Well, as of today, Sizer is broken again. I get the MQ errors again. For the
health checker structure (which previously gave me a cflevel13 answer) I now
get the MQ error, too.
A hit&miss tool.
Barbara
--
For IBM-MAIN subscr
As of this morning, Bill has managed to fix the sizer (or have it fixed). Using
the url http://www.ibm.com/systems/support/z/cfsizer/, which immediately
changes to the one I *had* been using
(http://www-947.ibm.com/systems/support/z/cfsizer/), I now get results from the
sizer, both for RRS and
> Well, I tried to take it offline but my email came back:
I send Bill an email (from an ID that doesn't reject everyone) with what I used.
Barbara
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email
"Barbara Nitz" wrote in message
news:...
> We're in the process of installing a z196 which will come with
cflevel17.
> We're currently running CFLEVEL15, and I have heard several horror
stories
> about problems with structure sizes on CFLEVEL17.
>
> So I went t
Barbara,
Well, I tried to take it offline but my email came back:
If you're only getting the MQ error for certain structures, it may mean
that there's a calculation error of some kind in the CFSizer back end, or
that the inputs are mutually inconsistent and cause the sizing
Responded offline to pursue the problem further.
Bill Neiman
Parallel Sysplex development, IBM
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET
Bill,
> CFSizer requests are fielded by a CF at the IBM Poughkeepsie site. I
>suspect that you submitted your sizing requests during a period in which
>that CF and its containing sysplex were down for the July 4th holiday. The
>MQ messages simply mean that your sizing reques
to be allocated with a
>similar number of usable structure objects. It is highly recommended to use
>the CFSIZER tool: http://www.ibm.com/systems/support/z/cfsizer/.
>
>In addition to the potential structure size changes mentioned in this note, the
>CFCC Licensed Internal Code (LIC) for
vious CFLEVELs, in order to be allocated with a
similar number of usable structure objects. It is highly recommended to use
the CFSIZER tool: http://www.ibm.com/systems/support/z/cfsizer/.
In addition to the potential structure size changes mentioned in this note, the
CFCC Licensed Internal Code
Also ran into that here since we also followed the "big bang" theory while
replacing two z9's with one z196. CFSIZER is "ok" if taken
"tongue-in-cheek", but some warning about CFLEVEL code size should be
available somewhere. Wait state since GRS wouldn'
Barbara,
CFSizer requests are fielded by a CF at the IBM Poughkeepsie site. I
suspect that you submitted your sizing requests during a period in which
that CF and its containing sysplex were down for the July 4th holiday. The
MQ messages simply mean that your sizing request didn'
On Tue, 5 Jul 2011 11:48:37 +0200, mario@tiscali wrote:
>
>Also, when moving to CFLEVEL17 don't forget that the size of the CF
>Control Code itself increases significantly. From some 100 MB to some
>500 MB if I remember correctly. The CFCC LPAR memory definition should
>be updated to accomodate t
> not to escape your question about CFSIZER, but if you are migrating
>from one CF to the other, meaning there will be a timeframe when both of
>them are online, then moving the structures through rebuild (or better
>REALLOCATE) will manage this for you.
Irrelevant here. The migra
Barbara,
not to escape your question about CFSIZER, but if you are migrating
from one CF to the other, meaning there will be a timeframe when both of
them are online, then moving the structures through rebuild (or better
REALLOCATE) will manage this for you.
During rebuild structures
We're in the process of installing a z196 which will come with cflevel17.
We're currently running CFLEVEL15, and I have heard several horror stories
about problems with structure sizes on CFLEVEL17.
So I went to the CFsizer to get the latest and greatest in sizes. Or so I
thought.
To close the loop: CFSizer has been updated to accept 8-digit lock number
values for structures that require that input.
Bill Neiman
XCF Development
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions
ace, I had a hard time finding the actual input screens. I did check to
see if there was a feedback page somewhere, but didn't see any. (Must have
looked in the wrong place).
For those who haven't already discovered this, the CFSizer URL recently
changed to http://www.ibm.com/systems/
Bill,
before I take this offline, let me say this:
Last time I checked structure sizes (back in September last year), the location
of the sizer was somewhere else (it also looked different), so in the first
place, I had a hard time finding the actual input screens. I did check to see
if there w
"Bill Neiman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> Barbara et al,
>
> I am still the owner of CFSizer and I'll take a look at this
problem. It
> should be easy enough to get it to accept larger numbers of locks for
the
Barbara et al,
I am still the owner of CFSizer and I'll take a look at this problem. It
should be easy enough to get it to accept larger numbers of locks for the
various structures that ask for that input.
It will be a somewhat bigger piece of work to get the OEM Lock stru
On Jan 16, 2008, at 5:28 AM, Barbara Nitz wrote:
---SNIP
The thing is, when I tried the "OEM Lock structure" with my 15
locks, I go an 'unexpected MQ error' or some such thing, and that
OEM Lock structure allows more than 6 digits as input So I am
really out of l
Not to comment on any reply in particular but rather to state the
obvious:-)...
I always say the estimates from CFSizer are a STARTING point. For example
GBPs AREN'T going to be sized well from CFSizer.
But this DOESN'T detract from Barbara's problem with CFSizer
nd fixed it. I am hoping he will do so again, and we can take this offline
then.
Although I can no longer comment on how IBM might respond to your post on
IBM-MAIN about the CFSIZER, I will offer the following observation:
1) CFLEVEL 15 will have some impact on the size of some number (if not al
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
on 01/16/2008
at 11:01 AM, "Vernooy, C.P. - SPLXM" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>This is the category of freeware internet toolz, warez etc. etc. If they
>work, they work, if they don't you have bad luck. The price/performance
>ratio also prevents you from complaining.
I'v
Kees,
come on! :-)
"This is the category of freeware internet toolz, warez etc. etc. If they
work, they work, if they don't you have bad luck. The price/performance
ratio also prevents you from complaining.
This is the new IT world where cellphones, ipods etc. have such a short
lifecycle that it
"Barbara Nitz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> In preparation of driver67L which for us includes changing to
CFLevel15 we also checked structure sizes (again). I was informed for
the first time that the sizer is completely useless, as it only accepts
9 locks f
In preparation of driver67L which for us includes changing to CFLevel15 we also
checked structure sizes (again). I was informed for the first time that the
sizer is completely useless, as it only accepts 9 locks for the IRLM
structures (IMS and DB2), and in our installation, a single program
27 matches
Mail list logo
