hi all,
Is it possible to catalog all FULL dump tape backup in during dump
cycle in HSM. I found it will not catalog after the FULL dump
completed.
SAHSM is non-sms managed
IEC205I SYS8,HSM1,HSM1,FILESEQ=1, COMPLETE VOLUME LIST, 892
DSN=SAHSM.DMP.SUNDAY.VSAPP17.D09058.T194416,VOLS=TP7783,
I will be out of the office starting 27/02/2009 and will not return until
02/03/2009.
I will respond to your message when I return.
Please contact Conor Fahy at 13200 or Mike Green at 11561 or Emma Murphy at
11945 if it is urgent.
For Toastmasters information please contact Mary Behan at 12579
Cross posted to IBM-MAIN and DB2-L.
I'm doing a CCSID change from CP500 to CP1146 (UK plus euro) in preparation
for a move to DB2 Version 8. I've already successfully done this for
another DB2 subsystem on z/OS 1.4 without unicode on demand. We are now
z/OS 1.7 and I believe I have unicode on
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 10:24 AM, Jim McAlpine jim.mcalp...@gmail.comwrote:
Cross posted to IBM-MAIN and DB2-L.
I'm doing a CCSID change from CP500 to CP1146 (UK plus euro) in preparation
for a move to DB2 Version 8. I've already successfully done this for
another DB2 subsystem on z/OS 1.4
We are having problems locating supplies of 3490E tape cartridges in the UK.
Imation say they have been 'end of life'd. Does anyone know an alternative
supplier ? Could we write 3590E's on a 36-track drive ?
Thanks
Pete
--
Crispin Hugo
Systems Programmer
Macro 4
We have been using Admil for years. . very good. Try sa...@admil.co.uk
or 01202 823533
Also try
MEDIA RESOURCES TEL (01889) 503100.
Also try
Nicholas Tomkinson-Hill - Sales Director
Tel: 01889 503100 Fax: 01889 503101
e-mail:
On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 11:05 -0800, Gibney, Dave wrote:
What's SAS on Winders cost? I thought it was pretty cheap, almost pocket
change?
Funnily enough, within the last week I had some-one who had migrated SAS
off the mainframe mention that the Windoze solution was (now) also
considered
Pete,
No, you cannot use 3590 cartridges on a 3490 type drive. They are NOT
compatible.
Russell
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu]on
Behalf Of Pete Borton
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2009 4:49 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: 3490E
In our real root, /etc and /var are already symbolic links, pointing to a
/etc ZFS and a /var ZFS filesystem
If I clone that root to the /Service directory for maintenance, those
symbolic links to /etc and /var still exist, and pointing to their original
location, /etc and /var and NOT to the
without losing its sysplex-wide uniqueness
STCK/STCKF/STCKE values are not sysplex-wide unique.
Isn't that what the TOD Programmable Field (bits 112-127) is for?
I believe the answer is no.. The programmable information is for making
the value unique within a system across different CPUs. At
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 10:40:10 +, Jim McAlpine jim.mcalp...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 10:24 AM, Jim McAlpine jim.mcalp...@gmail.comwrote:
Cross posted to IBM-MAIN and DB2-L.
I'm doing a CCSID change from CP500 to CP1146 (UK plus euro) in preparation
for a move to DB2 Version
Running z/OS V1.9 with JES2, GRS, and CA1
I have a production batch job that has been running fine for months passing
a tape from one step to the next. Now it is receiving CBR4000I messages
indicating that the tape is already mounted on a different drive.
The previous step is (,CATLG) and
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 1:30 PM, Mark Zelden mark.zel...@zurichna.comwrote:
Hmmm. I checked the archives as the quickest way to find the APAR / PTF
I am about to quote, and I saw my reply was to you on Dec. 16th 2008.
Do you have the SRB support APAR on? The original APAR / PTF was
Problem solved. The problem was a one of an actual error in translation
from code page 500 to 1146. Specifically, the tilde character was converted
from x'A1' in code page 500 to x'BD' in code page 1146 when it should have
been x'BC', so the translation tables for that conversion are in error.
Bob,
From the POP quote you've posted earlie:
the value in bit positions 64-103 of the clock (bit positions 72-111 of the
storage operand) is always nonzero
This is because, a single machine [identified by TOD Programmable Register,
bits 112-127] may have multiple CPUs - so the bits 64-103
Don't think JCL, think PARMLIB.
Smith, Sean M sean.m.sm...@bankofamerica.com 2/26/2009 3:47 PM
The issue comes into play though when you use SYMBOLS in started task
JCL. If the Symbol fits that would seem fine but it would be possible
for the substitution text to be longer and thus cause a
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 09:28:02 -0500, Scott Rowe wrote:
Don't think JCL, think PARMLIB.
Think... PARMLIB... Think...
OK. I have thought PARMLIB. What came to my mind was that the
substitution techniques used in JCL processing to substitute a
symbol value longer than that symbol's name ought
Don't shoot the messenger, the network folks are asking me this question. We
transmit all our sensitive within a secure network and the 1 file we send
out is public info.
You know how those network types are..LOL
thanks
Mace
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 4:27 PM, Patrick O'Keefe
Hi all,
TSO ISPVCALL;TSO ISPVCALL is great, thanks for the hints. As far as I could
see our old user module has 'ISPF exits enabled.. YES'. Now I need to check
which ISPF exits are installed at our site
Remark: As far as I could see and test the Option 1 of ISPCCONF does not
analyze the load
The following note appears in the manual:
The SMTP server uses the Pascal socket API, so VMCF must be started for the
server to successfully initialize. If VMCF is not started, message EZY1980E
will be issued and the server will terminate.
Also the following note appears in the messages manual
Well, the way I see it, they had a whole lot of different modules reading
PARMLIB that they needed to convert to using system symbols. The use of a
substitution routine that did not cause the record to be extended, this
probably save an enormous amount of work.
Paul Gilmartin
had TNF/VMCF not set correctly...thanks all
--
Email Disclaimer
This E-mail contains confidential information belonging to the sender,
which may be legally privileged information. This information is intended
only for
I have looked on IBMLink and got no hits on this. So I thought I'd ask for
any ideas. We are running z/OS 1.8 on a z9BC. CICS/TS is release 3.2. We
have two different programs which abend with an S0C4-10 in CEECRINI at
offset x'2BC'. The abending instruction is L 4,4(,4) which is preceeded by a
L
I would assume the issue is that the code in MSI and NIP that reads the
parmlib members doesn't have support for expansion of buffers, recall that
PARMLIB is limited to 80 byte records, and if symbol substitution results
in IPL failure, you have a major problem.
Wayne,
My intent was to eliminate the need to allocate, open, read, and parse the
parmlib and read directly from SYMDEF call of rexx. ;-) Could save some
lines of code and CPU...
Itschak
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 5:59 PM, Wayne Driscoll wdri...@us.ibm.com wrote:
I would assume the issue is that
see if CICS ptf UK40899 is on the system.
if so, LE fix in pk73422 is required for z/os 1.9 - there may also be
something for z/os 1.8. the apar does not exactly match your problem but
there are known LE problems. no fix is available for pk73422 yet.
-Original Message-
From: IBM
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of
Lizette Koehler
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2009 7:32 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Tape Stealing in z/OS with CBR4000I
Running z/OS V1.9 with JES2, GRS, and CA1
I have a production
Yeah, this is the kind of thing I was thinking of.
Wayne Driscoll wdri...@us.ibm.com 2/27/2009 10:59 AM
I would assume the issue is that the code in MSI and NIP that reads the
parmlib members doesn't have support for expansion of buffers, recall that
PARMLIB is limited to 80 byte records, and
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 11:26:41 -0500, Barkow, Eileen ebar...@doitt.nyc.gov
wrote:
see if CICS ptf UK40899 is on the system.
No, it is not.
if so, LE fix in pk73422 is required for z/os 1.9 - there may also be
something for z/os 1.8. the apar does not exactly match your problem but
there are
I know there is has been a lot of discussion about NOT applying maintenance to
a live system. Since today is my last day at Washington University, I wanted
to install the current SMP/E version to the z/OS 1.9 system I am in the middle
of installing. I didn't want to take the time to create a
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On
Behalf Of Barkow, Eileen
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2009 9:27 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: CEECRINI+X'2BC' abend S0C4-10 in CICS/TS 3.2
see if CICS ptf UK40899 is on the system.
uk40899 was superceded by uk42915.
but as far as i can see, there is still an outstanding LE fix which is
supposed to be out in June.
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On
Behalf Of Lester, Bob
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2009 11:46 AM
To:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 09:59:32 -0600, Wayne Driscoll wrote:
I would assume the issue is that the code in MSI and NIP that reads the
parmlib members doesn't have support for expansion of buffers, recall that
PARMLIB is limited to 80 byte records, and if symbol substitution results
in IPL failure,
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 08:32:23 -0500, Lizette Koehler wrote:
Running z/OS V1.9 with JES2, GRS, and CA1
I have a production batch job that has been running fine for months passing
a tape from one step to the next. Now it is receiving CBR4000I messages
indicating that the tape is already mounted on
Oh good, I am not alone.
I am pushing IBM at the moment to try and rectify this condition. However, I
felt I was in a losing battle.
Seems I was correct.
I will redo our side and leave poor over worked IBM alone.
Lizette
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 08:32:23 -0500, Lizette Koehler wrote:
Our annual SAS and MXG renewal in Australia is under AU$10,000. Not sure what
the up front fee was.
MXG renewal is the same as up-front.
$1500 US, the last time I acquired it.
SAS renewal was 15% of the original, at the same time.
-
Too busy driving to stop for gas!
Trying to get current holddata. Worked yesterday.
Dave Gibney
Information Technology Services
Washington State University
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of John McKown
I have looked on IBMLink and got no hits on this. So I thought I'd ask
for
any ideas. We are running z/OS 1.8 on a z9BC. CICS/TS is release 3.2.
We
have two different programs which abend with an S0C4-10
We've been trying all day.
Bob Shannon
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 12:27:48 -0600, Chase, John jch...@ussco.com wrote:
snip
Any pointers? Oh, we are running RENTPGM=NOPROTECT because (IIRC)
Xpeditor
won't work otherwise.
Current releases (8.x) of Xpediter will work fine with RENTPGM=PROTECT.
-jc-
Thanks! I'll mention that to the main
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of John McKown
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 11:26:41 -0500, Barkow, Eileen wrote:
see if CICS ptf UK40899 is on the system.
From a very recent APPLY CHECK for TS 3.2:
UK40899 SUPD PTFSUPBYUK42915
Hello everybody,
Our installation is running z/OS 1.8, IBM Enterprise COBOL for z/OS 3.4.1. If
I'm missing something here, let me know.
I've looked in our Cobol language reference and the programming guide and of
course, searched the web. If the answer's there, I've not found it.
How many
How did you try to catalog the DSN? What error message did you receive
when it was not cataloged?
HSM will manage the tape according to the options you specify in
ARCCMDxx. Why do you want to catalog it?
-Original Message-
From: Tommy Tsui
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2009 1:27 AM
To:
65535
Language Reference Appendix B. Compiler Limits
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of
frederick.verw...@hrsdc-rhdsc.gc.ca
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2009 2:01 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: [IBM-MAIN] Cobol: Maximum
According to the compiler limits appendix of the language reference at
http://publibz.boulder.ibm.com/cgi-bin/bookmgr_OS390/BOOKS/IGY3LR31/APPENDIX1.2
the answer is 65,535.
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu]on
Behalf Of
Would changing the disposition from CATLG to PASS help? (You would have to add
a catalog step at the end of the job.)
-Original Message-
From: Lizette Koehler
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2009 5:32 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Tape Stealing in z/OS with CBR4000I
Running z/OS
According to the Language Reference manual (Appendix 1.2) you can have
65,535 SELECT filename... statements.
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 2:00 PM, frederick.verw...@hrsdc-rhdsc.gc.ca wrote:
Hello everybody,
Our installation is running z/OS 1.8, IBM Enterprise COBOL for z/OS 3.4.1. If
I'm missing
Absolutely true for repeated STCKEs. However,
Two executions of STORE CLOCK or STORE
CLOCK EXTENDED, possibly on different CPUs in
the same configuration, always store different values
of the clock if the clock is running.
says that the 64-bit time returned by repeated STCKs are also
Thanks much!
Regards,
Eric Verwijs
Programmer Analyst | Programmeur-analyste
CPP/ OAS/ IA Production Support Team | Équipe de soutien à la production RPC /
SV / IA
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of
That actually raises an interesting question. As the limit of FD's is
larger than the limit of DD's allowed in a job step *AND* COBOL now supports
dynamic allocation, I wonder how COBOL would do if you did try to have more
than 3273 files opened at the same time?
I certainly wouldn't want to
So what error are you getting that leads to this question?
Lizette
Hello everybody,
Our installation is running z/OS 1.8, IBM Enterprise COBOL for z/OS 3.4.1. If
I'm missing something here, let me know.
I've looked in our Cobol language reference and the programming guide and of
course,
Bob Rutledge wrote:
says that the 64-bit time returned by repeated STCKs are also
guaranteed to be unique.
Also true. The only problem with STCK is the chance that, on an
ultra-fast machine, it might have to delay execution to ensure the
uniqueness documented in POO. STCKF was invented for
Of course you could have a program that deals with 65535 different files/dd's
and just opens the ones it needs based on some sort of parm.
And isn't the system limit based on single unit DD's. If you concatenate or
span volumes the limit could be much smaller.
-Original Message-
That actually raises an interesting question. As the limit of FD's is
larger than the limit of DD's allowed in a job step *AND* COBOL now
supports
dynamic allocation, I wonder how COBOL would do if you did try to have
more
than 3273 files opened at the same time?
wow - that would certainly be
I wonder how COBOL would do if you did try to have more
than 3273 files opened at the same time?
IKJ56866I DATA SET DOTCWS.CTLIB NOT ALLOCATED, CONCURRENT ALLOCATIONS EXCEEDED
This was using BPXWDYN to allocate the files. I did not try to open them just
allocate. Oddly, the return code
On 27 Feb 2009 11:54:41 -0800, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
Would changing the disposition from CATLG to PASS help? (You would have to
add a catalog step at the end of the job.)
I have used DISP=(NEW,CATLG),VOL=(,RETAIN)
-Original Message-
From: Lizette Koehler
Sent: Friday,
It's back ???
Dave Gibney
Information Technology Services
Washington State University
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On
Behalf Of Gibney, Dave
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2009 10:23 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 11:08:39 -0600, Paul Gilmartin
paulgboul...@aim.com wrote:
...
And to enforce the misguided restriction on other users of system
symbols is throwing the baby out with the bath.
...
Miguided nor not, one or more of the above have been thrown
out. You could submit a formal
For what it's worth, I got confirmation from my IBM storage specialist that the
DR guy is wrong, you cannot use a VTS to read a native 3592 tape.
Scott Rowe scott.r...@joann.com 2/26/2009 8:46 PM
That's my position also, but we actually got this message from our DR provider:
As per our
Edward Jaffe wrote:
Bob Rutledge wrote:
says that the 64-bit time returned by repeated STCKs are also
guaranteed to be unique.
Also true. The only problem with STCK is the chance that, on an
ultra-fast machine, it might have to delay execution to ensure the
uniqueness documented in POO.
Where can I find information about setting weights and how to determine how
to distribute them accross our LPARs. Can anyone point me in the right
direction.
TIA
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access
Patrick O'Keefe wrote:
Miguided nor not, one or more of the above have been thrown
out. You could submit a formal request to have this restriction
lifted but I bet it won't get very far. Changing the code to remove
the restriction is probably trivial. Validating that change didn't
break
gsg wrote:
Where can I find information about setting weights and how to determine how
to distribute them accross our LPARs. Can anyone point me in the right
direction.
PR/SM Planning.
--
Edward E Jaffe
Phoenix Software International, Inc
5200 W Century Blvd, Suite 800
Los Angeles, CA
because our shop didn't have the tape management system like RMM,
therefore we search all catalog information to determine that the tape
can be scratched or not.
On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 3:08 AM, Schwarz, Barry A
barry.a.schw...@boeing.com wrote:
How did you try to catalog the DSN? What error
Chase, John wrote:
Current releases (8.x) of Xpediter will work fine with RENTPGM=PROTECT.
Not being very CICS savvy, I decided to look up this parameter in TFM.
It says:
|RENTPGM Storage for the read-only DSAs, RDSA and ERDSA, is obtained from
| key-0, non-fetch protected
Peter Relson/Poughkeepsie/i...@ibmus wrote on 02/27/2009 07:48:40 AM:
without losing its sysplex-wide uniqueness
STCK/STCKF/STCKE values are not sysplex-wide unique.
Isn't that what the TOD Programmable Field (bits 112-127) is for?
I believe the answer is no.. The programmable information
Pete Borton wrote:
We are having problems locating supplies of 3490E tape cartridges in the UK.
Imation say they have been 'end of life'd. Does anyone know an alternative
supplier ? Could we write 3590E's on a 36-track drive ?
You might consider upgrading to 3590s. They're denser,
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 14:12:08 -0800, Edward Jaffe
edja...@phoenixsoftware.com wrote:
...
Why would existing definitions suddenly break if the length
restriction on symbolic values was removed? Seems to me that it
would be a transparent change.
...
Nothing currently working would break ... until
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 15:23:25 -0600, Patrick O'Keefe wrote:
It would probably best be implemented as a whole new capability -
a new kind of system symbolic (that maybe can't be used in JCL
or parmlib).
ITYM can be used in JCL, but not in PARMLIB.
Regardless, I more agree with Ed J.'s comments
Where can I find information about setting weights and how to determine how
to distribute them accross our LPARs. Can anyone point me in the right
direction.
I have worked with MDF and PR/SM since they first came out over 20 years ago.
And, I'm amazed that somebody is still asking such a
At 12:17 -0600 on 02/26/2009, Victor Gil wrote about Re: Can TOD
(STCKE) be compressed into 12 bytes:
So, here's what I think the application should do:
1) determine the current day-of-week [Sun=0,...,Sat=6]; store as byte#1
[snip]
This would require only 11 bytes and should be unique within a
71 matches
Mail list logo
