...@comcast.net wrote: When the MVS RAS group originally tracked me down and called me up ... I thought they were going to ask me for help on correcting all the problems ... but the first thing they wanted to know was who my management chain was ... I then realized I was going to be in trouble ... they didn't actually want to know how to fix things ... they were interested in much more important things. One of the much more important things, as Lynn Wheeler has mentioned in earlier posts, to any given highly placed executive is the maximization of his own compensation under whatever specific details are in his signed contract with his employer. Sometimes such people make decisions that maximize their own immediate compensation at the long-term minimization of other less important things, such as the continued existence of the employer. Bill Fairchild Nolensville, TN - Original Message - From: Anne Lynn Wheeler l...@garlic.com To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Sent: Monday, March 24, 2014 10:23:43 AM Subject: Re: Difference between MVS and z / OS systems one of the side-effects was that some of the organizations started carefully managing information up the executive chain ... any reference to MVS MTBF of 15mins (even internal only) would have disturbed a carefully managed image. When the MVS RAS group originally tracked me down and called me up ... I thought they were going to ask me for help on correcting all the problems ... but the first thing they wanted to know was who my management chain was ... I then realized I was going to be in trouble ... they didn't actually want to know how to fix things ... they were interested in much more important things. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN -- zMan -- I've got a mainframe and I'm not afraid to use it -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN -- There is nothing more pleasant than traveling and meeting new people! Genghis Khan Maranatha! John McKown -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Difference between MVS and z / OS systems
On which planet is that true? -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of zMan Sent: Monday, March 24, 2014 11:04 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Difference between MVS and z / OS systems No, no, Bill. You're mistaken. That never happens. People are much too ethical for that. On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 11:41 AM, DASDBILL2 dasdbi...@comcast.net wrote: When the MVS RAS group originally tracked me down and called me up ... I thought they were going to ask me for help on correcting all the problems ... but the first thing they wanted to know was who my management chain was ... I then realized I was going to be in trouble ... they didn't actually want to know how to fix things ... they were interested in much more important things. One of the much more important things, as Lynn Wheeler has mentioned in earlier posts, to any given highly placed executive is the maximization of his own compensation under whatever specific details are in his signed contract with his employer. Sometimes such people make decisions that maximize their own immediate compensation at the long-term minimization of other less important things, such as the continued existence of the employer. Bill Fairchild Nolensville, TN - Original Message - From: Anne Lynn Wheeler l...@garlic.com To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Sent: Monday, March 24, 2014 10:23:43 AM Subject: Re: Difference between MVS and z / OS systems one of the side-effects was that some of the organizations started carefully managing information up the executive chain ... any reference to MVS MTBF of 15mins (even internal only) would have disturbed a carefully managed image. When the MVS RAS group originally tracked me down and called me up ... I thought they were going to ask me for help on correcting all the problems ... but the first thing they wanted to know was who my management chain was ... I then realized I was going to be in trouble ... they didn't actually want to know how to fix things ... they were interested in much more important things. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN -- zMan -- I've got a mainframe and I'm not afraid to use it -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ** 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: Difference between MVS and z / OS systems
john.archie.mck...@gmail.com (John McKown) writes: you be interested in a slightly used, but very lucrative stake in a bridge in NYC? grin/ re: http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014d.html#84 Difference between MVS and z / OS systems http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014d.html#87 Difference between MVS and z / OS systems recent reference to how lawyers are trained to advise CEOs how to defraud with impunity http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014d.html#86 but they got charged because of email evidence ... even tho part of the lawyer training is to never put it in email. references this slightly earlier post about evidence in iran/contra affair was from executive branch (vm370) profs email system http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014d.html#36 above also mentions that families of 9/11 victims are now being allowed to sue saudi arabia as responsible for 9/11 (some speculation that it comes from growing energy independence) in slightly older (long-winded) posts in IBM employee (linkedin) discussion group http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014c.html#54 http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014c.html#55 goes into some detail about (some of) IBM history over past two decades there is slightly related discussion about business schools training MBAs on how to protect monopoly positions (as opposed to how to promote innovation). http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014d.html#76 -- virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970 -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Difference between MVS and z / OS systems
Anne Lynn Wheeler wrote: well there is also this (about the same time) ... mentioned upthread, the MVS RAS group would have gotten me fired ... if they could have figured out how ... but failing in that ... they tried to make things as unpleasant as possible ... including precluding any corporate-level awards for any of the work Hmmm, the usual cr*p about protecting your own [bossy] position, market and monopoly at the expense of clever and performing employees. one of the side-effects was that some of the organizations started carefully managing information up the executive chain ... any reference to MVS MTBF of 15mins (even internal only) would have disturbed a carefully managed image. They should rather study those MTBF references. I then realized I was going to be in trouble ... They're afraid of you. ;-) ... they didn't actually want to know how to fix things ... That summed all up. Like in all companies, we also sit around with sometimes clueless management. :-/ Thanks, Ann and Lynn. Groete / Greetings Elardus Engelbrecht ( Climate Change? Nah, make it Climate Confusion! ;-D ) -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Difference between MVS and z / OS systems
Hello MVS runs on the prior hardware architecture to zSeries or zArchitecture. That's up to S/390 Architecture. When the architecture evolved to zArchitecture for zSeries, z/OS is born. The base control programs of z/OS are MVS and z/UNIX System Services. z/OS runs only on zSeries hardware architecture. Thanks, Suresh Chacko On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 9:07 PM, Helio Jose Da Silva helio.si...@rural.com.br wrote: Hello list, Someone can tell me the relevant differences between the MVS and z / OS systems? Thank you Helio Jose da Silva -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN -- *SureshNc* -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Difference between MVS and z / OS systems
In 532dfe4c.2080...@charter.net, on 03/22/2014 at 05:19 PM, Gerhard Postpischil gerha...@charter.net said: On 3/18/2014 4:20 AM, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote: You don't; SVS was OS/VS2 R1 and MVS was OS/VS2 R12 and later. OS/VS1 was the upgrade from OS/360 MFT. Just to confuse the issue - I thought VS1 to be an upgrade of MFT II? Correct. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT ISO position; see http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress. (S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003) -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Difference between MVS and z / OS systems
Gerard Schildberger gerar...@rrt.net writes: Plus, VS/1 also had HASP integrated into it (sometimes referred to it JES nothing). It also was aware if it was running under VM/CP and wouldn't bother clearing storage at IPL time, nor try to figure out the real storage size, as it just simply did a DIAGnose instruction (in problem state) and ask CP what the storage size was. If it was exactly 16M, VS/1 disabled virtual paging and let VM/CP do all the heavy lifting. Also (I forget the option, maybe PAGEX), if VS/1 got a page fault, instead of putting the whole of the VS/1 system into a wait state (waiting for the page to be paged in), VS/1 was still dispatched and VS/1 knew that it could dispatch another partition or some other process (these features where called VS/1 handshaking and had to be enabled with a directory option). Also, most system programmers wrote a printer/punch separator program to spool the output to the job's submitter, allowing the output to be placed in a CMS user's reader (which can be read and then edited, and printed if they wished. With VS/1 having 16 meg, I made most of VS/1's I/O routines + open/close (and DIDOCS) resident, and VS/1 under VM ran about three times faster than native VS/1. in the wake of future system imploding http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submain.html#futuresys there was mad rush to get stuff back into 370 product pipelines. I got sucked into helping Endicott with ecps for 138/148 (followon to 135/145) old post http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/94.html#21 370 ECPS VM microcode assist this went along with vs/1 handshaking performance increase. I also got sucked into (offon for a year) going around to different countries helping present the business case for 138/148 to business forecasters. Endicott also tried to have vm370 shipped from the factory as part of every machine (sort of like modern day LPAR). However, at the same time POK/MVS was convincing corporate to killoff vm370, shutdown the product group and transfer all the people to POK as part of MVS/XA development. Endicott managed to save the vm370 product mission (had to reconsitute a development group from scratch) ... but prevail in having vm370 shipped as part of every machine from the factory. note the following to 138/148 ... was 4331/4341 and had the endicott followon architecture, e-architecture (sort of endicott's equivalent to POK's 370/xa architecture). E-architecture was a little like vs/1 running in virtual machine under vm370 with vm370 handling lots of stuff ... but not quite ... it is where VSE originated. one of the interesting business things learned ... was that US was dividied up in regions ... a little like world trade countries. However non-US countries would make a forecast and place an order for that many machines from some factory (and pay for them) ... and the machines would be shipped to that country ... and the countries were then responsible for selling those boxes. As a result world trade business forecast people had their jobs on the line when making forecasts. Forecast by US regions carried no such obligations ... business forecasters tended to make a forecast based on internal political winds. US forecasters effectively would say it made no difference what features a product had ... they would forecast whatever they were expected to forecast. Forecasters in world trade were completely different ... they were extremely sensitive to box features and competitive analysis how a box compared point-by-point with the competition. past posts in this thread; http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014d.html#54 Difference between MVS and z / OS systems http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014d.html#55 Difference between MVS and z / OS systems http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014d.html#56 Difference between MVS and z / OS systems http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014d.html#57 Difference between MVS and z / OS systems http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014d.html#59 Difference between MVS and z / OS systems http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014d.html#60 Difference between MVS and z / OS systems http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014d.html#61 Difference between MVS and z / OS systems http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014d.html#62 Difference between MVS and z / OS systems http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014d.html#63 Difference between MVS and z / OS systems -- virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970 -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Difference between MVS and z / OS systems
In m3fvm8tvfg@garlic.com, on 03/23/2014 at 06:13 PM, Anne Lynn Wheeler l...@garlic.com said: Gerard Schildberger gerar...@rrt.net writes: Plus, VS/1 also had HASP integrated into it Not even close; the JES code in OS/VS1 was much closer to the scheduler code in OS/360 than it was to HASP, although someone did do a refit to run HASP II V4 in OS/VS1. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT ISO position; see http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress. (S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003) -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Difference between MVS and z / OS systems
Robert Wessel robertwess...@yahoo.com writes: VSE was similar (although probably DOS/VSE in that day). The VM page fault extensions allowed a guest to be dispatched when VM handled a page fault. And like VS1,VSE in PAGE=VM* mode generally ran better than VSE native. Which really says something about the quality of virtual memory support in VSE (and VS1). part of the issue was i had a much better page replacement algorithm with a significantly shorter pathlength (not just VS1/VSE, but also MVS) ... originally done while i was undergraduate in the 60s for cp67. lots of past posts http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#clock the other part was that DOS VS1 used 2k virtual pages ... that allowed for for more efficient compaction in small real storage (compared to 4k virtual pages) ... but by the time of 138/148 nominal real storage was 1mbyte (and increasing) ... so it was no longer a useful trade-off. note one of the page replacement issues was global lru versus local lru. I had done global lru as undergraduate in the 60s about the same time there was some work on local lru published academically. At Dec81, Asilomar ACM SIGOPS, Jim Gray (I had worked with a ibm research, but had left for Tandem), asked me if i could help a co-worker get his Stanford PHD ... it involved work on global LRU similar to what i had done as undergraduate in the 60s ... but his thesis advisor was getting enormous pushback from person behind local lru. I had lots of data directly comparing global lru to local lru replacement algorithms, both implemented on cp67 running on 360/67, showing global lru significantly outperforming local lru. past post on the subject http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006w.html#46 unfortuantely ibm management blocked me sending a replay for nearly a year http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006w.html#email821019 I was being blamed for online computer conferencing on the internal network in the late 70s and early 80s ... folklore is that when the executive committee (chairman, ceo, pres, etc) was told about online computer conferencing (and the internal network), 5of6 wanted to fire me. In any case, hopefully IBM management blocking my sending a reply was somehow viewed as punishment for online computer conferencing (rather than taking sides in the academic dispute). trivia ... his thesis advisor went on later to be president of stanford. posts in thread: http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014d.html#54 Difference between MVS and z / OS systems http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014d.html#55 Difference between MVS and z / OS systems http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014d.html#56 Difference between MVS and z / OS systems http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014d.html#57 Difference between MVS and z / OS systems http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014d.html#59 Difference between MVS and z / OS systems http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014d.html#60 Difference between MVS and z / OS systems http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014d.html#61 Difference between MVS and z / OS systems http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014d.html#62 Difference between MVS and z / OS systems http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014d.html#63 Difference between MVS and z / OS systems http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014d.html#83 Difference between MVS and z / OS systems -- virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970 -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Difference between MVS and z/OS systems
Suresh Chacko writes: z/OS runs only on zSeries hardware architecture. No, that's not correct as written -- and zSeries hardware architecture is a bit oddly phrased anyway. To clarify, z/OS 1.6 and subsequent releases require z/Architecture. z/OS 1.5 and prior releases were still compatible with some servers that implemented ESA/390 but not z/Architecture. Timothy Sipples VCT Architect Executive (Based in Singapore) E-Mail: 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
Re: Difference between MVS and z/OS systems
On 3/23/2014 9:34 PM, Timothy Sipples wrote: Suresh Chacko writes: z/OS runs only on zSeries hardware architecture. No, that's not correct as written -- and zSeries hardware architecture is a bit oddly phrased anyway. To clarify, z/OS 1.6 and subsequent releases require z/Architecture. z/OS 1.5 and prior releases were still compatible with some servers that implemented ESA/390 but not z/Architecture. True. Also, nothing lower than OS/390 2.10 will run reliably on a machine with a 2-level TLB (z890/z990 and higher) because those operating systems do not do some of the necessary TLB purges. There might also be other hardware incompatibilities (e.g., storage increment sizes) that would prevent MVS execution on modern hardware. -- 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
Re: Difference between MVS and z / OS systems
On 3/18/2014 4:20 AM, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote: You don't; SVS was OS/VS2 R1 and MVS was OS/VS2 R12 and later. OS/VS1 was the upgrade from OS/360 MFT. Just to confuse the issue - I thought VS1 to be an upgrade of MFT II? Gerhard Postpischil Bradford, Vermont -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Difference between MVS and z / OS systems
In 12e58ce9881ac54091618c736fa1ac647ddb2e6...@corpexmbx.bekco.com, on 03/18/2014 at 03:17 PM, Greg Shirey wgshi...@benekeith.com said: In the document, the author specifically mentions you as one of several people to point out his technical errors. Are you suggesting that he never corrected them or that there were more than you had time to detail? Or that I didn't catch all of them, or that I was working from an obsolete verson. I'll take a look at the latest version and see whether it fills in some of the caps. Unfortunately, one mans critical dates is another man's TMI. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT ISO position; see http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress. (S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003) -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Difference between MVS and z / OS systems
In ec61ef1aa63c694b8a23a9e1350cca220109732...@dr000s060.sfr.net, on 03/17/2014 at 05:07 PM, Helio Jose Da Silva helio.si...@rural.com.br said: Someone can tell me the relevant differences between the MVS and z / OS systems? MVS is anything in the OS/360 family from OS/VS2 Release 2 on; z/OS is the most recent incarnation. There's also a term MVS/370 for MVS versions capable of running in S/370 mode; that covers OS/VS2 Release 2-3.8, MVS/SE and MVS/SP Version 1. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT ISO position; see http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress. (S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003) -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Difference between MVS and z / OS systems
In cf4cb1b7.c0106%gary.shimin...@doit.nh.gov, on 03/17/2014 at 06:13 PM, Shiminsky, Gary gary.shimin...@doit.nh.gov said: If my memory serves me right, back in the 1970s there was OS/MFT, OS/MVT, OS/VS1, and OS/VS2. Not quite; MFT and MVT were options of OS/360 once things stabilized. You ordered the same tapes whether you wanted PCP, MFT or MVT. OS/VS2 morphed to OS/SVS and then OS/MVS No, although AOS/1 and AOS/2 morphed to OS/VS1 and OS/VS2. SVS is OS/VS2 Release 1 and MVS is OS/VS2 Release 2 and later; there is no OS/SVS or OS/MVS. starting in the 1980s. OS/VS1, SVS and MVS were all available in the 1970's. Even MVS/SE (but not SE2 or SP) was available in 1979. By the pricking of my thumb, SU7 this way comes. (WS) -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT ISO position; see http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress. (S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003) -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Difference between MVS and z / OS systems
In caarmm9rnkkjpcko0svtk2saizgpl9ssj-epej2b8xilazdh...@mail.gmail.com, on 03/17/2014 at 03:08 PM, Tony Harminc t...@harminc.net said: It took a long time for the names MVS (and SVS, for that matter) to appear in official publications; I see MVSxxx volsers in a 1975 manual; I see MVS in the text of a February 1975 manual; I see MVS in the title of a 1976 manual. Based on a random sample it appears that IBM started using the term in official publications with Release 3.0, which was only the second release of MVS, so I wouldn't call it a long time. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT ISO position; see http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress. (S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003) -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Difference between MVS and z / OS systems
In 20140318023541.6004883.11714.4...@yahoo.ca, on 03/17/2014 at 10:35 PM, Ted MacNEIL eamacn...@yahoo.ca said: I think your dates are wrong. Yes, but still more accurate than what you wrote. VM was CP67 In the sense that OS/390 was OS/360. VM was a rewrite of CP67. SVS was OS/VS1 and MVS was OS/VS2, IIRC. You don't; SVS was OS/VS2 R1 and MVS was OS/VS2 R12 and later. OS/VS1 was the upgrade from OS/360 MFT. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT ISO position; see http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress. (S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003) -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Difference between MVS and z / OS systems
In 20140317203437.6004883.35398.4...@yahoo.ca, on 03/17/2014 at 04:34 PM, Ted MacNEIL eamacn...@yahoo.ca said: VM was around in 1967. Iirc. No. However, VM was a rewrite of code that was around earlier, and 1967 sounds right for CP-40 or CP-67. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT ISO position; see http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress. (S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003) -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Difference between MVS and z / OS systems
OS/MFT became OS/VS1 OS/MVT became SVS and then (later MVS) snip I think your dates are wrong. VM was CP67 released in guess what year? MVS was first released in 1974. SVS was OS/VS1 and MVS was OS/VS2, IIRC. I'm sure, if I'm wrong, somebody'll correct me. - -teD -/snip -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Difference between MVS and z / OS systems
My dates are approximate, which is why I said 1975 (I think) instead of 1975. Your date of 1974 is equal to my 1975 (I think). My date of 1974 for SVS is more accurate, because that is when I worked with it, and I began doing so very shortly after it was first available. VM was not called VM in 1967 any more than MVS was called MVS in the late 1960s, as the predecessor system to MVS was called MVT in the 1960s. VM's predecessor system was called CP67. Both of these systems supported virtual storage and paging, but they had different names. SVS was not OS/VS1. SVS was OS/VS2 Release 1. Try Google. I attended IBM sessions in SHARE during those years when IBM was announcing their future products, and I remember what they were and the hideous names IBM tried to use then (e.g., OS/VS2 Release 2 rather than MVS). I also remember when IBM was announcing VM, and it was not in 1967. It came out when all their other virtualized operating systems (OS/VS1, OS/VS2 Release 1, and OS/VS2 Release 2) were being released. OS/VS1 was a virtualization of OS/MFT. SVS, aka OS/VS2 Release 1, was a virtualization of MVT with only one 16 megabyte virtual address space. MVS, aka OS/VS2 Release 2, was also a virtualization of MVT but with multiple 16 megabyte address spaces. Bill Fairchild involved with IBM mainframe systems since February 1966 - Original Message - From: Ted MacNEIL eamacn...@yahoo.ca To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Sent: Monday, March 17, 2014 9:35:41 PM Subject: Re: Difference between MVS and z / OS systems I think your dates are wrong. VM was CP67 released in guess what year? MVS was first released in 1974. SVS was OS/VS1 and MVS was OS/VS2, IIRC. I'm sure, if I'm wrong, somebody'll correct me. - -teD - Original Message From: DASDBILL2 Sent: Monday, March 17, 2014 15:09 To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Reply To: IBM Mainframe Discussion List Subject: Re: Difference between MVS and z / OS systems Close. OS/VS2 was released having been already pre-morphed into SVS and MVS. SVS was first called OS/VS2 Release 1, was first available in 1974, and that's when I worked with it. MVS was first called OS/VS2 Release 2, was first available slightly later (1975, I think), but I didn't begin working with MVS until 1977. VM was also first released around 1975. Other grand buzzwords that morphed were loosely coupled multiprocessing and tightly coupled multiprocessing. The loose version became shared SPOOL, and the tight version became simply multiprocessing (several CPUs sharing the same central storage). And now we have SYSPLEXEs with both loosely and tightly coupled systems comPLEXly interwoven. Your date of 1980 for MVS is about the time when MVS's initially disappointing performance and RAS were greatly improved. Bill Fairchild - Original Message - From: Gary Shiminsky gary.shimin...@doit.nh.gov To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Sent: Monday, March 17, 2014 1:13:21 PM Subject: Re: Difference between MVS and z / OS systems Hi, If my memory serves me right, back in the 1970s there was OS/MFT, OS/MVT, OS/VS1, and OS/VS2. OS/VS2 morphed to OS/SVS and then OS/MVS(? Or maybe just MVS) starting in the 1980s. I worked on OS/VS1 Rel 7 back in the 79-80 time frame. I didn¹t get back to MVS till the mid 90¹s. Gary Gary L. Shiminsky Senior zVM/zVSE Systems Programmer Mainframe Technical Support Group Department of Information Technology State of New Hampshire 27 Hazen Drive Concord, NH 03301 603-271-1509 Fax 603-271-1516 Statement of Confidentiality: The contents of this message are confidential. Any unauthorized disclosure, reproduction, use or dissemination (either whole or in part) is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please notify the sender immediately and delete the message from your system. -Original Message- From: John Eells ee...@us.ibm.com Reply-To: IBM List IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Date: Monday, March 17, 2014 at 1:51 PM To: IBM List IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Difference between MVS and z / OS systems Helio Jose Da Silva wrote: Hello list, Someone can tell me the relevant differences between the MVS and z / OS systems? MVS was the prior name of what has become z/OS. What was started out as MVS in 1974 was renamed to: MVS/SP Version 1 MVS/XA Version 2 in 1981 MVS/ESA Version 3 (1988), Version 4 (1991), and Version 5 (1994) OS/390 (1996) z/OS (2000) Along the way have come a plethora of new and enhanced functions. There are more differences than there is time to list them. However, we still call the base control program (BCP) MVS in many contexts, such as in the names of various z/OS books, to differentiate it from the other 70-ish parts (elements) of z/OS. -- John Eells z/OS Technical Marketing IBM Poughkeepsie ee...@us.ibm.com
Re: Difference between MVS and z / OS systems
Shmuel Metz wrote: VM was CP67 In the sense that OS/390 was OS/360. VM was a rewrite of CP67. VM wasn't a rewrite of CP67, any more than z/OS is a rewrite of OS/360. It's a linear descendant; plenty of code remained. As a VMer for 40+ years, the truth has been in here, but: - CP-40 was started in very late 1964, on a modified 360/40 - CP-67 was indeed 1967, on a 360/67 - The VM/370 product was announced June 30, 1973 For all this and more, read Melinda Varian's definitive paper on VM history, 1964-1997, at http://www.leeandmelindavarian.com/Melinda/25paper.pdf I'm assuming from having never seen a reference to such on IBM-MAIN that no such community resource exists for z/OS-correct? ...phsiii -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Difference between MVS and z / OS systems
Have a look at : http://www.demorton.com/Tech/$OSTL.pdf -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Phil Smith Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2014 9:59 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Difference between MVS and z / OS systems Shmuel Metz wrote: VM was CP67 In the sense that OS/390 was OS/360. VM was a rewrite of CP67. VM wasn't a rewrite of CP67, any more than z/OS is a rewrite of OS/360. It's a linear descendant; plenty of code remained. As a VMer for 40+ years, the truth has been in here, but: - CP-40 was started in very late 1964, on a modified 360/40 - CP-67 was indeed 1967, on a 360/67 - The VM/370 product was announced June 30, 1973 For all this and more, read Melinda Varian's definitive paper on VM history, 1964-1997, at http://www.leeandmelindavarian.com/Melinda/25paper.pdf I'm assuming from having never seen a reference to such on IBM-MAIN that no such community resource exists for z/OS-correct? ...phsiii -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN This e-mail message (including any attachments) is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message (including any attachments) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender by reply e-mail message and destroy all copies of the original message (including attachments). -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Difference between MVS and z / OS systems
shmuel+ibm-m...@patriot.net (Shmuel Metz , Seymour J.) writes: In the sense that OS/390 was OS/360. VM was a rewrite of CP67. re: http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014d.html#54 Difference between MVS and z / OS systems http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014d.html#55 Difference between MVS and z / OS systems http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014d.html#56 Difference between MVS and z / OS systems http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014d.html#57 Difference between MVS and z / OS systems while vm/370 was pretty much rewrite of cp67 ... it followed the same structure and pretty much had the same source modules ... i.e. cp67 CCWTRANS became vm370 DMKCCW. Also as mentioned upthread, it also did a lot of simplification ... dropping a lot of stuff that I had done as undergraduate and shipped in cp67. The simplification also eliminated the multiprocessor support ... and tweaked some things that made it difficult to put multiprocessor support back in. note while there was lots of code changes for the morph from CP67 to VM370 ... CMS was almost unchanged except for 1) crippled the ability to IPL on real machine and 2) changed the name from Cambridge Monitor System to Conversational Monitor System. old email reworking lots of vm370 to make it look a lot more like cp67 and put a lot of the performance stuff (and infrastructure for multiprocessor) back in. http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006v.html#email731212 http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006w.html#email750102 http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006w.html#email750430 note the spring of 75 ... besides doing csc/vm for internal distribution ... and getting con'ed into preparing some of the stuff for inclusion in vm370 release 3 ... endicott also con'ed me into helping them with the ECPS microcode that would come out with 138/148 ... old reference: http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/94.html#21 370 ECPS VM microcode assist this is in the timeframe that FS was failing and the mad rush to get stuff back into 370 product pipelines. Spring of 75, a group in POK also con'ed me into working on design for 5-way multiprocessor 370 ... which got canceled being announced ... some old posts http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submain.html#bounce Note that after the demise of the 5-way effort, the science center got sucked into helping a group in POK with 16-way multiprocessor effort ... we even distracted some of the processor engineers working on 3033 to put in some spare time on it. It was going along gang busters until somebody told the head of POK that it might be decades before MVS was ready for 16-way support ... and the whole thing was killed ... and the head of POK invited several of us to never visit again. a subset of the csc/vm stuff went out in vm release 3 ... including a very small subset of the shared segment support ... but reworked to not use my cms pagemapped filesystem ... recent posts discussing the subject: http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014d.html#25 [OT ] Mainframe memories http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014d.html#27 [OT ] Mainframe memories note that the 23Jun1969 unbundling announcement included the decision to start charging for software ... however the company made the case with the gov. that it should be just application software and that kernel software should still be free. With the rise of the clone processors ... lack of 370 products during the FS period credited with giving clone processors a market foothold http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submain.html#futuresys it was decided to start charging for kernel software, a decision was made to package some of my other csc/vm stuff as separate kernel product and make it the guinea pig for starting to charge for kernel software ... which was first made available for vm370 release 3. then the decision was made to release simple 2-way SMP support for vm370 release 4. At that time, the rules for free/non-free kernel software was direct hardware support was still free. However, vm370 mulitprocessor support was dependent on a bunch of code that had shipped in my charged for product for releease 3. The decision was eventually made to move nearly 90% of the code from my charged-for product into the free vm370 release 4 base ... but not change the price for the software. past posts mentioning multiprocessor support (and/or compareswap instruction) http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#smp -- virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970 -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Difference between MVS and z / OS systems
Sounds like a homework question.Compare and contrast -- Mark Zelden - Zelden Consulting Services - z/OS, OS/390 and MVS ITIL v3 Foundation Certified mailto:m...@mzelden.com Mark's MVS Utilities: http://www.mzelden.com/mvsutil.html Systems Programming expert at http://search390.techtarget.com/ateExperts/ -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Difference between MVS and z / OS systems
On Tue, 18 Mar 2014 13:26:58 +, DASDBILL2 wrote: VM's predecessor system was called CP67. Both of these systems supported virtual storage and paging, but they had different names. And they ran on processors with somewhat different architectures. The s/360 model 67 supported 32-bit addressing, while s/370 was limited to 24-bit addressing until XA in 1982 or 1983 began to support 31-bit addressing, not 32-bit like the model 67. -- Tom Marchant -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Difference between MVS and z / OS systems
p...@voltage.com (Phil Smith) writes: I'm assuming from having never seen a reference to such on IBM-MAIN that no such community resource exists for z/OS-correct? note that ibm-main mailing list originated on (univ) bitnet mostly on vm370 systems http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BITNET and some past posts http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subnetwork.html#bitnet it used similar technology to that used for the ibm internal network http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subnetwork.html#internalnet that was originally developed by a co-worker at the science center, originally on cp67 http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#545tech also a lot of melinda's pieces are at the vmshare archive http://vm.marist.edu/~vmshare tymshare (a virtual machine based online commercial service bureau) made is cms-based online computer conferencing system available for free to SHARE starting in august 1976. other recent posts mentioning tymshare http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014.html#19 the suckage of MS-DOS, was Re: 'Free Unix! http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014b.html#84 CPU time http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014b.html#105 Happy 50th Birthday to the IBM Cambridge Scientific Center http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014c.html#53 Not Wild Ducks but Wild Geese - The history behind the story http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014d.html#23 [OT ] Mainframe memories http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014d.html#39 [CM] Ten recollections about the early WWW and Internet http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014d.html#44 [CM] Ten recollections about the early WWW and Internet past posts in this thread http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014d.html#54 Difference between MVS and z / OS systems http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014d.html#55 Difference between MVS and z / OS systems http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014d.html#56 Difference between MVS and z / OS systems http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014d.html#57 Difference between MVS and z / OS systems http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014d.html#59 Difference between MVS and z / OS systems -- virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970 -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Difference between MVS and z / OS systems
m42tom-ibmm...@yahoo.com (Tom Marchant) writes: And they ran on processors with somewhat different architectures. The s/360 model 67 supported 32-bit addressing, while s/370 was limited to 24-bit addressing until XA in 1982 or 1983 began to support 31-bit addressing, not 32-bit like the model 67. 360/67 multiprocessor support also allowed all processors to address all channels ... the 360/65 multiprocessor support just shared memory but had dedicated channels for each processor ... real multiprocessor support was simulated by using twin-tail controllers with dedicated channels from different processors to the twin-tails. this is also the multiprocessor implementation for 370. XA finally got all processors being able to address all channels. -- virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970 -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Difference between MVS and z / OS systems
On Tue, 2014-03-18 at 09:56 -0500, Tom Marchant wrote: while s/370 was limited to 24-bit addressing until XA in 1982 or 1983 began to support 31-bit addressing, not 32-bit like the model 67. I vaguely remember the dual-address-space-facility that began life just before XA came around. There was some exploitation of it in - I think - MVS/SE2 (or was it SP1?). Here's an interesting paper: Development and attributes of z/Architecture from IBM's RD Journal, July/September 2002: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/teaching/2006/CompArch/documents/all/processors/ibm360/ibm-z-plambeck.pdf -- David Andrews A. Duda Sons, Inc. david.andr...@duda.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Difference between MVS and z / OS systems
On Tue, 18 Mar 2014 09:56:17 -0500, Tom Marchant wrote: On Tue, 18 Mar 2014 13:26:58 +, DASDBILL2 wrote: ... The s/360 model 67 supported 32-bit addressing, while s/370 was limited to 24-bit addressing until XA in 1982 or 1983 began to support 31-bit addressing, not 32-bit like the model 67. How did the 67 deal with legacy code's use of the sign bit to terminate parameter lists? Did it also have a 31-bit mode? But I suppose most such code was written for 24-bit addressing. -- gil -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Difference between MVS and z / OS systems
On 18 March 2014 12:00, Paul Gilmartin paulgboul...@aim.com wrote: How did the 67 deal with legacy code's use of the sign bit to terminate parameter lists? I doubt that much legacy code ran on such a machine in 32-bit mode. There would surely be other reasons to run such code only in 24-bit mode - not least the common use of the entire high byte of an address to hold flags and such. Did it also have a 31-bit mode? But I suppose most such code was written for 24-bit addressing. It did not have 31-bit mode. PSW bit 4 was the 24/32 switch when in Extended PSW mode, which in turn was controlled by a Control Register bit. It's interesting that USASCII mode (bit 12, which became the BC/EC bit in virtual storage S/370s) was supported in both PSW modes. But I never actually saw one, let alone worked on it, so I'm just interpreting the Functional Characteristics. Tony H. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Difference between MVS and z / OS systems
d...@lists.duda.com (David Andrews) writes: I vaguely remember the dual-address-space-facility that began life just before XA came around. There was some exploitation of it in - I think - MVS/SE2 (or was it SP1?). in the wake of the failure of FS http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submain.html#futuresys ... they kicked off 3033, 3081 xa-architecture approximately concurrently http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014d.html#54 Difference between MVS and z / OS systems but the extensive pointer passing api and need to map common address ... by late in 3033 period, the combination of mvs kernel and common segment (morphed into common system area) was on the verged of taking up all the area in the 16mbyte virtual address space given to each application for execution. One of the people that was involved in XA, the (aborted) effort to use 801/risc (Iliad chip) as the microprocessor for low mid-range 370 ... do a retrofit of a subset of XA multi-address space addressing to 3033 as dual-address space mode ... as a way of trying to take some pressure off the need for the constant growth in common system area size (for passing parameters between address spaces). dual-address space mode allowed semi-privileged subsystem to access parameter list in calling application parameter list ... w/o it having to be in the common system area. he was working on 801/risc Iliad chip right up until the time he left for HP Labs ... where he worked on the HP risc chip (snake) used in their line of machines. He then was the lead architecture (at HP) on the architecture for Itanium. shortly after he left for HP Labs ... I was getting email asking if I was going to join him. past posts mentioning 801, risc, iliad, romp, rios, power, power/pc, etc http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#801 the other problem that mvs had in the 3033 time-frame was that it not only was in danger of taken up the whole 16mbyte virtual address space ... but its really bloated implementation was starting to overwhelm 16mbyte real storage limitation. Besides dual-address hack for 3033, another hack was rasing real storage to 64mbytes ... even though there was only 24bit addressing. There was two unused bits in the 16bit page table entry (that mapped a virtual page number of real page number). The hack was to prepend the two unused bits to the existing 12bit page number allowing addressing up to 64mbytes (the 12bit virtual page number mapped into a 14bit real page number). It wasn't possible to directly address any of the storage about the 16mbyte line ... except via virtual page number. Fortunately for I/O there was IDAL ... originally introduced in 370 to handle a problem with overruns involving non-contiguous page crossing i/os (360/370 channel architecture precluded prefetching of CCWs so data-chaining could sometime overrun since it had to wait for the i/o transfer on the previous ccw to complete before it could fetch the following ccw ... IDALs lifted that restriction allowing all addresses in IDALs to be prefetched). In any case the IDAL field was 32bits ... allowing I/O transfer addresses in the greater than 16mbyte area to be addressed. Especially in vm370 ... when virtual machine data in a virtual page above the 16mbyte line needed to be addressed ... it had to be brought down below the line. There original approach was to write the page to disk and then read it back in below the line. I provided them with a hack using dummy page table entries where a MVCL in virtual mode could bring the page down below the line (w/o resorting to in/out page i/o). as an aside, in the wake of the FS failure, POK kicked off 3033, 3081, and XA architecture. At the same time, Endicott kicked off 138/148, 138/148 ECPS ... mentioned here: http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014d.html#59 Difference between MVS and z / OS systems the 4331/4341 and E-architure. The 4331/4341 was approx. mid-range analogy to the 3081 ... except it was all brand new technology and finished much faster than the use of the warmed over FS technology for 3081 ... discussed here: http://www.jfsowa.com/computer/memo125.htm The E-architecture for DOS/VS and VS1 was sort of the low/mid-range analogy to XA architecture for MVS. However, its primary feature was moving much of the single virtual address space operation into microcode. DOS/VS (virtual dos/360) and VS1 (for os/360 mft) did something similar that OS/VS2 SVS did ... map the real kenel operation into single virtual address space ... sort of like emulating a large real memory machine. E-architecture moved a lot of what was the 370 virtual pagetables into the microcode layer. However, the big explosion in 4300 machines were with vm/370 ... which required separate (370) virtual address space for each virtual machine ... and so E-architecture didn't catch on like XA did (although you see its influence in the name VSE). Another 4341 issue was that they were out in late 70s, overlapped with 3033 and well before 3081. Cluster of vm/4341s had more
Re: Difference between MVS and z / OS systems
paulgboul...@aim.com (Paul Gilmartin) writes: How did the 67 deal with legacy code's use of the sign bit to terminate parameter lists? Did it also have a 31-bit mode? But I suppose most such code was written for 24-bit addressing. as mentioned here ... science center had expected to get the mission for virtual memory system ... and work on machine for the MIT project mac bid ... sort of as followon to (ibm 7094) ctss. However the mission went instead to new tss/360 group in Mohansic ... along with 360/67. at that time there was no legacy code with 24bit addressing. http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014d.html#23 Mainframe memories http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014d.html#25 Mainframe memories http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014d.html#27 Mainframe memories http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014d.html#32 Mainframe memories http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014d.html#56 Difference between MVS and z / OS systems once the legacy code was in place there were all sorts of problems. this is tale that 360 was originally suppose to be a ascii machine ... but a temporary hack was done because the new ascii unit record gear wasn't available ... and had to make do with lots of old BCD unit record gear (biggest computer goof ever): http://www.bobbemer.com/P-BIT.HTM other of his computer history http://www.bobbemer.com/HISTORY.HTM other posts in this thread: http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014d.html#54 Difference between MVS and z / OS systems http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014d.html#55 Difference between MVS and z / OS systems http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014d.html#57 Difference between MVS and z / OS systems http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014d.html#59 Difference between MVS and z / OS systems http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014d.html#60 Difference between MVS and z / OS systems http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014d.html#61 Difference between MVS and z / OS systems http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014d.html#62 Difference between MVS and z / OS systems -- virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970 -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Difference between MVS and z / OS systems
On Tue, 18 Mar 2014 11:00:14 -0500, Paul Gilmartin wrote: On Tue, 18 Mar 2014 09:56:17 -0500, Tom Marchant wrote: ... The s/360 model 67 supported 32-bit addressing, while s/370 was limited to 24-bit addressing until XA in 1982 or 1983 began to support 31-bit addressing, not 32-bit like the model 67. How did the 67 deal with legacy code's use of the sign bit to terminate parameter lists? Did it also have a 31-bit mode? But I suppose most such code was written for 24-bit addressing. Legacy code would have been code written to run under OS/360 or DOS/360, neither of which had any support for 32-bit addressing. The model 67 was designed to run TSS, IIRC. Where I worked, at Wayne State University in Detroit, we had a duplex (two processor) model 67 that was partitioned to run MVT on one processor and the Michigan Terminal System on the other processor. MTS was fairly popular. It was written at the University of Michigan and I think that there were about a dozen sites that ran it. WSU ran MTS until about the mid-1990s. I don't remember if MTS supported bimodal addressing. -- Tom Marchant The model 65 could be configured to run as a model 67, with virtual memory and 32-bit addressing or as a model 65 without those feature. The MVT half ran in model 65 mode. I believe that 31-bit mode was designed into XA so that the mode bit could be kept with the address. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Difference between MVS and z / OS systems
Actually I think MVS would be more akin to one of the 2 all beef patties. :-) Would JES or DFP be the second patty? Rex -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of ITURIEL DO NASCIMENTO NETO Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2014 2:27 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: RES: Difference between MVS and z / OS systems Hi, MVS is Big Mac, z/OS is Number 3 (Big Mac+Fries+Coke) Atenciosamente / Regards / Saludos Ituriel do Nascimento Neto BANCO BRADESCO S.A. 4250 / DPCD Engenharia de Software Sistemas Operacionais Mainframes Tel: +55 11 3684-2177 R: 42177 3-1402 Fax: +55 11 3684-4427 Agora é BRA. BRA de Brasil. BRA de Bradesco. Patrocinador oficial dos Jogos Olímpicos e Paralímpicos Rio 2016. -Mensagem original- De: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] Em nome de Chase, John Enviada em: segunda-feira, 17 de março de 2014 15:34 Para: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Assunto: Re: Difference between MVS and z / OS systems -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Helio Jose Da Silva Hello list, Someone can tell me the relevant differences between the MVS and z / OS systems? MVS is the kernel; z/OS is the whole package. -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 AVISO LEGAL br...Esta mensagem é destinada exclusivamente para a(s) pessoa(s) a quem é dirigida, podendo conter informação confidencial e/ou legalmente privilegiada. Se você não for destinatário desta mensagem, desde já fica notificado de abster-se a divulgar, copiar, distribuir, examinar ou, de qualquer forma, utilizar a informação contida nesta mensagem, por ser ilegal. Caso você tenha recebido esta mensagem por engano, pedimos que nos retorne este E-Mail, promovendo, desde logo, a eliminação do seu conteúdo em sua base de dados, registros ou sistema de controle. Fica desprovida de eficácia e validade a mensagem que contiver vínculos obrigacionais, expedida por quem não detenha poderes de representação. LEGAL ADVICEbr...This message is exclusively destined for the people to whom it is directed, and it can bear private and/or legally exceptional information. If you are not addressee of this message, since now you are advised to not release, copy, distribute, check or, otherwise, use the information contained in this message, because it is illegal. If you received this message by mistake, we ask you to return this email, making possible, as soon as possible, the elimination of its contents of your database, registrations or controls system. The message that bears any mandatory links, issued by someone who has no representation powers, shall be null or void. -- 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: Difference between MVS and z / OS systems
In b870629719727b4ba82a6c06a31c29124c5fcad...@hqmailsvr01.voltage.com, on 03/18/2014 at 06:58 AM, Phil Smith p...@voltage.com said: I'm assuming from having never seen a reference to such on IBM-MAIN that no such community resource exists for z/OS-correct? I'm not aware of one. I'd dearly love a repository of all of the OS/360, CP-67, OS/VS, VM, etc., announcements to cite in various wiki articles as reliable sources. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT ISO position; see http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress. (S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003) -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Difference between MVS and z / OS systems
In 10e09aae7c8c0e4e9f40585c270c2795d863f...@e14mbx20n.enterprise.emory.net, on 03/18/2014 at 02:21 PM, Skellen, Frank frank.skel...@emoryhealthcare.org said: Have a look at : http://www.demorton.com/Tech/$OSTL.pdf BTDT,GTTS. Incomplete and has significant errors. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT ISO position; see http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress. (S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003) -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Difference between MVS and z / OS systems
Jeez. Misread my own notes. VM/370 was announced August 2, 1972, per http://www.sinenomine.net/publications/history/vm370-announcement From: Phil Smith Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2014 9:59 AM To: ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu Subject: Re: Difference between MVS and z / OS systems Shmuel Metz wrote: VM was CP67 In the sense that OS/390 was OS/360. VM was a rewrite of CP67. VM wasn't a rewrite of CP67, any more than z/OS is a rewrite of OS/360. It's a linear descendant; plenty of code remained. As a VMer for 40+ years, the truth has been in here, but: - CP-40 was started in very late 1964, on a modified 360/40 - CP-67 was indeed 1967, on a 360/67 - The VM/370 product was announced June 30, 1973 For all this and more, read Melinda Varian's definitive paper on VM history, 1964-1997, at http://www.leeandmelindavarian.com/Melinda/25paper.pdf I'm assuming from having never seen a reference to such on IBM-MAIN that no such community resource exists for z/OS-correct? ...phsiii -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Difference between MVS and z / OS systems
On 3/17/2014 10:07 AM, Helio Jose Da Silva wrote: Someone can tell me the relevant differences between the MVS and z / OS systems? 40 years. -- 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
Re: Difference between MVS and z / OS systems
In m3iorbsfz2.fsf@lhwserver.localdomain, on 03/18/2014 at 11:07 AM, Anne Lynn Wheeler l...@garlic.com said: 360/67 multiprocessor support also allowed all processors to address all channels ... the 360/65 multiprocessor support just shared memory but had dedicated channels for each processor ... real multiprocessor support was simulated by using twin-tail controllers with dedicated channels from different processors to the twin-tails. this is also the multiprocessor implementation for 370. Sort of; S/370 ultimately had channel set switching, but that was for RAS rather than performance. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT ISO position; see http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress. (S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003) -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Difference between MVS and z / OS systems
In 5298812145489891.wa.paulgboulderaim@listserv.ua.edu, on 03/18/2014 at 11:00 AM, Paul Gilmartin paulgboul...@aim.com said: How did the 67 deal with legacy code's use of the sign bit to terminate parameter lists? 24-bit mode. Did it also have a 31-bit mode? No. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT ISO position; see http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress. (S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003) -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Difference between MVS and z / OS systems
In 1395156127.1979.21.camel@localhost, on 03/18/2014 at 11:22 AM, David Andrews d...@lists.duda.com said: I vaguely remember the dual-address-space-facility that began life just before XA came around. There was some exploitation of it in - I think - MVS/SE2 (or was it SP1?). MVS/SP 1.2, quickly replace by 1.3; neither SE1 nor SE2 supported it. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT ISO position; see http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress. (S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003) -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Difference between MVS and z / OS systems
On Mon, 17 Mar 2014 17:07:14 +, Helio Jose Da Silva wrote: Someone can tell me the relevant differences between the MVS and z / OS systems? Well, z/OS runs on zSeries; MVS doesn't. But MVS is often used as generic (IBM jargon would say esoteric), inclusive of MVS, MVS/370, MVS/XA, MVS/ESA, OS/390, z/OS, ... I don't know which are sanctioned by IBM's trademarks. -- gil -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Difference between MVS and z / OS systems
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/bit.listserv.tsorexx/JM3Vx1Vkw2w https://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/zos/basics/index.jsp?topic=/com.ibm.zos.zconcepts/zconcepts_102.htm Kolusu IBM Mainframe Discussion List IBM-MAIN@listserv.ua.edu wrote on 03/17/2014 10:07:14 AM: From: Helio Jose Da Silva helio.si...@rural.com.br To: IBM-MAIN@listserv.ua.edu, Date: 03/17/2014 10:07 AM Subject: Difference between MVS and z / OS systems Sent by: IBM Mainframe Discussion List IBM-MAIN@listserv.ua.edu Hello list, Someone can tell me the relevant differences between the MVS and z / OS systems? Thank you Helio Jose da Silva -- 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: Difference between MVS and z / OS systems
On Mon, 17 Mar 2014 17:07:14 + Helio Jose Da Silva helio.si...@rural.com.br wrote: :Someone can tell me the relevant differences between the MVS and z / OS systems? Depends on the context. What do you mean by MVS and z/OS? Which versions? -- Binyamin Dissen bdis...@dissensoftware.com http://www.dissensoftware.com Director, Dissen Software, Bar Grill - Israel Should you use the mailblocks package and expect a response from me, you should preauthorize the dissensoftware.com domain. I very rarely bother responding to challenge/response systems, especially those from irresponsible companies. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Difference between MVS and z / OS systems
Paul Gilmartin wrote: Well, z/OS runs on zSeries; MVS doesn't. More accurately, z/OS ran on zSeries, now runs on System z and zEnterprise. The zSeries name was obsolete as of 2005 or so. Yes, I'm being pedantic, but in this context especially it seems appropriate. ...phsiii -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Difference between MVS and z / OS systems
Hi, If my memory serves me right, back in the 1970s there was OS/MFT, OS/MVT, OS/VS1, and OS/VS2. OS/VS2 morphed to OS/SVS and then OS/MVS(? Or maybe just MVS) starting in the 1980s. I worked on OS/VS1 Rel 7 back in the 79-80 time frame. I didn¹t get back to MVS till the mid 90¹s. Gary Gary L. Shiminsky Senior zVM/zVSE Systems Programmer Mainframe Technical Support Group Department of Information Technology State of New Hampshire 27 Hazen Drive Concord, NH 03301 603-271-1509 Fax 603-271-1516 Statement of Confidentiality: The contents of this message are confidential. Any unauthorized disclosure, reproduction, use or dissemination (either whole or in part) is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please notify the sender immediately and delete the message from your system. -Original Message- From: John Eells ee...@us.ibm.com Reply-To: IBM List IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Date: Monday, March 17, 2014 at 1:51 PM To: IBM List IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Difference between MVS and z / OS systems Helio Jose Da Silva wrote: Hello list, Someone can tell me the relevant differences between the MVS and z / OS systems? MVS was the prior name of what has become z/OS. What was started out as MVS in 1974 was renamed to: MVS/SP Version 1 MVS/XA Version 2 in 1981 MVS/ESA Version 3 (1988), Version 4 (1991), and Version 5 (1994) OS/390 (1996) z/OS (2000) Along the way have come a plethora of new and enhanced functions. There are more differences than there is time to list them. However, we still call the base control program (BCP) MVS in many contexts, such as in the names of various z/OS books, to differentiate it from the other 70-ish parts (elements) of z/OS. -- John Eells z/OS Technical Marketing IBM Poughkeepsie ee...@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: Difference between MVS and z / OS systems
-Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Helio Jose Da Silva Hello list, Someone can tell me the relevant differences between the MVS and z / OS systems? MVS is the kernel; z/OS is the whole package. -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: Difference between MVS and z / OS systems
Close. OS/VS2 was released having been already pre-morphed into SVS and MVS. SVS was first called OS/VS2 Release 1, was first available in 1974, and that's when I worked with it. MVS was first called OS/VS2 Release 2, was first available slightly later (1975, I think), but I didn't begin working with MVS until 1977. VM was also first released around 1975. Other grand buzzwords that morphed were loosely coupled multiprocessing and tightly coupled multiprocessing. The loose version became shared SPOOL, and the tight version became simply multiprocessing (several CPUs sharing the same central storage). And now we have SYSPLEXEs with both loosely and tightly coupled systems comPLEXly interwoven. Your date of 1980 for MVS is about the time when MVS's initially disappointing performance and RAS were greatly improved. Bill Fairchild - Original Message - From: Gary Shiminsky gary.shimin...@doit.nh.gov To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Sent: Monday, March 17, 2014 1:13:21 PM Subject: Re: Difference between MVS and z / OS systems Hi, If my memory serves me right, back in the 1970s there was OS/MFT, OS/MVT, OS/VS1, and OS/VS2. OS/VS2 morphed to OS/SVS and then OS/MVS(? Or maybe just MVS) starting in the 1980s. I worked on OS/VS1 Rel 7 back in the 79-80 time frame. I didn¹t get back to MVS till the mid 90¹s. Gary Gary L. Shiminsky Senior zVM/zVSE Systems Programmer Mainframe Technical Support Group Department of Information Technology State of New Hampshire 27 Hazen Drive Concord, NH 03301 603-271-1509 Fax 603-271-1516 Statement of Confidentiality: The contents of this message are confidential. Any unauthorized disclosure, reproduction, use or dissemination (either whole or in part) is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please notify the sender immediately and delete the message from your system. -Original Message- From: John Eells ee...@us.ibm.com Reply-To: IBM List IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Date: Monday, March 17, 2014 at 1:51 PM To: IBM List IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Difference between MVS and z / OS systems Helio Jose Da Silva wrote: Hello list, Someone can tell me the relevant differences between the MVS and z / OS systems? MVS was the prior name of what has become z/OS. What was started out as MVS in 1974 was renamed to: MVS/SP Version 1 MVS/XA Version 2 in 1981 MVS/ESA Version 3 (1988), Version 4 (1991), and Version 5 (1994) OS/390 (1996) z/OS (2000) Along the way have come a plethora of new and enhanced functions. There are more differences than there is time to list them. However, we still call the base control program (BCP) MVS in many contexts, such as in the names of various z/OS books, to differentiate it from the other 70-ish parts (elements) of z/OS. -- John Eells z/OS Technical Marketing IBM Poughkeepsie ee...@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 -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Difference between MVS and z / OS systems
gary.shimin...@doit.nh.gov (Shiminsky, Gary) writes: If my memory serves me right, back in the 1970s there was OS/MFT, OS/MVT, OS/VS1, and OS/VS2. OS/VS2 morphed to OS/SVS and then OS/MVS(? Or maybe just MVS) starting in the 1980s. OS/VS2 started out as single virtual address space (svs ... single virtual storage) ... a little bit of code for setting up page tables, handle page faults, do page i/o, basically faking MVT into thinking it was running in 16mbyte machine. the biggest problem/effort was channel program translation ... i.e. nearly identical problem as MVT running in 16mbyte virtual machine under cp67. In CP67, the routine to translate channel programs from virtual addresses to real addresses was CCWTRANS ... it made a copy of the passed channel program, replacing virtual addresses with real addresses, fixing up crossing page boundaries, etc. In fact, when Ludlow was doing the work, he actually cribbed a copy of CP67's CCWTRANS into the side of EXCP processing to do the channel program translation. Later OS/VS2 morphs into MVS ... each application getting their own 16mbyte virtual address space ... however OS/360 API heritage is extremely pointer passing intensive ... so they had to stick a 8mbyte image of the MVS kernel into each 16mbyte virtual address space ... so that the pointer passing API paradigm works (aka call the kernel passing virtual address pointer to parameters in application space ... mvs needing direct access to those addresses). Further complicating things were the subsystems were also pointer passing API intensive ... but they each now residing in their own, separate virtual address space. To address this, they started out with the common segment (1mbytes), an image of which occupied every virtual address space. applications could reserve space in the common segment, lay down the parameters, and then make call to the subsystem, passing an address pointer to the parameters in the common segment. This left applications with 7mbytes (out of the original 16mbytes). However, the requirement for common segment space is somewhat proportional to the number of different subsystems and the number of concurrent applications. By the 3033 timeframes many datacenters were running with 4-5mbyte common area (leaving only 3-4mbytes for applications our of the original 16mbytes) and verging on increasing to 5-6mbytes ... leaving only 2mbytes for applications. Some particular large internal VLSI chip development fortran programs were constantly threatening to exceed 7mbytes running for hours at a time on several of the largest MVS mainframes ... all requiring a carefully constructed MVS systems that didn't use more than 9mbytes. In order to address the problems they were on the verge to moving to vm370/cms ... since a CMS application could get nearly the whole 16mbytes ... solving a slew of constant applications problems trying to stay within the MVS limitations. for other drift ... part of a Future System discussion where original MVS was supposedly on the glide path to the Future System operating system (FS was going to completely replace 370 ... and the machines were nothing like 370 machines): http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011d.html#73 Multiple Virtual Memory past posts mentioning (failed, w/o even being announced) FS http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submain.html#futuresys -- virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970 -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Difference between MVS and z / OS systems
On 17 March 2014 13:51, John Eells ee...@us.ibm.com wrote: MVS was the prior name of what has become z/OS. What was started out as MVS in 1974 was renamed to: [...] Although the name MVS was around in 1974, IBM chose, for the usual marketing reasons of the day, to sell it as OS/VS2 Release 2, presumably to emphasize continuity with the very different OS/VS2 Release 1 (aka SVS), which was essentially MVT virtualized into a single 16 MB address space. It took a long time for the names MVS (and SVS, for that matter) to appear in official publications; many if not most pubs still had titles with OS/VS2 Release 3.7 and no mention of MVS into the late 1970s. There is some evidence that the product was going to be called MVM (Multiple Virtual Memories) at one time. For quite some time after release of OS/VS2 Release 2, the IEHDASDR program printer a heading line containing MVM DASDR. There is a different sense of MVS, and that is, as John Chase said 'MVS is the kernel; z/OS is the whole package'. This, though, came about only when MVS/XA appeared with the non-optional Data Facility Product (DFP) in addition to the core operating system. Two labs, east coast, west coast, etc... These were re-integrated only with the OS/390 bundling. I doubt any one present -- even Lynn Wheeler -- knows all the politics behind all these changes. Tony H. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Difference between MVS and z / OS systems
VM was around in 1967. Iirc. - -teD - Original Message From: DASDBILL2 Sent: Monday, March 17, 2014 15:09 To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Reply To: IBM Mainframe Discussion List Subject: Re: Difference between MVS and z / OS systems Close. OS/VS2 was released having been already pre-morphed into SVS and MVS. SVS was first called OS/VS2 Release 1, was first available in 1974, and that's when I worked with it. MVS was first called OS/VS2 Release 2, was first available slightly later (1975, I think), but I didn't begin working with MVS until 1977. VM was also first released around 1975. Other grand buzzwords that morphed were loosely coupled multiprocessing and tightly coupled multiprocessing. The loose version became shared SPOOL, and the tight version became simply multiprocessing (several CPUs sharing the same central storage). And now we have SYSPLEXEs with both loosely and tightly coupled systems comPLEXly interwoven. Your date of 1980 for MVS is about the time when MVS's initially disappointing performance and RAS were greatly improved. Bill Fairchild - Original Message - From: Gary Shiminsky gary.shimin...@doit.nh.gov To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Sent: Monday, March 17, 2014 1:13:21 PM Subject: Re: Difference between MVS and z / OS systems Hi, If my memory serves me right, back in the 1970s there was OS/MFT, OS/MVT, OS/VS1, and OS/VS2. OS/VS2 morphed to OS/SVS and then OS/MVS(? Or maybe just MVS) starting in the 1980s. I worked on OS/VS1 Rel 7 back in the 79-80 time frame. I didn¹t get back to MVS till the mid 90¹s. Gary Gary L. Shiminsky Senior zVM/zVSE Systems Programmer Mainframe Technical Support Group Department of Information Technology State of New Hampshire 27 Hazen Drive Concord, NH 03301 603-271-1509 Fax 603-271-1516 Statement of Confidentiality: The contents of this message are confidential. Any unauthorized disclosure, reproduction, use or dissemination (either whole or in part) is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please notify the sender immediately and delete the message from your system. -Original Message- From: John Eells ee...@us.ibm.com Reply-To: IBM List IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Date: Monday, March 17, 2014 at 1:51 PM To: IBM List IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Difference between MVS and z / OS systems Helio Jose Da Silva wrote: Hello list, Someone can tell me the relevant differences between the MVS and z / OS systems? MVS was the prior name of what has become z/OS. What was started out as MVS in 1974 was renamed to: MVS/SP Version 1 MVS/XA Version 2 in 1981 MVS/ESA Version 3 (1988), Version 4 (1991), and Version 5 (1994) OS/390 (1996) z/OS (2000) Along the way have come a plethora of new and enhanced functions. There are more differences than there is time to list them. However, we still call the base control program (BCP) MVS in many contexts, such as in the names of various z/OS books, to differentiate it from the other 70-ish parts (elements) of z/OS. -- John Eells z/OS Technical Marketing IBM Poughkeepsie ee...@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 -- 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: Difference between MVS and z / OS systems
I would like to interrupt this reminiscent thread with a quiz: How to you replace MVS with z/OS ? Answer: the MVSt instruction :-) Kirk Wolf Dovetailed Technologies http://dovetail.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Difference between MVS and z / OS systems
VM was called CP67 in 1967. It became VM several years later. CP67 would only run on a S/360 model 67. VM would run on any S/370 system with paging architecture. Bill Fairchild - Original Message - From: Ted MacNEIL eamacn...@yahoo.ca To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Sent: Monday, March 17, 2014 3:34:37 PM Subject: Re: Difference between MVS and z / OS systems VM was around in 1967. Iirc. - -teD - Original Message From: DASDBILL2 Sent: Monday, March 17, 2014 15:09 To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Reply To: IBM Mainframe Discussion List Subject: Re: Difference between MVS and z / OS systems Close. OS/VS2 was released having been already pre-morphed into SVS and MVS. SVS was first called OS/VS2 Release 1, was first available in 1974, and that's when I worked with it. MVS was first called OS/VS2 Release 2, was first available slightly later (1975, I think), but I didn't begin working with MVS until 1977. VM was also first released around 1975. Other grand buzzwords that morphed were loosely coupled multiprocessing and tightly coupled multiprocessing. The loose version became shared SPOOL, and the tight version became simply multiprocessing (several CPUs sharing the same central storage). And now we have SYSPLEXEs with both loosely and tightly coupled systems comPLEXly interwoven. Your date of 1980 for MVS is about the time when MVS's initially disappointing performance and RAS were greatly improved. Bill Fairchild - Original Message - From: Gary Shiminsky gary.shimin...@doit.nh.gov To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Sent: Monday, March 17, 2014 1:13:21 PM Subject: Re: Difference between MVS and z / OS systems Hi, If my memory serves me right, back in the 1970s there was OS/MFT, OS/MVT, OS/VS1, and OS/VS2. OS/VS2 morphed to OS/SVS and then OS/MVS(? Or maybe just MVS) starting in the 1980s. I worked on OS/VS1 Rel 7 back in the 79-80 time frame. I didn¹t get back to MVS till the mid 90¹s. Gary Gary L. Shiminsky Senior zVM/zVSE Systems Programmer Mainframe Technical Support Group Department of Information Technology State of New Hampshire 27 Hazen Drive Concord, NH 03301 603-271-1509 Fax 603-271-1516 Statement of Confidentiality: The contents of this message are confidential. Any unauthorized disclosure, reproduction, use or dissemination (either whole or in part) is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please notify the sender immediately and delete the message from your system. -Original Message- From: John Eells ee...@us.ibm.com Reply-To: IBM List IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Date: Monday, March 17, 2014 at 1:51 PM To: IBM List IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Difference between MVS and z / OS systems Helio Jose Da Silva wrote: Hello list, Someone can tell me the relevant differences between the MVS and z / OS systems? MVS was the prior name of what has become z/OS. What was started out as MVS in 1974 was renamed to: MVS/SP Version 1 MVS/XA Version 2 in 1981 MVS/ESA Version 3 (1988), Version 4 (1991), and Version 5 (1994) OS/390 (1996) z/OS (2000) Along the way have come a plethora of new and enhanced functions. There are more differences than there is time to list them. However, we still call the base control program (BCP) MVS in many contexts, such as in the names of various z/OS books, to differentiate it from the other 70-ish parts (elements) of z/OS. -- John Eells z/OS Technical Marketing IBM Poughkeepsie ee...@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 -- 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: Difference between MVS and z / OS systems
t...@harminc.net (Tony Harminc) writes: These were re-integrated only with the OS/390 bundling. I doubt any one present -- even Lynn Wheeler -- knows all the politics behind all these changes. re: http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014d.html#54 Difference between MVS and z / OS systems OS/390 ... 1995 after we had left http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=OS/390 OS/390 was introduced in late 1995 in an effort, led by the late Randy Stelman, to simplify the packaging and ordering for the key, entitled elements needed to complete a fully functional MVS operating system package. ... snip ... marketing, service, availability, withdrawal dates; z/OS, z/OS.e, OS/390, MVS/ESA (1st OS/390 available 29Mar1996) http://www-03.ibm.com/systems/z/os/zos/support/zos_eos_dates.html recent post leading up to us being gone by aug1992 (in the wake of cluster scaleup being transferred and being told we couldn't work on anything with more than four processors) http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014d.html#52 the company had gone in the red and there was some work that was going to break up the company into the 13 baby blues. leading up to leaving we saw some periodic email from the POK region about would the last person to leave POK please turn out the lights. The disk division was furthest along as ADSTAR. I've mentioned before that disk division was predicting the demise of disk division with data fleeing the datacenters and drop in disk sales, blamed on the communication group that had stranglehold on the datacenter ... some past posts http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subnetwork.html#terminal the executive in charge of software at ADSTAR was involved in various work arounds to the communication group road blocks (fighting off client/server and distributed computing) ... paying for posix support in MVS and funding startups doing various products (that communication group wouldn't let him do inside IBM) ... and he would call us to consult (up until the time we were gone). 28dec1992 baby blue reorganizations in preparation for breakup http://web.archive.org/web/20101120231857/http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,977353,00.html we move on in Aug1992, doing some work on non-mainframe cluster and DBMS for non-homogeneous data ... working well for things like taxonomies and ontologies, like UMLS http://www.nlm.nih.gov/research/umls/ and works better for 3-value logic (than strict RDBMS/SQL) http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003g.html#40 past posts about original releational/sql System/R http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submain.html#systemr we did get a call if we would consult with inventoring corporate inter-divisional MOUs as part of the breakup (i.e. lots of divisional relationships would have to be explicitly turned into contracts as part of breakup, like one division piggy-backing off a supplier's contract with another division). However, before we start work on the MOU inventory, the board brings in Gerstner to reverse the breakup and resurrect the company. conjecture about os/390 was help reduce the enormous skills and resources required for the carefeeding of MVS system. I've commented before about the large explosion in 4300 sales during the late 70s and first half of the 80s ... sort of the leading edge of the distributed computing tsunami ... customers ordering hundreds at a time for vm/4300 going out in departmental areas. Part of the issue was high-end disk was (CKD) 3380 ... but the entry midrange disks were FBA (3310, 3370) which MVS continues to not support to this day (even though real CKD disks haven't been manufactured for decades). Eventually as some concession to possibility MVS playing in that exploding mid-range distributed computing market, they come out with 3375 (CKD simulated on 3370 FBA). However, that didn't address the enormous skills and resources that would have been required to support several hundred systems. old email mentioning 4300s http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/lhwemail.html#43xx -- virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970 -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Difference between MVS and z / OS systems
dasdbi...@comcast.net (DASDBILL2) writes: Close. OS/VS2 was released having been already pre-morphed into SVS and MVS. SVS was first called OS/VS2 Release 1, was first available in 1974, and that's when I worked with it. MVS was first called OS/VS2 Release 2, was first available slightly later (1975, I think), but I didn't begin working with MVS until 1977. VM was also first released around 1975. Other grand buzzwords that morphed were loosely coupled multiprocessing and tightly coupled multiprocessing. The loose version became shared SPOOL, and the tight version became simply multiprocessing (several CPUs sharing the same central storage). And now we have SYSPLEXEs with both loosely and tightly coupled systems comPLEXly interwoven. Your date of 1980 for MVS is about the time when MVS's initially disappointing performance and RAS were greatly improved. re: http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014d.html#54 Difference between MVS and z / OS systems http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014d.html#55 Difference between MVS and z / OS systems as mentioned upthread, os/vs2 svs started out using cp67 ccwtrans crafted into EXCP processing to perform building a copy of the passed channel program with virtual addresses converted to real addresses. the science center recently had its 50th anniv (1Feb1964) http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014b.html#88 Happy 50th Birthday to the IBM Cambridge Scientific Center, Kendall Square Pioneer http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014b.html#105 Happy 50th Birthday to the IBM Cambridge Scientific Center the science center that it would be the center for virtual memory system and bid to MIT for Project Mac followon to CTSS on IBM 7094. However, that effort went to another group (TSS/360 and 360/67) and IBM loosing the big to GE645. Some of the CTSS people went to IBM science center on the 4th flr and others went to Project Max Multics (ge645) on the 5th flr. The science center decides to go ahead and work on virtual memory anyway ... getting a 360/40 and making the hardware modifications to support virtual address translation ... and builds the CP/40 system ... which turns out to also be a virtual machine system with CMS (and 360 guest operating systems) running in virtual machine. CMS borrows some amount from what was learned with the online CTSS system. CP40 talk given at SEAS (european share) meeting in 1982 http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/cp40seas1982.txt when standard virutal memory 360/67 product becomes availalbe, cp40 morphs into cp67. Science center installs cp67 on the (MIT) Lincoln Labs 360/67 in 1967 and then installs it at univ system last week of Jan1968 (where I'm undergraduate). recent posts discussing several customers were talked into ordering 360/67s to run tss/360 ... but because of production issues with tss/360, most used 360/67 for other purposes ... recent posts http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014d.html#16 Mainframe memories http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014d.html#22 Mainframe memories http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014d.html#23 Mainframe memories http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014d.html#25 Mainframe memories http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014d.html#26 Mainframe memories note that long ago and far away ... my wife was con'ed into going to POK to be responsible for loosely-coupled architecture ... where she developed peer-coupled shared data architecture some past posts http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subnetwork.html#shareddata however, little uptake (except for IMS hotstandby until sysplex and parallel sysplex) and constant battles with the communication group trying to force her to use sna/vtam for loosely-coupled operation ... eventually took its toll and she leaves. then there is the issue with MVS 15min MTBF when tried in the disk engineering labs. I rewrote I/O supervisor so it would never fail ... so they could do ondemand concurrent multiple device testing ... which was enormous improvement in productivity (compared to their 7x24 stand-alone testing schedules). I wrote-up a report ... and happened to mention the MVS 15min MTBF issue ... which brings down the wrath of the MVS RAS group on my head ... some mention in these past posts getting to play disk engineer in bldgs 1415 http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#disk this is old email where FE standard error regression tests for 3380 (reasonably expected errors from 3380) results in MVS failure in all cases ... and in 2/3rds of the cases leaving no evidence of what caused the failure. http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007.html#email801015 -- virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970 -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Difference between MVS and z / OS systems
I think your dates are wrong. VM was CP67 released in guess what year? MVS was first released in 1974. SVS was OS/VS1 and MVS was OS/VS2, IIRC. I'm sure, if I'm wrong, somebody'll correct me. - -teD - Original Message From: DASDBILL2 Sent: Monday, March 17, 2014 15:09 To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Reply To: IBM Mainframe Discussion List Subject: Re: Difference between MVS and z / OS systems Close. OS/VS2 was released having been already pre-morphed into SVS and MVS. SVS was first called OS/VS2 Release 1, was first available in 1974, and that's when I worked with it. MVS was first called OS/VS2 Release 2, was first available slightly later (1975, I think), but I didn't begin working with MVS until 1977. VM was also first released around 1975. Other grand buzzwords that morphed were loosely coupled multiprocessing and tightly coupled multiprocessing. The loose version became shared SPOOL, and the tight version became simply multiprocessing (several CPUs sharing the same central storage). And now we have SYSPLEXEs with both loosely and tightly coupled systems comPLEXly interwoven. Your date of 1980 for MVS is about the time when MVS's initially disappointing performance and RAS were greatly improved. Bill Fairchild - Original Message - From: Gary Shiminsky gary.shimin...@doit.nh.gov To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Sent: Monday, March 17, 2014 1:13:21 PM Subject: Re: Difference between MVS and z / OS systems Hi, If my memory serves me right, back in the 1970s there was OS/MFT, OS/MVT, OS/VS1, and OS/VS2. OS/VS2 morphed to OS/SVS and then OS/MVS(? Or maybe just MVS) starting in the 1980s. I worked on OS/VS1 Rel 7 back in the 79-80 time frame. I didn¹t get back to MVS till the mid 90¹s. Gary Gary L. Shiminsky Senior zVM/zVSE Systems Programmer Mainframe Technical Support Group Department of Information Technology State of New Hampshire 27 Hazen Drive Concord, NH 03301 603-271-1509 Fax 603-271-1516 Statement of Confidentiality: The contents of this message are confidential. Any unauthorized disclosure, reproduction, use or dissemination (either whole or in part) is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please notify the sender immediately and delete the message from your system. -Original Message- From: John Eells ee...@us.ibm.com Reply-To: IBM List IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Date: Monday, March 17, 2014 at 1:51 PM To: IBM List IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Difference between MVS and z / OS systems Helio Jose Da Silva wrote: Hello list, Someone can tell me the relevant differences between the MVS and z / OS systems? MVS was the prior name of what has become z/OS. What was started out as MVS in 1974 was renamed to: MVS/SP Version 1 MVS/XA Version 2 in 1981 MVS/ESA Version 3 (1988), Version 4 (1991), and Version 5 (1994) OS/390 (1996) z/OS (2000) Along the way have come a plethora of new and enhanced functions. There are more differences than there is time to list them. However, we still call the base control program (BCP) MVS in many contexts, such as in the names of various z/OS books, to differentiate it from the other 70-ish parts (elements) of z/OS. -- John Eells z/OS Technical Marketing IBM Poughkeepsie ee...@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 -- 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: Difference between MVS and z / OS systems
On Mar 17, 2014, at 9:35 PM, Ted MacNEIL wrote: I think your dates are wrong. VM was CP67 released in guess what year? MVS was first released in 1974. SVS was OS/VS1 and MVS was OS/VS2, IIRC. I'm sure, if I'm wrong, somebody'll correct me. - -teD Ted: SVS was *NOT* os/vs1 many many reasons ... but the first one that comes to mind is the SVS had TSO it also had HASP . The 1974 sounds right. I remember IPLing it around then at a local IBM Ed center in the middle of the night. Ed -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
