In
2016465832-1280165760-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-5717886...@bda026.bisx.prod.on.blackberry,
on 07/26/2010
at 05:36 PM, Ted MacNEIL eamacn...@yahoo.ca said:
I worked on the last MVS 3.8 (before qualifiers such as SE, SP, XA,
ESA, etc), before SE1 came along.
No. You've garbled
In bay145-w59e6c32ada4a649eed894ba3...@phx.gbl, on 07/26/2010
at 05:00 PM, J R jayare...@hotmail.com said:
Also, ISTR that when someone deleted procedure S, the process still
worked. In other words, the proc not found JCL error was still good
enough to drive allocation. But perhaps I'm
, 2010 11:17 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: [IBM-MAIN] EMC Timefinder Snap and Dealloc
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 18:08:20 +, Bill Fairchild wrote:
This is why I think that a VARY command
should not simply add a command to a queue for later processing
Ron:
--- On Wed, 7/28/10, Ron Hawkins ron.hawkins1...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
From: Ron Hawkins ron.hawkins1...@sbcglobal.net
Subject: Re: EMC Timefinder Snap and Dealloc
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Date: Wednesday, July 28, 2010, 1:54 AM
Bill,
Sample from syslog:
NC000 PE01 10208 23:51
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On
Behalf Of
Ed Gould
Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 9:10 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: [IBM-MAIN] EMC Timefinder Snap and Dealloc
Ron:
--- On Wed, 7/28/10, Ron Hawkins ron.hawkins1
Hi Lizette,
I think EMC gives us a choice with this parameter:
AUTOMATIC_DEALLOC|AUTO_DEAlloc(YES|NO)
The AUTOMATIC_DEALLOC parameter allows or disallows
automatic issuance of an S DEALLOC command to z/OS when a
device VARY ONLINE or VARY OFFLINE appears to be hung. z/OS
sometimes requires a
I have a concern of the way the EMC Software - Timefinder Snap - under
Mainframe Enabler Software 7.0 works.
EMC decided that when the SNAP function occurs on a volume, they would issue
the S DEALLOC proc (Yes IEFBR14) to get IOS to vary the volume offline
sooner. I am not sure if that is a good
Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of
Lizette Koehler
Sent: Monday, July 26, 2010 6:52 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: EMC Timefinder Snap and Dealloc
EMC decided that when the SNAP function occurs on a volume, they would issue
the S DEALLOC
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 11:36:29 -0500, Mark Zelden wrote:
Several shops I have been at (including my first
exposure to MVS) had a proc called X which was a copy of DEALLOC.
The operator would VARY xxx,OFFLINE then S X to kick in
deallocation. This goes back to at
Don't even need a proc. Just issue 'S X'. That is enough to drive
allocation.
snip
So, every shop had a PROC named X or Z or something that
the operators could remember, so all that had to do was type
S X. The X PROC included only a single EXEC statement,
For PGM=IEFBR14.
/snip
@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: EMC Timefinder Snap and Dealloc
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 11:36:29 -0500, Mark Zelden wrote:
Several shops I have been at (including my
first
exposure to MVS) had a proc called X which was a copy of DEALLOC.
The operator would VARY xxx,OFFLINE then S X
[mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of
Mark Zelden
Sent: Monday, July 26, 2010 11:36 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: EMC Timefinder Snap and Dealloc
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 10:54:48 -0500, Brian Peterson
brian.peterson.ibm.m...@comcast.net wrote:
Doing anything thousands of times is very
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 10:54:48 -0500, Brian Peterson
brian.peterson.ibm.m...@comcast.net wrote:
Doing anything thousands of times is very likely NOT a good idea. Sounds
like a serious problem with MFE 7.0 to me.
I don't know the history of DEALLOC. From SMP/E on z/OS 1.11:
Really? I thought
Brian Peterson asked:
Maybe someone ... on this list more familiar with the oddities
of OS/360, could ... explain what DEALLOC is/was intended to
accomplish.
Simply ensure that Allocation got control. Only Allocation
would actually (for example) vary a DASD volume offline. To
make it
Doing anything thousands of times is very likely NOT a good idea. Sounds
like a serious problem with MFE 7.0 to me.
I don't know the history of DEALLOC. From SMP/E on z/OS 1.11:
Entry Type: PROC Zone Name: MVST100
Entry Name: DEALLOC
The operator would VARY xxx,OFFLINE then S X to kick in deallocation.
This goes back to at least MVS SP (which was the first
MVS I worked on).
I worked on the last MVS 3.8 (before qualifiers such as SE, SP, XA, ESA, etc),
before SE1 came along.
It was SOP, then.
-
I'm a SuperHero with neither
One problem with X is that some installations may have had a procedure named X
that was not trivial and did real, useful, productive work.
Since every shop I've worked in (starting in 1981) had X as DEALLOC clone, why
would any SYSPROG allow a 'productive' X, when it's a de facto standard for
a SuperSkeptic who no
longer trusts in dogmatism.
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of
Ted MacNEIL
Sent: Monday, July 26, 2010 12:41 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: EMC Timefinder Snap and Dealloc
Since every shop I've worked
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 18:08:20 +, Bill Fairchild wrote:
This is why I think that a VARY command
should not simply add a command to a queue for later processing but should
rather process the command immediately and fully, or at least immediately
start the
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 11:56:48 -0500, Brian Peterson
brian.peterson.ibm.m...@comcast.net wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 11:36:29 -0500, Mark Zelden wrote:
Several shops I have been at (including my first
exposure to MVS) had a proc called X which was a copy of DEALLOC.
The
No SuperHero with neither powers nor motivation.
Just a SuperSkeptic who no longer trusts in dogmatism.
I am not dogmatic, and I agree that vary processing could be MUCH smarter.
But, unfortunately, almost every SYSPROG I know uses S X to clear out the VARY
PENDING.
What can you do?
-
I'm a
Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of
Ted MacNEIL
Sent: Monday, July 26, 2010 1:32 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: EMC Timefinder Snap and Dealloc
No SuperHero with neither powers nor motivation.
Just a SuperSkeptic who no longer trusts
- Old START DEALLOC job no longer needed to get devices processed
This is a good thing.
A better thing would be for timefinder to stop doing it.
Or, at least query the release an do it only on less than 1.7, if they're still
around.
-
I'm a SuperHero with neither powers, nor motivation!
Kimota!
It is certainly no standard here.
At my shop, entering S X at the console results in:
S X
$HASP100 XON STCINRDR
*BEK452I JOB X - JOB HAD A JCL ERROR
De-train them that a start command is no longer necessary (see Mark Zelden's
26 Jul 2010 11:36:29 post).
Having not worked in ops, since before 1.7, I missed.
But, I agree.
Write a start command preprocessor that looks for S X and, when found, does
a WTOR that says Are You Sure and ignores all
You all - as always - have provided wonderful history for I/O processing.
I think the use of one character procs goes back to Punch cards. Too many
holes - too little action...
However, the main question I have is - Is it still necessary to do this?
According to EMC they indicated that the
It is still possible to build commands like: V
(,,,,,,,),OFFLINE
The start command is not needed, and should be eliminated. If there are any
developers left working on that product that know what they are doing they will
agree, at least once they know the facts.
Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of
Lizette Koehler
Sent: Monday, July 26, 2010 1:50 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: EMC Timefinder Snap and Dealloc
... Is it still necessary to do this? According to EMC they indicated that the
reason they added the S DEALLOC was because
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 14:50:20 -0400, Lizette Koehler wrote:
However, the main question I have is - Is it still necessary to do this?
According to EMC they indicated that the reason they added the S DEALLOC was
because varies were taking upto 6 mins. So the use of S DEALLOC was to
speed that
...@nsc.com
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of
Ted MacNEIL
Sent: Monday, July 26, 2010 11:32 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: EMC Timefinder Snap and Dealloc
No SuperHero with neither powers nor motivation.
Just
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 12:50:22 -0700, Donnelly, John P
john.p.donne...@nsc.com wrote:
...back in the early days this individual deleted member X, an IEFBR14,
thinking was just some junk floating around...30 years later still here
about it...
John Donnelly
That's what comments are for:
still worked.
In other words,
the proc not found JCL error was still good enough to drive allocation. But
perhaps I'm misremembering. :(
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 12:50:22 -0700
From: john.p.donne...@nsc.com
Subject: Re: EMC Timefinder Snap and Dealloc
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
...back
32 matches
Mail list logo
