On Sat, 2007-04-28 at 03:03 +, john gilmore wrote:
> Perhaps the principal threat to the survival of mainframes is little talked
> about: It is that mainframe applications are, most of them, implemented
> gratuitously using circa-1970 (applications) technology.
... preceded a little by gil
Have you considered:
(a) IEBCOPYing both your load libraries to flat files
(b) Reading/reblocking both flat files into separate
RECFM=FBS,LRECL=4160,BLKSIZE=4160 IPCS-readable files - via a program
which will do this
(c) Finding the number of strings in the IPCS-readable files under IPCS
- eith
Edward Jaffe writes:
This reminds me of a Chris Craddock pet peeve -- the kind you cannot
escape hearing given
enough time and beer -- about modern mainframes and their operating
systems having unique
and spectacular capabilities that their users just obstinately refuse to
exploit!
In
On 27 Apr 2007 17:00:27 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main
(Message-ID:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Schwarz, Barry A) wrote:
Who said it was a technical reason? I don't know the
source of the
restriction for other subscribers but in our case it is a
government
agency that determines
Craddock, Chris wrote:
Edward E Jaffe wrote:
Wayne Driscoll wrote:
Ok, time for me to spend some time on the soap box. <<
This reminds me of a Chris Craddock pet peeve -- the kind you cannot
escape hearing given enough time and beer -- about modern mainframes
and
their operating system
Who said it was a technical reason? I don't know the source of the
restriction for other subscribers but in our case it is a government
agency that determines what secure means. They seem to have a mostly
Unix mindset with a little Windows thrown in and don't trust IEBGENER to
not add any additio
Edward E Jaffe wrote:
> Wayne Driscoll wrote:
> > Ok, time for me to spend some time on the soap box. <<
>
> This reminds me of a Chris Craddock pet peeve -- the kind you cannot
> escape hearing given enough time and beer -- about modern mainframes
and
> their operating systems having unique and
Unless you have gotten so old you can't remember what your own code does.
You start writing everything down.
I represent that remark.
IBM Mainframe Discussion List wrote on 04/27/2007
05:19:47 PM:
> >If the program can be done efficiently only by clever programming
> (and if that efficiency
The following message is a courtesy copy of an article
that has been posted to bit.listserv.ibm-main,alt.folklore.computers as well.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Shane) writes:
> Which of course made the whole thing too complex. Maybe we need to make
> it simpler ...
other posts in this thread:
http://www.
Wayne Driscoll wrote:
Ok, time for me to spend some time on the soap box. What is the
TECHNICAL reason for not allowing the Mainframe to access the network?
I don't understand this at all. Every PC in your company probably can
access the internet, allowing employees to spend time browsing the w
On Apr 27, 2007, at 3:51 PM, Ted MacNEIL wrote:
(reduce primary space allocation, >16 extents, overflow pools,
etc. etc.).
Have you ever had to try to control an SMS environment run by an
out-sourcer?
Ted:
I am mixed about doing defrags (no matter what environment) there are
good reas
>
> On Fri, 2007-04-27 at 11:19 -0500, Dennis Trojak wrote:
> > We are running ZFS under SUB=MSTR so it has no conflict with JES2
> > shutdown.
>
> Side issue. It's not zFS (directly) causing the JES2 interference, but
> the fact that it (zFS) causes the OMVS filesystem closure to fail.
> So it's
On Fri, 2007-04-27 at 16:22 -0500, McKown, John wrote:
> That's what I think started this fork() of the original therad.
Which of course made the whole thing too complex. Maybe we need to make
it simpler ...
D'oh - back where it started.
Time for my first coffee of the day.
Shane ...
-
On Fri, 2007-04-27 at 11:19 -0500, Dennis Trojak wrote:
> We are running ZFS under SUB=MSTR so it has no conflict with JES2
> shutdown.
Side issue. It's not zFS (directly) causing the JES2 interference, but
the fact that it (zFS) causes the OMVS filesystem closure to fail.
So it's not the zFS pro
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick O'Keefe
> Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 3:55 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: latest Principles of Operation
>
> I seem to have lost the beginning of this sub-thread,
>If the program can be done efficiently only by clever programming (and if that
>efficiency is really
needed) then the clever programming needs to be accompanied by VERY clear
documentation.
Real programmers don't comment code.
It was hard to write; it should be hard to read!
(8-{>}
-
Too busy
On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 04:41:59 +0800, Ron Hawkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Mark,
>
>Maybe it's a case of differing experience. The first time I came across
>DEFRAG being used it was all about reducing seek on 3380, and I was
>questioning the benefit of this on 3880-23 controllers.
>
I guess I sh
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of john gilmore
>
> Dean Kent writes:
>
> [ snip ]
>
> With programmers, on the other hand, we too often proceed
> very differently.
> Statement-level procedural languages like COBOL are
> frequently subsetted, the
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 17:57:12 +, john gilmore
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Dean Kent writes:
>>
>>The human mind has a limited capacity for organizing information
>>into something meaningful. ...
>...
>Views like his are common, but they are also curiously parochial.
>Someone who wants to
>(reduce primary space allocation, >16 extents, overflow pools, etc. etc.).
Have you ever had to try to control an SMS environment run by an out-sourcer?
-
Too busy driving to stop for gas!
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff
>Why do you need to consolidate extents when most data sets can have 123 per
>volume? Unless you really mean contiguous space.
PDS's, PDSE, unexpected growth.
We had one group of datasets for a customer or two that was allocated in
tracks, only a couple hundred cylinders in total.
Suddenly, t
Ok, time for me to spend some time on the soap box. What is the
TECHNICAL reason for not allowing the Mainframe to access the network?
I don't understand this at all. Every PC in your company probably can
access the internet, allowing employees to spend time browsing the web,
yet the mainframe ca
Mark,
Maybe it's a case of differing experience. The first time I came across
DEFRAG being used it was all about reducing seek on 3380, and I was
questioning the benefit of this on 3880-23 controllers.
The benefit of reducing seek with DEFRAG still crops up, even on this list.
I would bet that it
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 19:34:36 +, Ted MacNEIL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>"STOPX37" functionality) that made DEFRAG
>pretty much obsolete. If extent consolidation is really what you want, FDR
COMPAKTOR...
>
>Unfortunately, these things cost money.
>
Yes, but DFSMS is part of the OS and doesn'
If you are interested in an Assembler solution, one which executes as a
batch job, I believe I can provide one.
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Ira Broussard
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 2:32 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 19:32:13 +, Ted MacNEIL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>DEFRAG became useless.
>
>I have not defragged for performance for years.
>But, extent problems will always be with us, until we can predict,
effectively, how big our operational files will be as the business grows.
>
>Ye
- Original Message -
From: "john gilmore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main
To:
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 10:57 AM
Subject: Re: latest Principles of Operation
> >
>
> Views like his are common, but they are also curiously parochial.
Someone
> who wants to do physi
The following message is a courtesy copy of an article
that has been posted to bit.listserv.ibm-main,alt.folklore.comupters as well.
Howard Brazee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> A lot of our smarts is in seeing patterns, simplifying what we are
> looking for. Occasionally this kind of shortcut ca
"Howard Brazee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> A lot of our smarts is in seeing patterns, simplifying what we are
> looking for. Occasionally this kind of shortcut causes us to miss
> things, but pattern recognition allows the chess master to ignore dead
> ends th
>"STOPX37" functionality) that made DEFRAG
pretty much obsolete. If extent consolidation is really what you want, FDR
COMPAKTOR...
Unfortunately, these things cost money.
-
Too busy driving to stop for gas!
--
For IBM-MAIN
It only takes a few REXX statements to read in and concatenate the module in
memory. Put it in a DO loop until EOF. LMGET a record into a variable. If
not EOF, one REXX statement will concatenate it, i.e.,...
modulearea = modulearea || inputrecord
If EOF, move to the next module.
Looks
>DEFRAG became useless.
I have not defragged for performance for years.
But, extent problems will always be with us, until we can predict, effectively,
how big our operational files will be as the business grows.
Yesterday's large files are today's small ones.
Extent consolidation is the only va
Humbly, it's amusing that we haven't mentioned why you'd write a parser without
considering some of
the already-stated inherent architecture deficiencies, likely identified during
your "design phase"
which would normally occur before your "coding phase." Or maybe it's a
pet-project, with the
di
Why not do this in Assembler? There are interfaces for reading the
directory of the PDS; then do a LOAD, [insert your scan of the loaded load
module here], DELETE for each load module? LOAD will return the address
and length of the entire module loaded, if I am not mistaken, which is
easier th
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Walt Farrell
> Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 2:10 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: parsing JCL with CA-7 "schedule overrides"
>
> I hesitate to make a recommendation about wha
On 4/27/2007 2:09 PM, McKown, John wrote:
I'm doing weird things again. I've written a JCL parser (work still in
progress) in Perl (yes, I'm quite, quite insane.). It works rather well.
...snipped...
This submits the job with CLASS=P,MSGCLASS=N if the schedule id is 1,
but with CLASS=Q,MSGCLASS=X
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 08:40:54 -0700, Craig Bakken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This may be somewhat of a religious question, Is it better to be right up
to the
> current level of available maintenance or is it better to hang back a few
months
> worth so as not to apply a PTF that goes PE? Is Z/OS
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Larry Dinwiddie
> Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 1:34 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
> Subject: PDSE Used pages
>
>
> I am trying to obtain the pages used in a PDSE from an assembler
> progra
On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 02:33:52 +0800, Ron Hawkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Mark and co,
>
>I've always been of the opinion that with the advent of Disk Arrays, DEFRAG
>became useless.
Disagree. That did nothing for fragmentation. That was always the primary
purpose of defrag - not performance
Tom,
While you don't see the activity on the channels with FCV2, you can
certainly see it on the disks.
It can be especially interesting if you start hitting those volumes with
updates right after the DEFRAG is finished. While z/OS thinks it's writing
to empty space, the destage has to wait for t
I am trying to obtain the pages used in a PDSE from an assembler
program. Looking at the manual, I put GETSIZE=YES on my DCBE and
thought the field DCBESIZE would have the used blocks after the OPEN,
but it doesn't. It contains all zeros. I must be doing something wrong
or I am looking in the wr
Mark and co,
I've always been of the opinion that with the advent of Disk Arrays, DEFRAG
became useless. It has become one of the biggest waste of time and resources
that I come across in way too many shops.
For performance, DEFRAG is going to provide almost nil improvement for
sequential, and le
In case anyone missed this article yesterday - note the paragraph about
'old-fashioned mainframes' which are not so old fashioned after all.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18325591/
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)
> Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 9:57 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: Best practices for software delivery
>
>
> In
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> eing.com>,
>
I'm doing weird things again. I've written a JCL parser (work still in
progress) in Perl (yes, I'm quite, quite insane.). It works rather well.
The only "gotcha" is that we use CA-7 and the "schedule override"
capability (#JI, #JO, #JEND / #XI, #XO, #XEND). This is a kind of
"if/then/else" logic in
Dean Kent writes:
The human mind has a limited capacity for organizing information into
something meaningful. It would be interesting to see a graph showing the
percentage of people able to properly handle various levels of complexity,
and I suspect that as the complexity increases the dropoff
I have given up on the idea of doing this via an IBM utility or ISPF
function (like SEARCH FOR). Instead, I'm playing around with a REXX EXEC using
ISPF
services that will do the following...
1. Build a list containing the names of each of the modules in the "old"
load library.
2. Read e
On 27 Apr 2007 09:07:25 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dean Kent) wrote:
>The human mind has a limited capacity for organizing information into
>something meaningful. It would be interesting to see a graph showing the
>percentage of people able to properly handle various levels of complexity,
>and I s
On 27 Apr 2007 10:36:01 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Shmuel
Metz , Seymour J.) wrote:
>>Internet is only a reasonable approach when companies are willing to
>>provide the same level of quality control over their web sites
>
>The WWW is not the Internet. Why not use FTP?
Offer whatever your customers
In
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
on 04/27/2007
at 04:12 AM, "Schwarz, Barry A" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>Internet is only a reasonable approach when companies are willing to
>provide the same level of quality control over their web sites
The WWW is not the Internet. Why not use FTP?
--
Shmuel
Tom Marchant wrote:
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 11:01:13 -0400, John Eells <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Tom Marchant wrote:
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 10:14:55 -0300, ITURIEL DO NASCIMENTO NETO
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ira,
Try copying one of these PDSs (IEBCOPY - COPYMOD) to a new one with
the
other b
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 11:01:13 -0400, John Eells <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Tom Marchant wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 10:14:55 -0300, ITURIEL DO NASCIMENTO NETO
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> Ira,
>>>
>>> Try copying one of these PDSs (IEBCOPY - COPYMOD) to a new one with
the
>>> other blks
Thanks All. Group is such a valuable resource to me:
DITTO/ESA for MVS
* * * * Device 0469, CART, VOLSER=TC1476, 18 Track, 38K-BPI, Uprotect
Block Record Data
Should have thought to DITTO it. Thanks again.
Have a Nice Day !
Bob Pelletier
Connecticut Student Loan Foundation
Rocky Hill,
Thanks I am DITTOing it as we speak.
Have a Nice Day !
Bob Pelletier
Connecticut Student Loan Foundation
Rocky Hill, Ct.
-Original Message-
From: Pommier, Rex R. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 12:15 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: 3480/3490 Cart BPI
We are running ZFS under SUB=MSTR so it has no conflict with JES2
shutdown.
Dennis
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Shane Ginnane
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 9:03 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: JES2 Shutdown issue on
I'm 99% positive the 3480/3490 native density was 38000 bpi. The old
3420 reel tape was 6250.
Rex
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Robert Pelletier
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 11:08 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: 3480/3
6250 was 3420. The 3480 is 38K. Use DITTO to print the header and it
will show you.
Robert Pelletier wrote:
Hi All. Question. Would anyone know the BPI of a 3480 cart running on
3480E drive (mock 3490). We have a request from a user to send us a
38,000 bpi cart. I swear they are 6250 bpi. Can
Hi All. Question. Would anyone know the BPI of a 3480 cart running on
3480E drive (mock 3490). We have a request from a user to send us a
38,000 bpi cart. I swear they are 6250 bpi. Can anyone clear this up for
me? Where are they getting the 38,000? Thanks once again all.
Have a Nice Day !
Bob
"Rick Fochtman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -
>
> Complexity is far too often used as an excuse for incompetence or
> laziness; not always or even most of the time, but still far too often.
> You don't let a carpenter
On 27 Apr 2007 08:42:12 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
>In a recent note, Edward Jaffe said:
>
>> Subject: Re: sysdsn enq
>>
>> Ted MacNEIL wrote:
>> >> After all, batch processing FREEs all data sets between steps, but
>> >> continues to hold the ENQ if a subsequent step uses th
In a recent note, john gilmore said:
> Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 15:05:54 +
>
> An obvious way to do this is to load object A into below-the-bar storage,
> move it above the bar, load object B into below-the-bar storage, move it too
> above the bar, and then compare them there.
>
In one
In a recent note, Edward Jaffe said:
> Subject: Re: sysdsn enq
>
> Ted MacNEIL wrote:
> >> After all, batch processing FREEs all data sets between steps, but
> >> continues to hold the ENQ if a subsequent step uses the same data set name.
> >
> > I don't thinks that's accurate.
> > DSN alloc
The following message is a courtesy copy of an article
that has been posted to bit.listserv.ibm-main,alt.folklore.computers as well.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Schwarz, Barry A) writes:
> Internet is only a reasonable approach when companies are willing to
> provide the same level of quality control over
An obvious way to do this is to load object A into below-the-bar storage,
move it above the bar, load object B into below-the-bar storage, move it too
above the bar, and then compare them there.
These operations are much more straightforward than they sound; and I am
myself dubious about the u
Tom Marchant wrote:
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 10:14:55 -0300, ITURIEL DO NASCIMENTO NETO
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ira,
Try copying one of these PDSs (IEBCOPY - COPYMOD) to a new one with the
other blksize, and then proceed with your compare step.
Still might not work. Unless you can guarantee
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 08:25:38 -0600, Jeffrey D. Smith wrote:
>
>What about some technique for unloading both PDS (either IEBCOPY or
>IEHMOVE) to sequential files, then comparing the sequential files? IEHMOVE
>is very slow, but it unloads in collating sequence to 80-byte records. If
>both PDS is logi
Tony,
Something else comes to mind. I recall measuring these some monitors and
seeing CPU consumption affective. The REFRESH RATE may also force some
sorting, XMS and other stuff to occur on every 20 seconds. Measure the
delta changes on CPU TIME when you adjust the refresh rates. CPU
consumption
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Tom Marchant
> Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 7:44 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: RES: Counting occurrences of a string in loadlib
>
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 10:14:55 -0300, ITURIEL
Kevin,
yes I did mean screen display updates, many thanks for your input
Regards
Tony
Zurich Financial Services (UKISA) Limited.
Registered in England and Wales under registration number 01860680.
Registered office: UK Life Centre, Station Road, Swindon SN1 1EL.
Zurich Insurance Company
In commenting on Ryerson's zOS certification I said Software Manufacturing
was based in Toronto. Then you think electronic delivery and we don't have any
postmarks. Anyway, got this informative update from Ontario:
Mike/Ed:
All manufacturing (i.e. shrink-wrap) for the Americas is now don
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 10:14:55 -0300, ITURIEL DO NASCIMENTO NETO
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Ira,
>
>Try copying one of these PDSs (IEBCOPY - COPYMOD) to a new one with the
>other blksize, and then proceed with your compare step.
Still might not work. Unless you can guarantee that each member sta
My $0.02:
It's not your, but customer decision. They have money, they make the
rules. Even silly rules. If they want data on RedWood drive or reels
*and they pay for that* your role is to provide it.
Obviously from your point of view it is simply to expensive to support
all possible medias a
Tony,
By REFRESH RATE, if you mean screen display updates than that would
depend if you expected some significant changes to have occurred. I like
to handle refresh rates as they relate to the sampling of the monitor.
If the monitor is only collecting 2 to 5 samples during that 20 second
period t
Schwarz, Barry A wrote:
Internet is only a reasonable approach when companies are willing to
provide the same level of quality control over their web sites that they
do for their traditional media. Other than the CBT site (thank you Sam)
none of the others I deal with do. When I'm trying to down
Ira,
Try copying one of these PDSs (IEBCOPY - COPYMOD) to a new one with the
other blksize, and then proceed with your compare step.
Atenciosamente / Regards / Saludos
Ituriel do Nascimento Neto
Banco Bradesco S/A
4254/DPCD Alphaville
Engenharia de Software - Sistemas Operacionais Mainfram
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 12:03:16 +1000, Shane Ginnane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Moving the "F BPXOINIT,SHUTDOWN=..." commands before the "P ZFS" also
>works, and is our long-term solution. Might also look at using "F
>OMVS,SHUTDOWN" instead to see if that removes the timing exposure.
>
There is c
Lizette Koehler wrote:
Thanks for all the ideas. I was hoping for something a little more TSO
oriented where the end user would only see the count of the file. By doing
strictly batch they would need to know JCL and where to look for the output.
Most of the people that will be using that cannot
Internet is only a reasonable approach when companies are willing to
provide the same level of quality control over their web sites that they
do for their traditional media. Other than the CBT site (thank you Sam)
none of the others I deal with do. When I'm trying to download the
solution to a pro
Hi List,
I have 14 LPARs each with an Omegamon for MVS monitor running with a
refresh rate of 20 seconds.
Does anyone think that a bit quick? I was thinking a rate of 65 seconds
would be more appropriate.
Appreciate any views on this or examples of what other shops monitor rates
are,
TIA,
Rega
On Thu, 2007-04-26 at 18:39 -0500, Scott Fagen wrote:
> It would seem to be a reasonable requirement to have the system do some
> interrogation of the device when the ASSIGN is 'unexpectedly held'.
I read that as;
"someone (a customer) needs to get off their bum and request this".
Somebody like
Sorry for replying to my own post, but the title is misleading. We are
editing the object deck, not the load module. (still doesn't feel right
though)
On 27/04/07, andy corpes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Group,
I have encountered a method of using the zOS debugging tool that involves
parsing
Hi Group,
I have encountered a method of using the zOS debugging tool that involves
parsing and rewriting the object deck using rexx code.
This is done to change the name of the listing dataset, which is written to
the object deck when the test directive is issued.
This feels a little wrong to me
Hi
I would also suggest to load and compare.
We tried to search for some module id. string in a loded module, but we
failed in the new program object format, as the LOAD not brings the
the complete text into the storage.
Arthur T. wrote:
On 26 Apr 2007 21:55:42 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-mai
83 matches
Mail list logo
