In <7l8e461ghi07tm71r4m2v1kjutjfh49...@4ax.com>, on 07/21/2010
at 07:40 PM, Binyamin Dissen said:
>That has been part of the normal shutdown since at least early Z, and
>quite possibly in OS390 (do not have enough neurons to save all this
>info)
Yes, but that doesn't make it sound design.
-
On 22 Jul 2010 05:45:13 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
>Peter Relson pisze:
>>> FORCE ... ARM is less dangerous than just
>>> FORCE ..., thus making a miskeying dangerous.
>>
>> There is little if any legitimate possibility of miskeying danger. You
>> cannot issue FORCE wthout ARM w
Peter Relson pisze:
FORCE ... ARM is less dangerous than just
FORCE ..., thus making a miskeying dangerous.
There is little if any legitimate possibility of miskeying danger. You
cannot issue FORCE wthout ARM without having tried to cancel the space
first.
Last, but not least: Professional
>FORCE ... ARM is less dangerous than just
>FORCE ..., thus making a miskeying dangerous.
There is little if any legitimate possibility of miskeying danger. You
cannot issue FORCE wthout ARM without having tried to cancel the space
first.
Peter Relson
z/OS Core Technology Design
-
>There are several system address spaces that must be canceled to shut
>them down. AXR and TN3270 are the only two I can think of that use FORCE
>ARM.
Until a short while ago, RRS was one of those that needed to be
FORCE,ARMed. IBM has finally seen the light and provided a 'normal shutdown'
comm
Edward Jaffe wrote:
Clark Morris wrote:
On 21 Jul 2010 14:48:39 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
Clark Morris wrote:
... If I understand other postings and from what
I recall from 20 years ago when I was an active systems programmer,
FORCE ARM was a last resort...
FORC
Clark Morris wrote:
On 21 Jul 2010 14:48:39 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
Clark Morris wrote:
... If I understand other postings and from what
I recall from 20 years ago when I was an active systems programmer,
FORCE ARM was a last resort...
FORCE is a last resort.
On 21 Jul 2010 14:48:39 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
>Clark Morris wrote:
>> ... If I understand other postings and from what
>> I recall from 20 years ago when I was an active systems programmer,
>> FORCE ARM was a last resort...
>
>FORCE is a last resort. FORCE ARM is how you canc
Clark Morris wrote:
... If I understand other postings and from what
I recall from 20 years ago when I was an active systems programmer,
FORCE ARM was a last resort...
FORCE is a last resort. FORCE ARM is how you cancel a non-cancellable
address space.
--
Edward E Jaffe
Phoenix Software Int
On 21 Jul 2010 11:38:27 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
>On 7/21/2010 1:25 PM, Edward Jaffe wrote:
>> Binyamin Dissen wrote:
>>> On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 12:59:19 -0300 Clark Morris
>>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> :>While I am semi-retired (offer me a good contract and ...), I am
>>> :>appalled that
On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 14:19:07 -0500, Mark Zelden wrote:
>
>BTW, "FORCE ARM" is no more than a cancel except that it goes through
>ARM processing. It doesn't do a memterm like a regular FORCE.
For clarification...
ARM
The system is to terminate the specified job, time-sharing user, or
On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 19:56:39 +0200, R.S. wrote:
>Binyamin Dissen pisze:
>> On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 12:59:19 -0300 Clark Morris
>> wrote:
>>
>> :>While I am semi-retired (offer me a good contract and ...), I am
>> :>appalled that a function is installed that requires a FORCE for it to
>> :>shutdown.
On 7/21/2010 1:25 PM, Edward Jaffe wrote:
Binyamin Dissen wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 12:59:19 -0300 Clark Morris
wrote:
:>While I am semi-retired (offer me a good contract and ...), I am
:>appalled that a function is installed that requires a FORCE for it to
:>shutdown. If I were a systems pro
Binyamin Dissen wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 12:59:19 -0300 Clark Morris
wrote:
:>While I am semi-retired (offer me a good contract and ...), I am
:>appalled that a function is installed that requires a FORCE for it to
:>shutdown. If I were a systems programmer, I would APAR that at a
:>severity
Binyamin Dissen pisze:
On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 12:59:19 -0300 Clark Morris
wrote:
:>While I am semi-retired (offer me a good contract and ...), I am
:>appalled that a function is installed that requires a FORCE for it to
:>shutdown. If I were a systems programmer, I would APAR that at a
:>severity
On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 12:59:19 -0300 Clark Morris
wrote:
:>While I am semi-retired (offer me a good contract and ...), I am
:>appalled that a function is installed that requires a FORCE for it to
:>shutdown. If I were a systems programmer, I would APAR that at a
:>severity 2 and escalate if not ac
In a message dated 7/21/2010 10:38:51 A.M. Central Daylight Time, R.S
koru...@bremultibank.com.pl writes:
AXR, the AXR04 can be canceled, but nobody confirmed it is the method
suggested by IBM. Many address spaces CAN be canceled but it SHOULDN'T
be a method for regular shutdown.
Temporari
On 21 Jul 2010 07:41:23 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
>I know that this topic has been fully responded to, but I wanted to add a
>little more information, if only to make the archive search more complete...
>
>The APAR that added this migration action was OA26802, and the HOLD ACTION
Marna WALLE pisze:
I know that this topic has been fully responded to, but I wanted to add a
little more information, if only to make the archive search more complete...
The APAR that added this migration action was OA26802, and the HOLD ACTION
(and HOLD DOC) in the PTFs for that APAR alerted yo
I know that this topic has been fully responded to, but I wanted to add a
little more information, if only to make the archive search more complete...
The APAR that added this migration action was OA26802, and the HOLD ACTION
(and HOLD DOC) in the PTFs for that APAR alerted you of a change. (It
p
W dniu 2010-07-20 18:51, Edward Jaffe pisze:
R.S. wrote:
Edward Jaffe pisze:
R.S. wrote:
Q: How should I close AXR04?
Any clue?
The book says you should issue FORCE AXR,ARM.
The book says about AXR - this is not AXR04.
AXR does not disturb JES2 shutdown. Only AXR04 does. BTW: there are no
z/OS 1.11
|
|This occurred as a result of maintenance to system REXX, which
|introduced several enhancements, but causes a system REXX EXEC
|to run under JES2. For the time being, you are doing the
|correct thing, which is to cancel AXRxx (the xx suffix is not
|predictable), not FORCE AXR,ARM
This occurred as a result of maintenance to system REXX, which introduced
several enhancements, but causes a system REXX EXEC to run under JES2. For
the time being, you are doing the correct thing, which is to cancel AXRxx
(the xx suffix is not predictable), not FORCE AXR,ARM. When I installed
th
R.S. wrote:
Edward Jaffe pisze:
R.S. wrote:
Q: How should I close AXR04?
Any clue?
The book says you should issue FORCE AXR,ARM.
The book says about AXR - this is not AXR04.
AXR does not disturb JES2 shutdown. Only AXR04 does. BTW: there are no
other AXR* address spaces, except AXR and AXR
Edward Jaffe pisze:
R.S. wrote:
Q: How should I close AXR04?
Any clue?
The book says you should issue FORCE AXR,ARM.
The book says about AXR - this is not AXR04.
AXR does not disturb JES2 shutdown. Only AXR04 does. BTW: there are no
other AXR* address spaces, except AXR and AXR04.
As I wr
.
HTH,
Greg Shirey
Ben E. Keith Company
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of R.S.
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 10:55 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: AXR04 on z/OS 1.11
Scenario: just installed z/OS 1.11.
AXR00 content:
CPF('REXX&SYSCLONE.
R.S. wrote:
Q: How should I close AXR04?
Any clue?
The book says you should issue FORCE AXR,ARM.
--
Edward E Jaffe
Phoenix Software International, Inc
831 Parkview Drive North
El Segundo, CA 90245
310-338-0400 x318
edja...@phoenixsoftware.com
http://www.phoenixsoftware.com/
--
Scenario: just installed z/OS 1.11.
AXR00 content:
CPF('REXX&SYSCLONE.',SYSPLEX)
AXRUSER(RXUSER) /* my customization* /
RXUSER is defined in RACF db as PROTECTED.
During system shutdown I noticed that new address space AXR04 is active
and does not allow JES2 to shutdown. (Finally I CANCELled it
28 matches
Mail list logo
