Hello
Question:
Has anyone ever seen a VTS machine eject Stacked Volumes *without* sending a
message to the Hosts?
If Yes, do you know why and what did you do to fix it?
Setup:
We run 3 IBM Mainframe hosts (TPF, MVS and VM) attached to 2 IBM 3494 Model B18
VTS Machines with 3494-L14 Library
Richman, Saul saul.rich...@eds.com wrote in message
news:4d2988015f71f84d8df71628a4d7b7f30192c...@derum204.emea.corp.eds.com...
Hello
Question:
Has anyone ever seen a VTS machine eject Stacked Volumes *without* sending a
message to the Hosts?
If Yes, do you know why and what did you
Sorry Kees,
I didn't explain very well - the READ-ONLY STATUS was just an example Warning
Message.
The real problem is NO warning message was sent for other Ejects.
But very interesting your choice of words
I believe our TS7700 VTS also ejected a volume once...
That made me laugh!
Our B18
I mis-read the original post. I thought the z9 was being replaced, not
the z890. Having re-read the OP, I would say the toleration maint is
mandatory for the z/890 LPARs, and highly desireable for the z9 LPARs.
Apologies to the OP.
snipSubject: Re: z10 toleration maintenance
Staller, Allan
Really stretching it here even for a Monday. Do any of you have any Nomad
6.51 documentation you'd be willing to donate to our badly backlevel users?
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email
Daniel,
Closest I've got is IUT 7.5.3, you want it?
Joe Aulph,
Senior Systems Programmer:
850-487-8945
joe_au...@dcf.state.fl.us
Daniel McLaughlin
Hi All
New to this Listserv hope someone can help or point me in the correct
direction.
We had an IBM P390 that was running VM and ZOS/1.5 in a 3 systems close
coupled Sysplex and ran like a dream.
That system has now been replaced by Z9 A02 processor running VM 5.3 and
Zos/1.10 I have
Hi,
We have multiple TWS environments consisting of controllers and trackers
running on one LPAR and associated trackers on other LPARs. Users routinely
access the controllers through the ISPF interface on LPAR's other than the
one running the controller and in some cases are restricted from
Stuart Willis wrote:
Hi All
New to this Listserv hope someone can help or point me in the correct
direction.
It doesn't look like yourCOUPLExx member has the CFRMPOL option in the
couple statement. This is used to point to the default CFRM policy if
this the the first time you are
Stuart,
Have you been able to locate any IXC305I or IXC307I messages that might
indicate what failures are occurring when START PATH processing is
taking place? This might help pinpoint the source of the problem.
HTH,
Gary Diehl
Systems Administration
One machine can do the work of fifty
Hi Mark
Is the 2nd statement in the COUPLExx member
COUPLE SYSPLEX(SYSPLEX)
CFRMPOL(WDSP2) =
PCOUPLE(SYS1.XCF.CDS01)
ACOUPLE(SYS1.XCF.CDS02)
Regards,
Stuart
-Original Message-
From: IBM
Hi Gary
No this is all I get out.
IEA247I USING IEASYSP2 FOR z/OS 01.10.00 HBB7750
ISG313I SYSTEM IS JOINING A GRS STAR COMPLEX. RING CONFIGURATION
KEYWORDS IN
GRSCNF00 ARE IGNORED.
IEA598I TIME ZONE = E.00.00.00
IXL157I PATH 01 IS NOW OPERATIONAL TO CUID: 0001
Stuart Willis wrote:
Hi Mark
Is the 2nd statement in the COUPLExx member
COUPLE SYSPLEX(SYSPLEX)
CFRMPOL(WDSP2) =
PCOUPLE(SYS1.XCF.CDS01)
ACOUPLE(SYS1.XCF.CDS02)
Regards,
Stuart
On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 09:49:02 -0600, Stuart Willis
stuart.wil...@willdata.com wrote:
Hi All
New to this Listserv hope someone can help or point me in the correct
direction.
We had an IBM P390 that was running VM and ZOS/1.5 in a 3 systems close
coupled Sysplex and ran like a dream.
That system
Hi Mark
Is this the first system IPLing in the sysplex, or is one active? It
looks
like PLX1 is active and this is a different system. Correct? Did you
get
a chance to reply to a message about initializing the sysplex vs.
joining.
Correct this is the 2nd system PLX1 starts up no
On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 17:35:20 -, Stuart Willis
stuart.wil...@willdata.com wrote:
Hi Mark
Is this the first system IPLing in the sysplex, or is one active? It
looks
like PLX1 is active and this is a different system. Correct? Did you
get
a chance to reply to a message about initializing
Joseph - we have doc for 7.50 and 7.51 in house. The problem is that it
shows different behaviors than 6.51 and doesn't really help the user. We feel
that they will be forced to come up to level because the vendor won't help
them. It's a long and sad tale, filled with demons and dragons...
well---so far so good...no drop outs as yet...but day/week not over...lol
thanks again Chris
--
Email Disclaimer
This E-mail contains confidential information belonging to the sender,
which may be legally privileged
Our SMF exit was not Loaded into LPA at IPL time when we IPL'ed the
weekend.
My question is; can the IEFU29 exit be dynamically activated after an IPL?
IS there a restriction with exits in this regard?
John Norgauer
Senior Systems Programmer
Mainframe Technical Support Services
University
Yes. Here is a link to the 'Installation Exits' manual:
http://publibz.boulder.ibm.com/cgi-bin/bookmgr_OS390/BOOKS/iea2e490/2.29
..2?SHELF=EZ2ZO10L.bksDT=20080526223722#HDRCONTU29
Jon L. Veilleux
veilleu...@aetna.com
(860) 636-2683
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion
On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 11:35:27 -0800, John Norgauer
john.norga...@ucdmc.ucdavis.edu wrote:
Our SMF exit was not Loaded into LPA at IPL time when we IPL'ed the
weekend.
My question is; can the IEFU29 exit be dynamically activated after an IPL?
Yes. Either with a SETPROG command or a PROGxx
I didn't see any mention of Rocket Software's MXI G2 product. See
http://www.rocketsoftware.com/products/mxi_g2.
We have had MXI G2 for a couple of years and continue to be impressed with the
set of features it offers at a good price.
Dan Squillace
Sr. IT Manager, Mainframe Support
SAS
In 45d79eacefba9b428e3d400e924d36b9019d0...@iwdubcormsg007.sci.local, on
02/09/2009
at 09:15 PM, Thompson, Steve steve_thomp...@stercomm.com said:
Is there any package - Besides Ada Lovelace's running on Babbage machine
- that can run today on a +45 Year old machine :P
Yes.
--
Shmuel
In 4990bad6.50...@vmfacility.fr, on 02/10/2009
at 12:23 AM, Ivan Warren i...@vmfacility.fr said:
Please.. find *ONE* single architecture that's still capable of running
programs written 45 years ago !
Would you settle for three? One from column BULL and two from column
Unisys.
In
In kmi4p4th01jpqif5rqgihtqfdbstvra...@4ax.com, on 02/10/2009
at 11:52 PM, Clark Morris cfmpub...@ns.sympatico.ca said:
Thsey are able to run programs for which there is source in one of the
higher level languages (the B5000, B5500, B6500, etc. series machines
operating system was written in
In d02.4e62cf50.36c44...@aol.com, on 02/11/2009
at 10:05 AM, (IBM Mainframe Discussion List) dasdbi...@aol.com
said:
I thought that the C in BUNCH was Compagnie des Machines Bull.
No; B.U.L.L. was a minor player at the time.
CDC made mainframe-compatible disk drives, though, I think, but
In 94c476c03bff5e42ac3518fdac9643c4bdcdd49...@hqmail.rocketsoftware.com,
on 02/11/2009
at 10:36 AM, Bill Fairchild bi...@mainstar.com said:
But there was a connection between BUNCH and the French Bull. From that
wiki article: In 1991 Honeywell's computer division was sold to the
French
In 499329a7.4050...@valley.net, on 02/11/2009
at 02:40 PM, Gerhard Postpischil gerh...@valley.net said:
It depends on your definition of mainframe and compatible. The CDC 1604
was an IBM 7094 look-alike,
You know better than that.
differing primarily in
using 1's complement arithmetic
In 1234388827.19101.65.ca...@chuck.duda.com, on 02/11/2009
at 04:47 PM, David Andrews d...@lists.duda.com said:
Was it KRONOS?
That came later. It would have to have been SIPROS or COS. CDC abandoned
SIPROS and COS eventually mutated into SCOPE and KRONOS (I'm not sure of
the spelling.)
--
The following message is a courtesy copy of an article
that has been posted to bit.listserv.ibm-main,alt.folkore.computers as well.
bi...@mainstar.com (Bill Fairchild) writes:
I should have checked Wiki_knows_all first.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BUNCH
But there was a connection between
On 16 Feb 2009 14:30:46 -0800, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
In kmi4p4th01jpqif5rqgihtqfdbstvra...@4ax.com, on 02/10/2009
at 11:52 PM, Clark Morris cfmpub...@ns.sympatico.ca said:
Thsey are able to run programs for which there is source in one of the
higher level languages (the B5000,
On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 17:52:02 -0500, Anne Lynn Wheeler wrote:
note that in that time-frame, (at least) both Wang and Bull contracted
for rs/6000 to sell under their own label.
Aaah, that fits. At one time we had a small herd of Bulls, running
BOS/X, which was represented to me as an AIX
In ag4kp414kv5gvgdpufgsva0t61f0iq3...@4ax.com, on 02/16/2009
at 09:27 PM, Clark Morris cfmpub...@ns.sympatico.ca said:
As I understand it, some operating system upgrades have required
recompilations.
Possibly, but that's a separate issue from recompilations due to changes
in the architecture.
In listserv%200902111403155841.0...@bama.ua.edu, on 02/11/2009
at 02:03 PM, Daniel McLaughlin daniel_mclaugh...@us.crawco.com said:
This is being done from the TSO command line and all we really get to see
is the 806...
That suggests that you're running with NOWTPMSG. Try PROFILE WTPMSG.
On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 17:52:02 -0500, Anne Lynn Wheeler wrote:
note that in that time-frame, (at least) both Wang and Bull contracted
for rs/6000 to sell under their own label.
Aaah, that fits. At one time we had a small herd of Bulls, running
BOS/X, which was represented to me as an AIX
On 16 Feb 2009 14:30:46 -0800, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
In kmi4p4th01jpqif5rqgihtqfdbstvra...@4ax.com, on 02/10/2009
at 11:52 PM, Clark Morris cfmpub...@ns.sympatico.ca said:
Thsey are able to run programs for which there is source in one of the
higher level languages (the B5000,
I received the following notes privately but for the sake of having the full
story available to all in the future in the archives I am responding publically:
-
- Original Message -
From: rwe...@agfinance.com
To: chrisma...@belgacom.net
Sent: Monday, February 16, 2009 3:58 PM
Subject:
Bill
The key word here may be exit.
I have no experience with RACF exits but I do - or used to - with VTAM exits -
and those of some related products. My understanding of an exit is that it
is a point in the supplied product code where a customer might want to
impose some logic which cannot
Hello:
We are installing a new CICS version (3.2) and we need to add a new XCF
group for the address spaces of this new version. The address spaces of
actual version (2.2) are working with DFHIR000 but now we want to add a
new xcf group and connect the address spaces of the new version to the
39 matches
Mail list logo
