Re: real vs. emulated CKD
If you had 3990-6 control units, you could do the equivalent of RAID1 called dual-copy on real 3390s. I remember swapping HDA's on several occasions concurrently using that capability. Dana On Mon, 2 Jun 2014 19:26:05 +, DASDBILL2 dasdbi...@comcast.net wrote: I am thinking only of a SLED that was implemented without RAID, regardless of how real or quasi its CKD-ness was. I am satisfied with knowing that it was around 12/31/96 for the 3390 and possibly a little for the 9340, but only if the 9340 had no RAID mapping internally. Bill Fairchild -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
real vs. emulated CKD
I know it has been decades since IBM manufactured its last real CKD controller, but what was the exact date when the last new one was shipped? Just curious. Bill Fairchild - Original Message - From: Anne Lynn Wheeler l...@garlic.com To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Sent: Monday, June 2, 2014 9:18:43 AM Subject: Re: Costs of core kees.verno...@klm.com (Vernooij, CP - KLM , SPLXM) writes: I still remember the early 80's, on a 3031/3033 or so I think, when IBM decided to sell memory in 1MB units only. We needed 0.5 MB expansion for the next year and my manager was very angry with IBM about the unnecessary waste of money because of this new policy. So 1 MB was a substantial investment at that time. 303x (along with 3081) was qd projects kicked off after FS imploded. http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submain.html#futuresys 3031 was 158 engine with just 370 microcode and the integrated channel microcode moved to a 2nd 158 engine called channel director; 3032 was 168-3 with new covers and configured to work with external channel director, 3033 was 168-3 logic remapped to chips that were 20% faster (also had more circuits per chip, some late logic rework to increase use of onchip logic, increased 3033 to 1.5times 168-3). MVS in 3033 timeframe was increasingly enormous bloat ... but the amount of system real storage approaching 16mbyte and amount of virtual address space approaching 16mbyte (even with each application getting its own 16mbyte virtual address space, MVS requirement was approaching 16mbyte). to address the real storage bloat, a hack was done to have 16mbyte real storage even tho 370 didn't support 16mbyte real storage addressing. IDALs introduced with 370 was 32bit field for i/o transfer addresses, it was leveraged for doing i/o to real addresses 16mbyte. The 370 page table entry was 16bits, 12bit page number, 2 defined bits, and 2 undefined bits. The 2 undefined bits were co-opted to prefix the page number forming 14bit page number (allowing to generate up to 64mbyte addressing). While instruction addressing was still 24bit/16mbyte, virtual addresses could be translated into 26bit/64mbyte real addresses. OS/360 heritage has enormously ingrained pointer passing API paradigm. With everything in single same address (OS/360 real storage and VS2/SVS) that wasn't a problem. Moving to VS2/MVS with different 16mbyte virtual address space for each application represented enormous problem/opportunity. It started out with image of the MVS kernel taking up half of each 16mbyte application virtual address space (8mbyte, with application and kernel in same virtual address space can use pointer passing API for kernel calls to access application parameters). That left the problem of various MVS subsystems that moved into their own separate virtual address space. To address applications calling subsystem, the common segment area (1mbyte CSA) was defined in each virtual address space for parameters used in subsystem calls (leaving 7mbytes for applications). However as systems size grew (with 3033), CSA size had to grow (proportional to both number subsystems and concurrently executing applications) ... becoming common system area (multiple one mbyte segments). Later in 3033 time-frame, CSA was 5-6mbytes at many customers (leaving 2-3mbytes address space for applications), threatening to become 8mbytes (leaving nothing for applications). all the problems contributed to the attack of the vm/4341s ... a cluster of vm/4341s had more aggregate processing than 3033 at lower cost, lower environmental and floor space. Also 4341 channels were faster more efficient than the 303x channel director (158 engine running integrated channel microcode). I've mentioned before that the head of POK trying to fight off the Endicott 4341s, got the corporate allocation of a critical 4341 manufacturing component cut in half. Places like LLNL were doing benchmarks looking for 70 4341s for datacenter compute farm ... the leading edge of cluster supercomputers. Large corporations were also ordering hundreds of 4341s at a time, placing them out in departmental areas ... the leading edge of the distributed computing tsunami. some old email http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/lhwemail.html#4341 MVS was locked out of the exploding distributed computing market. The 3380 was high-end CKD DASD ... however the only mid-range disks were FBA (3310 3370) appropriate for placing out in departmental areas (non-datacenter environment, converted departmental supply conference rooms). Eventually they did come out with 3375 (CKD simulated on 3370) to try and provide MVS an entry into this market. However, MVS system tended to require 10-30 people for carefeeding ... which scaled poorly to hundreds of distributed departmental computers (IPL and run with little or no human intervention). -- virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970
Re: real vs. emulated CKD
dasdbi...@comcast.net (DASDBILL2) writes: I know it has been decades since IBM manufactured its last real CKD controller, but what was the exact date when the last new one was shipped? re: http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014g.html#82 Costs of core http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014g.html#83 Costs of core depends on how you differentiate CKD and FBA ... 3380 was already moving to fixed-block cells (track space calculations have 3380 rounding up to cell size). part of this is driven by increasingly sophisticated error correcting code technology being on fixed size blocks http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014g.html#75 non-IBM: SONY new tape storage - 185 Terabytes on a tape. fba-512 has been standard since the 70s with 3310s 3370s ... but currently is move to fba-4096 ... as part of error correcting technology. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disk_sector the above has IBM sizes in 512, 1024, 2048, 4096 in the 70s. The enhanced CMS filesystem introduced formating block size option ... but on 3310s 3370s ... used multiples of 512byte physical blocks. however, industry standard transition to 4096 starting in 2007 continuing through Jan2011. IBM article on subject: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/l-4kb-sector-disks/ -- 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: real vs. emulated CKD
I will rephrase my question. When did any vendor last ship a 3390 DASD to anyone with non-RAID SLEDs inside for use on any kind of operating system which did not have direct support for FBA in its customer-usable access method repertoire? There must have been some kind of announcement made which is still findable online. IBM continued to manufacture and sell things after this date that they called 3390s but which were implemented internally with RAID, I believe. Bill Fairchild - Original Message - From: Anne Lynn Wheeler l...@garlic.com To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Sent: Monday, June 2, 2014 9:55:46 AM Subject: Re: real vs. emulated CKD dasdbi...@comcast.net (DASDBILL2) writes: I know it has been decades since IBM manufactured its last real CKD controller, but what was the exact date when the last new one was shipped? re: http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014g.html#82 Costs of core http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014g.html#83 Costs of core depends on how you differentiate CKD and FBA ... 3380 was already moving to fixed-block cells (track space calculations have 3380 rounding up to cell size). part of this is driven by increasingly sophisticated error correcting code technology being on fixed size blocks http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014g.html#75 non-IBM: SONY new tape storage - 185 Terabytes on a tape. fba-512 has been standard since the 70s with 3310s 3370s ... but currently is move to fba-4096 ... as part of error correcting technology. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disk_sector the above has IBM sizes in 512, 1024, 2048, 4096 in the 70s. The enhanced CMS filesystem introduced formating block size option ... but on 3310s 3370s ... used multiples of 512byte physical blocks. however, industry standard transition to 4096 starting in 2007 continuing through Jan2011. IBM article on subject: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/l-4kb-sector-disks/ -- 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 -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: real vs. emulated CKD
Bill, While I don't know when the 3390s last rolled off the assembly line, I believe they were all SLEDs. After that came the short-lived 9340/9345 subsystem which had a different track length than the 3390 (built on 5 1/4 inch drives), then the RAMAC II devices which might be what you're thinking of. These things emulated the 3990/3390 SLEDs on (I believe) 3 1/2 inch SCSI drives, packed 4 in a drawer in either a RAID1 or RAID5 configuration. I don't know how they compared to the 3390s performance-wise, but we replaced a bunch of 3380-Es with a combination of the 9340s and RAMAC IIs and they ran circles around the 3380s, not to mention taking up a LOT less floor space! :-) Rex -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of DASDBILL2 Sent: Monday, June 02, 2014 12:25 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: real vs. emulated CKD I will rephrase my question. When did any vendor last ship a 3390 DASD to anyone with non-RAID SLEDs inside for use on any kind of operating system which did not have direct support for FBA in its customer-usable access method repertoire? There must have been some kind of announcement made which is still findable online. IBM continued to manufacture and sell things after this date that they called 3390s but which were implemented internally with RAID, I believe. Bill Fairchild - Original Message - From: Anne Lynn Wheeler l...@garlic.com To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Sent: Monday, June 2, 2014 9:55:46 AM Subject: Re: real vs. emulated CKD dasdbi...@comcast.net (DASDBILL2) writes: I know it has been decades since IBM manufactured its last real CKD controller, but what was the exact date when the last new one was shipped? re: http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014g.html#82 Costs of core http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014g.html#83 Costs of core depends on how you differentiate CKD and FBA ... 3380 was already moving to fixed-block cells (track space calculations have 3380 rounding up to cell size). part of this is driven by increasingly sophisticated error correcting code technology being on fixed size blocks http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014g.html#75 non-IBM: SONY new tape storage - 185 Terabytes on a tape. fba-512 has been standard since the 70s with 3310s 3370s ... but currently is move to fba-4096 ... as part of error correcting technology. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disk_sector the above has IBM sizes in 512, 1024, 2048, 4096 in the 70s. The enhanced CMS filesystem introduced formating block size option ... but on 3310s 3370s ... used multiples of 512byte physical blocks. however, industry standard transition to 4096 starting in 2007 continuing through Jan2011. IBM article on subject: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/l-4kb-sector-disks/ -- 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 -- 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: real vs. emulated CKD
rpomm...@sfgmembers.com (Pommier, Rex) writes: While I don't know when the 3390s last rolled off the assembly line, I believe they were all SLEDs. After that came the short-lived 9340/9345 subsystem which had a different track length than the 3390 (built on 5 1/4 inch drives), then the RAMAC II devices which might be what you're thinking of. These things emulated the 3990/3390 SLEDs on (I believe) 3 1/2 inch SCSI drives, packed 4 in a drawer in either a RAID1 or RAID5 configuration. I don't know how they compared to the 3390s performance-wise, but we replaced a bunch of 3380-Es with a combination of the 9340s and RAMAC IIs and they ran circles around the 3380s, not to mention taking up a LOT less floor space! :-) re: http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014g.html#82 Costs of core http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014g.html#83 Costs of core http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014g.html#84 Costs of core this ibm-main post (from last summer) says last ckd (3390) rolled off 1993 (towards the bottom, I even weight in) https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/bit.listserv.ibm-main/zAUn9kAkykU which would go along with this http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/storage/storage_3390.html note however, 3380 3390 were increasingly becoming fixed cell in large part because of the error correcting technology ... while still striving to simulate ckd ... before switching over to using straight industry standard fixed-block disks ... with higher level ckd simulation (i.e. 3375/3370) -- 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: real vs. emulated CKD
On Mon, 2 Jun 2014 17:24:44 +, DASDBILL2 wrote: I will rephrase my question. When did any vendor last ship a 3390 DASD to anyone with non-RAID SLEDs inside for use on any kind of operating system which did not have direct support for FBA in its customer-usable access method repertoire? There must have been some kind of announcement made which is still findable online. IBM continued to manufacture and sell things after this date that they called 3390s but which were implemented internally with RAID, I believe. Bill Fairchild 3390 lifecycle dates posted by Ed Jaffe: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/bit.listserv.ibm-main/PvwuM3b2uCw/pZ5VXWKsKlcJ Norbert Friemel World's Most Expensive Hard Drive Teardown http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBjoWMA5d84 :) -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: real vs. emulated CKD
I am thinking only of a SLED that was implemented without RAID, regardless of how real or quasi its CKD-ness was. I am satisfied with knowing that it was around 12/31/96 for the 3390 and possibly a little for the 9340, but only if the 9340 had no RAID mapping internally. Bill Fairchild - Original Message - From: Rex Pommier rpomm...@sfgmembers.com To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Sent: Monday, June 2, 2014 12:39:28 PM Subject: Re: real vs. emulated CKD Bill, While I don't know when the 3390s last rolled off the assembly line, I believe they were all SLEDs. After that came the short-lived 9340/9345 subsystem which had a different track length than the 3390 (built on 5 1/4 inch drives), then the RAMAC II devices which might be what you're thinking of. These things emulated the 3990/3390 SLEDs on (I believe) 3 1/2 inch SCSI drives, packed 4 in a drawer in either a RAID1 or RAID5 configuration. I don't know how they compared to the 3390s performance-wise, but we replaced a bunch of 3380-Es with a combination of the 9340s and RAMAC IIs and they ran circles around the 3380s, not to mention taking up a LOT less floor space! :-) Rex -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of DASDBILL2 Sent: Monday, June 02, 2014 12:25 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: real vs. emulated CKD I will rephrase my question. When did any vendor last ship a 3390 DASD to anyone with non-RAID SLEDs inside for use on any kind of operating system which did not have direct support for FBA in its customer-usable access method repertoire? There must have been some kind of announcement made which is still findable online. IBM continued to manufacture and sell things after this date that they called 3390s but which were implemented internally with RAID, I believe. Bill Fairchild - Original Message - From: Anne Lynn Wheeler l...@garlic.com To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Sent: Monday, June 2, 2014 9:55:46 AM Subject: Re: real vs. emulated CKD dasdbi...@comcast.net (DASDBILL2) writes: I know it has been decades since IBM manufactured its last real CKD controller, but what was the exact date when the last new one was shipped? re: http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014g.html#82 Costs of core http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014g.html#83 Costs of core depends on how you differentiate CKD and FBA ... 3380 was already moving to fixed-block cells (track space calculations have 3380 rounding up to cell size). part of this is driven by increasingly sophisticated error correcting code technology being on fixed size blocks http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014g.html#75 non-IBM: SONY new tape storage - 185 Terabytes on a tape. fba-512 has been standard since the 70s with 3310s 3370s ... but currently is move to fba-4096 ... as part of error correcting technology. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disk_sector the above has IBM sizes in 512, 1024, 2048, 4096 in the 70s. The enhanced CMS filesystem introduced formating block size option ... but on 3310s 3370s ... used multiples of 512byte physical blocks. however, industry standard transition to 4096 starting in 2007 continuing through Jan2011. IBM article on subject: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/l-4kb-sector-disks/ -- 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 -- 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 -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: real vs. emulated CKD
9340 had no RAID inside - 2 stand-alone 5 1/4 inch HDA's. If an HDA failed, it was gone just like other SLEDs. (voice of experience) -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of DASDBILL2 Sent: Monday, June 02, 2014 2:26 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: real vs. emulated CKD I am thinking only of a SLED that was implemented without RAID, regardless of how real or quasi its CKD-ness was. I am satisfied with knowing that it was around 12/31/96 for the 3390 and possibly a little for the 9340, but only if the 9340 had no RAID mapping internally. Bill Fairchild - Original Message - From: Rex Pommier rpomm...@sfgmembers.com To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Sent: Monday, June 2, 2014 12:39:28 PM Subject: Re: real vs. emulated CKD Bill, While I don't know when the 3390s last rolled off the assembly line, I believe they were all SLEDs. After that came the short-lived 9340/9345 subsystem which had a different track length than the 3390 (built on 5 1/4 inch drives), then the RAMAC II devices which might be what you're thinking of. These things emulated the 3990/3390 SLEDs on (I believe) 3 1/2 inch SCSI drives, packed 4 in a drawer in either a RAID1 or RAID5 configuration. I don't know how they compared to the 3390s performance-wise, but we replaced a bunch of 3380-Es with a combination of the 9340s and RAMAC IIs and they ran circles around the 3380s, not to mention taking up a LOT less floor space! :-) Rex -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of DASDBILL2 Sent: Monday, June 02, 2014 12:25 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: real vs. emulated CKD I will rephrase my question. When did any vendor last ship a 3390 DASD to anyone with non-RAID SLEDs inside for use on any kind of operating system which did not have direct support for FBA in its customer-usable access method repertoire? There must have been some kind of announcement made which is still findable online. IBM continued to manufacture and sell things after this date that they called 3390s but which were implemented internally with RAID, I believe. Bill Fairchild - Original Message - From: Anne Lynn Wheeler l...@garlic.com To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Sent: Monday, June 2, 2014 9:55:46 AM Subject: Re: real vs. emulated CKD dasdbi...@comcast.net (DASDBILL2) writes: I know it has been decades since IBM manufactured its last real CKD controller, but what was the exact date when the last new one was shipped? re: http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014g.html#82 Costs of core http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014g.html#83 Costs of core depends on how you differentiate CKD and FBA ... 3380 was already moving to fixed-block cells (track space calculations have 3380 rounding up to cell size). part of this is driven by increasingly sophisticated error correcting code technology being on fixed size blocks http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014g.html#75 non-IBM: SONY new tape storage - 185 Terabytes on a tape. fba-512 has been standard since the 70s with 3310s 3370s ... but currently is move to fba-4096 ... as part of error correcting technology. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disk_sector the above has IBM sizes in 512, 1024, 2048, 4096 in the 70s. The enhanced CMS filesystem introduced formating block size option ... but on 3310s 3370s ... used multiples of 512byte physical blocks. however, industry standard transition to 4096 starting in 2007 continuing through Jan2011. IBM article on subject: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/l-4kb-sector-disks/ -- 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 -- 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
Re: real vs. emulated CKD
W dniu 2014-06-02 19:24, DASDBILL2 pisze: I will rephrase my question. When did any vendor last ship a 3390 DASD to anyone with non-RAID SLEDs inside for use on any kind of operating system which did not have direct support for FBA in its customer-usable access method repertoire? There must have been some kind of announcement made which is still findable online. IBM continued to manufacture and sell things after this date that they called 3390s but which were implemented internally with RAID, I believe. As far as I understand, you simply ask about last date of SLED (non-RAID) disk delivery. Well, it's hard to find it. You can find End Of Marketing date for every vendor (and OEM), but it need not to be real date of last delivery. I saw soem deliveries done way after EOM. BTW: AFAIK for IBM first non-SLED DASD subsystem would be RAMAC II, but previous DASD wasn't 3390, it was 9340 or so. BTW: I worked with RAMAC II. I didn't like it (to avoid curses). Regards -- Radoslaw Skorupka Lodz, Poland --- Treść tej wiadomości może zawierać informacje prawnie chronione Banku przeznaczone wyłącznie do użytku służbowego adresata. Odbiorcą może być jedynie jej adresat z wyłączeniem dostępu osób trzecich. Jeżeli nie jesteś adresatem niniejszej wiadomości lub pracownikiem upoważnionym do jej przekazania adresatowi, informujemy, że jej rozpowszechnianie, kopiowanie, rozprowadzanie lub inne działanie o podobnym charakterze jest prawnie zabronione i może być karalne. Jeżeli otrzymałeś tę wiadomość omyłkowo, prosimy niezwłocznie zawiadomić nadawcę wysyłając odpowiedź oraz trwale usunąć tę wiadomość włączając w to wszelkie jej kopie wydrukowane lub zapisane na dysku. This e-mail may contain legally privileged information of the Bank and is intended solely for business use of the addressee. This e-mail may only be received by the addressee and may not be disclosed to any third parties. If you are not the intended addressee of this e-mail or the employee authorized to forward it to the addressee, be advised that any dissemination, copying, distribution or any other similar activity is legally prohibited and may be punishable. If you received this e-mail by mistake please advise the sender immediately by using the reply facility in your e-mail software and delete permanently this e-mail including any copies of it either printed or saved to hard drive. mBank S.A. z siedzibą w Warszawie, ul. Senatorska 18, 00-950 Warszawa, www.mBank.pl, e-mail: kont...@mbank.pl Sąd Rejonowy dla m. st. Warszawy XII Wydział Gospodarczy Krajowego Rejestru Sądowego, nr rejestru przedsiębiorców KRS 025237, NIP: 526-021-50-88. Według stanu na dzień 01.01.2014 r. kapitał zakładowy mBanku S.A. (w całości wpłacony) wynosi 168.696.052 złote. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
