Edward Jaffe wrote:
Ed Gould wrote:
IBM to Break Petaflops Barrier with Blue Gene/P
Computer Business Online via Yahoo! UK Ireland News Wed, 04 Jul 2007
10:44 PM PDT
The race is on to build the first supercomputer that can break 1
petaflops of aggregate number-crunching power, and IBM is
IBM Mainframe Discussion List IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU wrote on 07/05/2007
11:28:50 AM:
I think I'm out of luck, but wanted to verify first. We're z/OS 1.7.
We've had a number of small DSS DUMP files written to tape that I want to
move to DISK. Unfortunately, it seems that the dump files on tape
I'm still not getting anywhere with this, folks.. :-(
(I'm assuming that recycling tape backups onto DASD backups is actually
possible..? I don't like giving up on things easily but if it's flogging a dead
horse, as they say..)
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
On Fri, 2007-07-06 at 09:20 +0200, Birger Heede wrote:
Will it run z/OS, z/VM, z/VSE or any other mainframe operating system?
My guess is that it will 'similar' to the support by Blue Gene/L that
use a 'Linux like kernel' (Blue Gene Runtime System).
Well in that case (if it has USB
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Ed Gould
Sent: Friday, 6 July 2007 4:47 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Mainframe Blog Posting re: Mainframe Migrations to z
On Jul 5, 2007, at 12:47 AM, Clem Clarke wrote:
Hi Tim,
I
Thanks Scott. Going forward, when DSS creates the new dump data sets on
DASD, there's no problem. I was only trying to copy previous back ups to
DISK, which apparently can't be done.
Tom
---
I think I'm out of luck, but wanted to verify first. We're z/OS
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Edward Jaffe
Ed Gould wrote:
IBM to Break Petaflops Barrier with Blue Gene/P Computer Business
Online via Yahoo! UK Ireland News Wed, 04 Jul 2007
10:44 PM PDT
The race is on to build the first supercomputer
Todd, this is not a stupid suggestion at all. Many (most?) of these data
sets contain back up copies of existing VSAM datasets, so restoring them
without a rename would be a problem, unless I:
- restore them to my test system (no shared catalogs)
- rerun DSS back up on test system, with output to
Thanks for the confirmation Andrew, this is as I suspected. I guess we'll
just have to wait for the tape data sets to roll off (they are all GDGs).
Tom Chicklon
---
Tom,
I'm sorry, but there is no way that I know of to do that.
Thanks,
Andrew Wilt
This may be a stupid suggestion, but why not just restore the data to
spare volume(s), and then recreate the dump on disk with the same
dataset name as the current tape (rerun the dump)? Since the COPYDUMP
command does not seem to be a good option, I'd just try to recreate the
dump in another
Brian,
Have you submitted an ETR to IBM? It might be the best way to find out if this
is doable and where you(we) are going awry.
Dave
From: Perryman, Brian Sent: Fri 7/6/2007 5:04 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: HSM tapes
I'm still not getting
Hi List. Does anyone know whether or not the z/OS 1.8 new feature which
enables a group of LPARs to be managed at a defined capacity, would require
the elligable LPARs to all be in the same Sysplex, or not
--
For IBM-MAIN
Probably not. And it probably won't even calculate the exact value of PI
g,d,r
This is a PRIVATE message. If you are
Oops, missed that one.
If they are stan-alone there is no need for HSC or SMC.
The only option is to work with esoterics as for any other stand-alone tape
drive.
Cheers,
Lieven
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive
Check arccmdxx for SETSYS RECYCLEOUTPUT also
RECYCLEINPUTDEALLOCFREQUENCY. The latter has nothing to do with
The output, but it can keep you from getting into trouble on the input
side
HTH,
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff /
There is a feature in JCL processing, long since
forgotten, which allows to place nearly any JCL onto the IEFRDER statement
when needed.
long since forgotten by whom?
From: Kenneth E Tomiak [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: IBM Mainframe Discussion List IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
To:
Network World article:
http://www.networkworld.com/community/?q=node/17133
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Howard Brazee
Sent: Friday, July 06, 2007 8:43 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: The Mainframe Lives!
Network World article:
http://www.networkworld.com/community/?q=3Dnode/17133
SNIP
I
I was kinda hoping it would not require all the LPARs to be in the same
Sysplex, as that can be achieved by a combination of soft capping and IRD
(same Sysplex) now anyway.
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access
On Fri, 2007-07-06 at 07:50 -0500, Errol Van staden wrote:
Hi List. Does anyone know whether or not the z/OS 1.8 new feature which
enables a group of LPARs to be managed at a defined capacity, would require
the elligable LPARs to all be in the same Sysplex, or not
Has to be same CEC.
RMF
-snip---
XMITMGR is nice but has some limitations.
I plan to include it in FILE760 on the CBTTAPE in August.
Maybe not.
Does anybody have 3330 (or even older), 3350, 3375, or 3380 transmit files
with something more than a three record member in
On Thu, 5 Jul 2007 18:15:01 -0500, Kenneth E Tomiak wrote:
Check out AWSTAPE and see if that helps.
Thanks! Looks very promising with a few hundred Google hits.
Can someone help me narrow the search for conversion utilities?
Do any run on z/OS?
Do I need to explore the H-word? I should have
Steve,
Take out the '3D' in your link.
http://www.networkworld.com/community/?q=node/17133
Yes, Yahoo did appear to be down this morning, it's working for me now.
Ken Porowski
AVP Systems Software
CIT Group
E: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
Thompson, Steve
-Original
Thanx. I missed that 3D.
And Yahoo! is now back and functioning for me again. I wonder if they
would be a good candidate for z/ARCH...
Later,
Steve Thompson
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Ken Porowski
Sent: Friday, July 06,
To create on disk (preferably stream rather than CKD) an image
of a tape suitable for transmission by FTP BINARY even to a
non-IBM system, and from there recreating the original tape
with all labels and data sets intact.
Good thought. The TSO TRANSMIT command can convert a DSS dump into an
But you can't get rid of it: many of the engineers that developed the
code have calculated their last structural element tensor, pocketed their
slide rule, and moved on to wherever engineers go (there are definite
theological debates over the fates of engineers vs. non-engineers ;-) )...
Has anyone had problems with 3590-E11 on A60 in system mode and z/OS ?
We have 3590-B11's on A50 in system mode and they work fine. We have just
acquired 2 3990-E11's on an A60 controller and when in system mode, they do
not load tapes . They just sit there with MPRIVAT flashing away.
The
-snip
Check out AWSTAPE and see if that helps.
Thanks! Looks very promising with a few hundred Google hits.
Can someone help me narrow the search for conversion utilities?
Do any run on z/OS?
Do I need to explore the H-word? I should have
Bill,
The engineers are looking into that. They seem to think its our fault, that
we have not done something. Just wanted to know if anybody in the great
outside had had a similar problem. All suggestions gratefully received
Crispin Hugo
Systems Programmer, Macro 4
The LPARs do not need to be in the same sysplex. This is one of the very
interesting features of the Group Capacity Limit. Sites have asked for this
for a very long, perhaps back to the beginning of Workload License Charges.
You can now set this parameter for all LPARs, and achieve for example:
You may want to see if there is a microcode upgrade for that device.
Bill
From: Crispin Hugo [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: IBM Mainframe Discussion List IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: 3590-e11
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 17:15:43 +0100
Has anyone had problems with 3590-E11 on
In a message dated 7/6/2007 11:21:08 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
we have not done something. Just wanted to know if anybody in the great
outside had had a similar problem. All suggestions gratefully received
Stuff I can think of:
1)Did you make a new
Group Capacity Limit is a technical enhancements for z9 to falicitating
management.
and not a cost control enhancement.
It works inside a group and so it works overall for the CPC that if all the
lpar are in same and single group.
I think that it is not satisfactory but it is better than the
On Fri, 6 Jul 2007 11:11:58 -0400, Thompson, Steve wrote:
And Yahoo! is now back and functioning for me again. I wonder if they
would be a good candidate for z/ARCH...
IBMLink would be another good candidate, IMO.
--
Tom Marchant
On Fri, 6 Jul 2007 08:53:18 -0500, Rick Fochtman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What, no 2311, 2321 or 2305 stuff?? :-) IIRC, 3340 was also fairly
popular at one time.
There never existed an IBM OS that supported both 2311/2321 and TSO XMIT.
Tony H
On Fri, 6 Jul 2007 09:19:13 -0500, Paul Gilmartin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Can someone help me narrow the search for conversion utilities?
Do any run on z/OS?
Most certainly. Search the CBT file list for AWS and HET.
Do I need to explore the H-word? I should have recalled that
such a facility
See long ongoing thread with same subject in comp.lang.cobol
morde1ac [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Hi All.
My company is currently running IBM Enterprise COBOL for z/OS V3.4.
We are also running SAP. I would like to create a web service in
SAP,
then call
On Fri, 6 Jul 2007 12:52:27 -0500, Tony Harminc [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Fri, 6 Jul 2007 08:53:18 -0500, Rick Fochtman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
What, no 2311, 2321 or 2305 stuff?? :-) IIRC, 3340 was also fairly
popular at one time.
There never existed an IBM OS that supported both
Al Sherkow wrote:
The LPARs do not need to be in the same sysplex.
Thanks Al,that all sounds like goodness.
Sorry I missed your session in Sydney a few weeks back - as you know I
was *real* close to occupying a seat.
Jacky Hofbauer wrote:
I think that it is not satisfactory but it is better
Shane wrote:
Jacky Hofbauer wrote:
I think that it is not satisfactory but it is better than the Lpar single
Softcapping.
Also I noted a problem: if just one LPAR in a group undergoes a loop of CPU,
all the group can be softcapped: It is dangerous!
This is inherent with any capping
Ed --
An LPAR may have an individual defined capacity and be part of a Group with
a Group Capacity Limit. The LPAR defined capacity can keep an LPAR from
having an 4-hour rolling average that is too high. The group capacity limit
keeps the simultaneous 4-hour rolling average of the group from
41 matches
Mail list logo
