Kees,
About your answer above: why do you check a single PGDS utilization? I
think it hardly hirts when one PGDS is over some limit if the total
configuration is within limit? ... Besides that, the question is what
we can do about it, as Barbara already mentioned.
thanks for basically asking the
Mike Feeley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
I'm thinking of changing PLPA to the minimum size of 1 cylinder and
letting it
overflow into the COMMON page dataset. Is there any issues with
allocating
a huge COMMON page dataset? For example, if my LPAR only
I have a problem with BTS (Batch Terminal Simulator) and
the product COOL:gen. (I have asked at the IMS-L list and got answers
but no solution.)
Prolog: I'm running BTS in batch mode (DLI) under TSO.
(Using IBM:s Debug Tool I have two VTAM-windows open through PCOM.)
I'm essentially trying to
[...]
snip
Thats why I never go to Wikipedia to look something up. If anyone can
change it, how can you trust any of it?
/snip
How can you trust other encyclopedias ? Are there more reliable ?
Possibly yes, epecially in some hot areas, but who cares about others
reliability - who measured
The ancient advantage of a 1 cyl PLPA and a large COMMON, the Seldom Ending
Channelprogram, has been retired a couple of z/OS releases ago
Not to dispute; where is that documented?
The last time I discussed this with IBM it was still recommended.
-
Too busy driving to stop for gas!
BTW: false content in wikipedia is very quickly removed. Every insert or
update is checked by some guys.
Boy, are you optimistic!
-
Too busy driving to stop for gas!
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access
Mike Feeley wrote:
I'm thinking of changing PLPA to the minimum size of 1 cylinder and letting it
overflow into the COMMON page dataset. Is there any issues with allocating
a huge COMMON page dataset?
I would ask WHY ?
Why do you want PLPA to overflow into COMMON page ?
--
Radoslaw
Barbara Nitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Kees,
About your answer above: why do you check a single PGDS utilization?
I
think it hardly hirts when one PGDS is over some limit if the total
configuration is within limit? ... Besides that, the question is what
we
Ted MacNEIL [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:1482040871-1189580775-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-179
[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
The ancient advantage of a 1 cyl PLPA and a large COMMON, the Seldom
Ending Channelprogram, has been retired a couple of z/OS releases ago
Not to dispute;
Is it possible defrag process (using ADRDSSU) in a volume at the same time
with delete define file in the volume ?
Yesterday I have a problem in production machine, the problem was
performance degradation, I have check CPU Utilization low and there were
many job was running including defrag
Nofri,
Apa kabar? Did you check for enqueue contention on the VTOC? Your
Delete/Define was probably stuck behind that. Check the RMF Enqueue report.
It's unlikely that DEFRAG by itself will generate enough IO to degrade a
single volume's performance unless the volume is already very busy before
What he said PLUS there are several contributors either between jobs or
retired who don't have a company ID.
Bill
From: Ted MacNEIL [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: IBM Mainframe Discussion List IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: The future of IBM Mainframes [just thinking]
What he said PLUS there are several contributors either between jobs
I resemble that remark!
Just because you don't use a corporate account, doesn't mean you should not
contribute.
There is only ONE List-Serve that I know of which requires you to use a
corporate e-mail to contribute.
And, that
In a message dated 9/12/2007 6:22:29 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There is only ONE List-Serve that I know of which requires you to use a
corporate e-mail to contribute.
And, that is ISV-Costs (run by John Anderson of IBM Canada).
So, I never joined because my
In the dark of night our HTTP server starting having problems on our zOS1.7
sand box. Well it was really probably during the day and we have not noticed
it. Anyway, it has been working fine for a long time. The last known changes
were to separate Telnet services outside TCPIP and change the
On Sep 12, 2007, at 1:55 AM, R.S. wrote:
[...]
snip
Thats why I never go to Wikipedia to look something up. If anyone
can change it, how can you trust any of it?
/snip
How can you trust other encyclopedias ? Are there more reliable ?
Possibly yes, epecially in some hot areas, but who
On Sep 12, 2007, at 2:10 AM, R.S. wrote:
Mike Feeley wrote:
I'm thinking of changing PLPA to the minimum size of 1 cylinder
and letting it overflow into the COMMON page dataset. Is there
any issues with allocating a huge COMMON page dataset?
I would ask WHY ?
Why do you want PLPA to
I'm thinking of changing PLPA to the minimum size of 1 cylinder
and letting it overflow into the COMMON page dataset. Is there
any issues with allocating a huge COMMON page dataset?
I would ask WHY ?
Why do you want PLPA to overflow into COMMON page ?
It was recommended years ago by a guru
Ed Gould wrote:
Mike Feeley wrote:
I'm thinking of changing PLPA to the minimum size of 1 cylinder and
letting it overflow into the COMMON page dataset. Is there any
issues with allocating a huge COMMON page dataset?
I would ask WHY ?
Why do you want PLPA to overflow into COMMON page ?
Ed Gould wrote:
On Sep 12, 2007, at 1:55 AM, R.S. wrote:
[...]
snip
Thats why I never go to Wikipedia to look something up. If anyone
can change it, how can you trust any of it?
/snip
How can you trust other encyclopedias ? Are there more reliable ?
Possibly yes, epecially in some hot
Ed Gould wrote:
On Sep 12, 2007, at 2:10 AM, R.S. wrote:
Mike Feeley wrote:
I'm thinking of changing PLPA to the minimum size of 1 cylinder and
letting it overflow into the COMMON page dataset. Is there any
issues with allocating a huge COMMON page dataset?
I would ask WHY ?
Why do you
Ed Gould [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
On Sep 12, 2007, at 2:10 AM, R.S. wrote:
Mike Feeley wrote:
I'm thinking of changing PLPA to the minimum size of 1 cylinder
and letting it overflow into the COMMON page dataset. Is there
any issues with
R.S. wrote:
Ed Gould wrote:
On Sep 12, 2007, at 2:10 AM, R.S. wrote:
Mike Feeley wrote:
I'm thinking of changing PLPA to the minimum size of 1 cylinder and
letting it overflow into the COMMON page dataset. Is there any
issues with allocating a huge COMMON page dataset?
I would ask WHY ?
Matt,
are you sharing your HFS in r/w with other systems (probably outside the
plex...)??? Or,
perhaps, are you sharing HFS (in r/w) between different OS levels???
_
Paolo Cacciari
Business Continuity and Resiliency
My theory on this is much like Bob Shannon's. Keep it easier, if you
are worried about the performance impact of page-ins from PLPA, you are
so real storage constrained that your system will be in bad shape
anyway.
Wayne Driscoll
Product Developer
JME Software LLC
NOTE: All opinions are
Thomas,
When you say the BTS run ends, were there any BTS messages? I would
have expected the ENTER to generate some sort of message. What should
be generated by the MFS when you hit enter? (specifically, the first
part of the message showing the transaction code.)
Mark Hammond
Applications
We are building a disaster recovery datacenter about 4 hrs. from our primary
site. Does anyone have any information on XRC Global mirroring for z/OS and
are there any good redbooks/manuals?
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff
We do this so that we don't have to worry about sizing the PLPA page dataset.
We just define a large common page dataset and let PLPAQ overflow into it.
There is no performance degradation.
I've been doing since at least XA, if not before.
And, that was before expanded storage, so paging rates
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 17:23:49 -0400, Bob Shannon
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I can't justify a mod-27 since about 60% of it would be empty - multiplied
by all our sysres sets: 2 for maintenance (one for each company), 6 for one
company environment, 3 or 4 sets for 3 other environments and a few more
Sharon,
you can start with this manual:
http://publibz.boulder.ibm.com/epubs/pdf/antgr131.pdf
This could be an useful web page:
http://www-1.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?rs=580uid=ssg1S7000860
For any questions, try to contact me offlist.
Hope this hepls. Regards.
I believe that recommendation is no longer valid (not sure as of which z/OS
release), but it had to do with the way I/O was handled to load LPA.
If you're not paging, it doesn't matter.
Allowing it to overflow for some reason was more efficient.
The efficiency had to do with (then) expensive
Bill
there are several contributors ... between jobs ...
In some professions it's called resting.
Chris Mason
- Original Message -
From: Bill Wilkie [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 12:52 PM
Subject:
Mike Feeley wrote:
I'm thinking of changing PLPA to the minimum size of 1 cylinder and letting it
overflow into the COMMON page dataset. Is there any issues with allocating
a huge COMMON page dataset? For example, if my LPAR only requires a
combined PLPA and COMMON size of 800 cylinders, can
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 07:07:19 +, Ted MacNEIL [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The ancient advantage of a 1 cyl PLPA and a large COMMON, the Seldom
Ending Channelprogram, has been retired a couple of z/OS releases ago
Not to dispute; where is that documented?
The last time I discussed this with IBM it
Mark,
Firstly: when BTS run ends there is only the BTS0005I END OF BTS RUN.
message.
Secondly: I have got it working by having an end-of-message indicator
when issuing the transcode, XXX300 $ !
(Also - before trying that - I got it to a working state by doing a
/FORMAT modname after the
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Eells
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 8:38 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: PLPA and COMMON PAGESPACE Size
snip
There is no point in making the COMMON data set any
McKown, John [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]..
..
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Eells
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 8:38 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: PLPA and
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 15:56:20 +0200, Vernooy, C.P. - SPLXM
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is no point in making the COMMON data set any larger than 2GB.
COMMON cannot possibly grow to 2GB, since that would be _all_
the space
below the bar. I'd allocate a 1-cylinder PLPA followed by a
John,
CSA and ECSA are paged to the COMMON page dataset, PLPA is paged to PLPA
and (if overflow) to COMMMON. Since the combined size of PLPA+COMMON
has to be less than 2GB, (at least until RMODE 64 programs are
available, which may never happen), a 2GB COMMON page dataset will be
more than large
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of John Eells
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 7:35 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: ServerPac Installs and dataset allocations
SNIP
Oddly enough I'd looked already. I wrote the SMS
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 09:37:36 -0400, John Eells wrote:
There is no point in making the COMMON data set any larger than 2GB.
Until (and unless) we start having common above the bar.
Even then 2GB will likely last a while.
--
Tom Marchant
APAR Identifier .. OA14248
Thanks, Mark.
That APAR only mentions suspend/resume.
Nothing regarding the one cylinder PLPA.
(Which was in use long before suspend/resume, and was used to save a pack --
not for performance).
-
Too busy driving to stop for gas!
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Bob Shannon
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 7:34 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: PLPA and COMMON PAGESPACE Size
SNIP
We do this so that we don't have to worry about sizing the PLPA
I'm confused by this. Isn't ECSA and the like paged to COMMON? Or is it paged
to normal paging datasets?
But, extended COMMON and below the line COMMON are still below the 2GB bar.
So, they could never add up to more than 2GB.
-
Too busy driving to stop for gas!
Kees wrote:
Now, like Mike's proposal, it can help you make life a little easier.
PLPA can spill over to COMMON, but not vica versa. So if you want to
manage space for both easily, you can do this by creating a small PLPA
and a large COMMON, which has free space for both. With both a large
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ted MacNEIL
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 9:26 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: PLPA and COMMON PAGESPACE Size
I'm confused by this. Isn't ECSA and the like paged to
Barbara Nitz wrote:
[snip]
thanks for basically asking the same questions I have asked in the ETR I had opened. I
was given to understand (not as clearly, of course) that I have no idea what I am talking
about. And why do I even question IBMs best practises? As this has happened
for *every*
Thompson, Steve wrote:
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of John Eells
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 7:35 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: ServerPac Installs and dataset allocations
SNIP
Oddly enough I'd looked already.
Sincere apologies... I was probably wrong to create an absolute rule...
Thanks for pointing out the other side of the coin to me... it was
definitely in the shade, otherwise I would have noticed it, surely...
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL
Ted MacNEIL [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:1253452742-1189606952-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-192
[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
APAR Identifier .. OA14248
Thanks, Mark.
That APAR only mentions suspend/resume.
Nothing regarding the one cylinder PLPA.
(Which was in use
Barbara
Based upon past posts, I've gotten (and still have) huge respect for your
knowlege and expertise on this platform.
My only guess is that your (negative) experience with Health Checker support
may have something to do with how IBM support works outside of the US.
In my experience, IBM
Tom Marchant wrote:
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 09:37:36 -0400, John Eells wrote:
There is no point in making the COMMON data set any larger than 2GB.
Until (and unless) we start having common above the bar.
Even then 2GB will likely last a while.
Paging for common storage above 2G
Ted, did you not get my reply with the APAR number?
No. I missed it.
The 1 cylinder PLPA is a result of suspend/resume and the high cost of
diskspace these days.
I was doing it before suspend/resume came out
(MVS/SP1.3.0?)
The first performance course I ever took had it as a 'trick of the
And to reduce having to seek over empty cylinders because you would allocate
more space to the PLPA for growth.
Regards,
Gene
--Original Message--
From: Ted MacNEIL
Sender: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
ReplyTo: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
Sent: Sep 12, 2007
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 16:29:15 +0200, Vernooy, C.P. - SPLXM
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The 1 cylinder PLPA is a result of suspend/resume and the high cost of
diskspace these days. With suspend/resume you should have only 1
pagedataset on a volume and by shifing all data to the Common and thus
Not to mention us unwashed unemployed
Ted MacNEIL wrote:
What he said!
Please remember that a lot of us work for companies who forbid our use of
company email addresses to post on public forums.
-
Too busy driving to stop for
snip---
It was recommended years ago by a guru and no one dares to question
the guru.
unsnip--
HORSEFEATHERS!! No guru is beyond challenging, expecially when
experience indicates different from what the so-called
Thanks for that Ted. I thought it was me. ?
On Wed Sep 12 14:23 , Ted MacNEIL [EMAIL PROTECTED] sent:
APAR Identifier .. OA14248
Thanks, Mark.
That APAR only mentions suspend/resume.
Nothing regarding the one cylinder PLPA.
(Which was in use long before suspend/resume, and was used to
Mark Zelden wrote:
... I think the
decision to remove suspend/resume was based on issues that
kept cropping up with pav and paging.
Must have been a fairly serious issue of some sort. Why else would they
change the behavior via APAR and not on a release boundary?
--
Edward E Jaffe
-snip
We are building a disaster recovery datacenter about 4 hrs. from our
primary site. Does anyone have any information on XRC Global mirroring
for z/OS and are there any good redbooks/manuals?
Physically not possible, but virtually possible? :-)
The CP display shows CP's 0, 2, and 4 online.
The 'change LPAR controls' shows 4 'non dedicated CPs'.
The activation profile shows 3 non shared. (Most likely it was 4 before
the change.)
Three of the four LPAR D M=CPU displays seem to be
I think that the straw which finally prompted the elimination of
suspend/resume channel programs for paging was a problem exposed by
products which DDR swap DASD volumes dynamically.
I suspect the thinking went something like this: Since the problem exposed by
DDR swap of page volumes was
Barbara
SHOWMVS and SHOWzOS report the MAXCAD and current usage since
several years. Require APF.
Dataspace/Hiperspace
.
.
.
Total MAXCAD=25 Total used CADS=12
Roland
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive
Interesting, yes. I would have expected CPs 0,1 and 2 online. Did you pose
the question to IBM HW support? I'd be interested to hear the answer if/when
you get one.
Steve
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hal
Merritt
Anybody ever seen a stand alone FICON attached 3490 capable tape drive?
Yes, I know it sounds crazy. I'm fairly certain they don't exist, but I
need to know. Thanks.
Jeffrey Deaver, Engineer
Systems Engineering
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
651-665-4231(v)
651-610-7670(p)
Ted,
The statement
snip Unlike VM, PRSM/LPAR does not virtualise CP's. /snip
begs the question:
If I have a CEC with 4 GP CPUs and 2 LPARS, LPAR1 has 4 non-dedicated initial
CPs and LPAR2 has 2 non-dedicated initial CPs, is not PRSM/LPAR virtualizing
CPs, since there 6 logical CPs,
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bielskie, Stephen
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 12:42 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Concurrent Upgrade Puzzlement.
Ted,
The statement
snip Unlike VM,
You might be better off looking for an ESCON attached 3490 and adding a Ficon
to ESCON converter.
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Jeffrey Deaver
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 1:40 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject:
We recently acquired a refurbished Sun/STK 9490 Timberline (3490 clone).
The purchase/shipping documents indicate the ESCON interface is a
separate component. Looking at the guts confirms the interface is
physically separate from the drive. All of which implies there are
other interfaces that
Bielskie, Stephen wrote:
If I have a CEC with 4 GP CPUs and 2 LPARS, LPAR1 has 4 non-dedicated initial
CPs and LPAR2 has 2 non-dedicated initial CPs, is not PRSM/LPAR virtualizing
CPs, since there 6 logical CPs, but only 4 physical CPs? Curiosity of course,
since I don't use VM.
The
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Jeffrey Deaver
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 12:40 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: FICON tape drive?
Anybody ever seen a stand alone FICON attached 3490 capable tape drive?
Yes, I know
Chris,
Thanks for the information and document. I already had some of your
recommendations in place and I am still reviewing everything. There is one
thing that I would like to ask you about.
You quoted the IP Guide and said:
quote
Common INET physical file system (CINET PFS)
If you wish
If I have a CEC with 4 GP CPUs and 2 LPARS, LPAR1 has 4 non-dedicated initial
CPs and LPAR2 has 2 non-dedicated initial CPs, is not PRSM/LPAR virtualizing
CPs, since there 6 logical CPs, but only 4 physical CPs? Curiosity of course,
since I don't use VM.
Terminology error on my part.
What I
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 12:48:31 -0500, McKown, John wrote:
From what I understand, PRSM calls these things logical CPs and
assigns each LPAR a number of logical CPs. It then dispatches the
logical CP on a physical CP. I don't know when PRSM assigns a logical
CP to a physical CP. It may be at LPAR
I see no reason why PR/SM can't support more logical processors for a
partition than there are physical processors
It was a design decision, from the get go.
MDF was designed the same way.
I was a beta-tester of MDF in the mid-1980's, and participated in many NDA
meetings for that.
Also,
From the PR/SM manual:
LPs can be defined to have as many CPs as are present on the underlying MCM.
Copyright IBM
So Hal indeed has an anomaly (unless z/OS.e is more VM like than I thought.)
He shows 3 CPs enabled from the service element. I will be interested to see
if it will be fixed
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 19:05:19 +, Ted MacNEIL wrote:
I see no reason why PR/SM can't support more logical processors for a
partition than there are physical processors
It was a design decision, from the get go.
MDF was designed the same way.
I was a beta-tester of MDF in the mid-1980's, and
LPs can be defined to have as many CPs as are present on the underlying MCM.
Even that is not precise.
Especially these days, when each board is fully populated.
You need to activate the PU's through micro-code.
And, only those activated can be used, and set the limit per LPAR.
-
Too busy
Matt,
I would track open APAR OA22110 to get a better diagnostic IGW020I msg even
I believe the SYSLOG should provide more info for this kind of LOAD failure.
Regards
Roland
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Thompson, Steve
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 1:24 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: FICON tape drive?
SNIP
Well, I got the wrong info. Something bothered me about what I was told
In a message dated 9/12/2007 4:07:33 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Now, if all ya all will excuse me, I have to go to the laundry room to
deposit the egg soaked clothing...
I dunno, I google'd {FICON attached 3490} and came with several hits to
include Luminex
Stop dispatching on of the logical processors? And if so, what happens to the
task that was running on it at the time?
I always thought you had to configure the processor offline before you could
remove it from the profile.
In all the discussion, I missed whether that was done.
-
Too busy
No manual configuration or profile changes were made. Only the hardware
microcode.
I kind of hesitate to issue reconfiguration commands right now. This is
our most loved LPAR.
I have a PMR open with IBM.
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL
No manual configuration or profile changes were made. Only the hardware
microcode.
Then, I really don't understand what kind of state you're in.
I kind of hesitate to issue reconfiguration commands right now. This is our
most loved LPAR.
When we were GDPS testing, a few years ago, IBM
Fellow IBM-Main Members-
Now that SHARE in San Diego is a fond memory, it is time to start planning
for the upcoming
winter SHARE conference. It will be held at the Coronado Springs Resort in
Orlando, FL, on
February 24th through 29th, 2007. The Enterprise Wide Capacity and
Performance
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 22:46:30 +, Ted MacNEIL wrote:
No manual configuration or profile changes were made. Only the hardware
microcode.
Then, I really don't understand what kind of state you're in.
I kind of hesitate to issue reconfiguration commands right now.
This is our most loved LPAR.
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 16:11:53 -0700, Norman Hollander on h-WiZ.biz wrote:
February 24th through 29th, 2007. The Enterprise Wide Capacity and
Oops! Missed it. Sorry.
-- gil
--
For IBM-MAIN
If the concurrent upgrade had required that the LPAR with four logical
processors had required that one processor be CONFIGed offline first, that
would hardly have been non-disruptive, would it?
CONFIG a processor offline is non-disruptive, except for a possible performance
impact.
But, I'm
IBM Mainframe Discussion List IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU wrote on 09/12/2007
12:46:24 PM:
Mark Zelden wrote:
... I think the
decision to remove suspend/resume was based on issues that
kept cropping up with pav and paging.
Must have been a fairly serious issue of some sort. Why else would
On Wed, 2007-09-12 at 08:42 +0200, Barbara Nitz wrote:
And we installed the downloadable version before we migrated to 1.6,
so we've been putting up with HC for a long time.
This may have been my mistake as well. Left a very bitter taste.
The shipped product is significantly better, but still
90 matches
Mail list logo
