On 23 Aug 2007 04:33:21 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
>
>No one has pointed out that it is impossible to place an 80mb module into
>PLPA / MLPA / FLPA. A PDS supports load modules of only 16MB, contrasted
>with a PDSE. You cannot get something from a PDSE into PLPA / MLPA / FLPA.
>You
No one has pointed out that it is impossible to place an 80mb module into
PLPA / MLPA / FLPA. A PDS supports load modules of only 16MB, contrasted
with a PDSE. You cannot get something from a PDSE into PLPA / MLPA / FLPA.
You *can* get something from a PDSE into dynamic LPA.
Therefore if you want
In a message dated 8/22/2007 5:03:07 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
5 regions! SMP and IEBCOPY were overlays until MVS/XA hit the street!
>>
Right. Many Blue utilities used OVERLAY to keep them 'artificially small'.
LKED, IDCAMS, and numerous others required adjus
>Really? Who do you think used overlays? It was SOP for application programmers
>where I came from when running in MVT.
To quote the Monkees:
"That was then; this is now".
-
Too busy driving to stop for gas!
--
For IBM-MAIN s
Really? Who do you think used overlays? It was SOP for application
programmers where I came from when running in MVT. Debugging isn't
particularly an issue. Of course, the Linkage Editor can't resolve an
external reference to a module that is in a differ
In a message dated 8/22/2007 9:27:33 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>However, as far as LPA is concerned, is it protected using another
mechanism? So even you're running in key 0, you still cannot modify LPA.
LPA modules are stored in page-protected storage. This m
>> Isn't it "treated as being loaded from APF authorized library"?
>
>If that's the precise text from the manual, then I'd have to argue that
>it's grammatically incorrect: It should say "having been" where it
says
>"being". :-)
It's not from a manual, it's from me, with all the mistakes in sp
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 08:56:12 -0500, Michael Cleary wrote:
>
>z/OS was built to handle this type of thing. The main issue that I see is the
>initial load of each 80MB module into user storage; once that is done, the
>system will trim the working set and you will basically only have in real
>storag
Steve,
Thanks.
As for M/S, I'm sure they haven't because two days ago I got a blue screen
on my Thinkpad T60 running Windows XP and the message said a memory parity
error occurred :)
On 8/22/07, Thompson, Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> This last being a trick that I wonder if the M/S sys
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Johnny Luo
Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 9:27 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: LPA Module Size 80MB impact on system?
Thanks for the answer, Wayne.
I remember that if a module comes
Thanks for the answer, Wayne.
I remember that if a module comes from an APF lib and with RENT attribute,
it'll be loaded into SP 252 of JPA. Since SP 252 is key 0, a modification to
itself may fail unless you're in key 0.
However, as far as LPA is concerned, is it protected using another
mechanis
: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Johnny Luo
Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 8:16 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: LPA Module Size 80MB impact on system?
Interesting. From my little knowledge, there are (only?) two places
where
AC(1) matters:
1. EXEC PGM
: LPA Module Size 80MB impact on system?
Regardless, unless I misunderstand "authorization", if an authorized
caller were to invoke that module after it was loaded into the LPA, the
module would be able to perform functions requiring authorization, even
lacking
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 08:36:07 -0500, Mark S. House
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Looking for recommendations on adding an 80 megabyte load module to the
>LPA. What are the negatives. The reason we would like to do this is that
>one of our application programs that use this module can be used by 1
On 8/22/07, Chase, John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Regardless, unless I misunderstand "authorization", if an authorized
> caller were to invoke that module after it was loaded into the LPA, the
> module would be able to perform functions requiring authorization, even
> lacking AC(1).
Intere
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Hunkeler Peter (KIUK
3)
>
> >Oh, one more thing is that programs in the LPA are treated as
> >APF-authorized, with all the caveats that entails.
>
> Isn't it "treated as being loaded from APF authorized library"?
>Oh, one more thing is that programs in the LPA are treated as
>APF-authorized, with all the caveats that entails.
Isn't it "treated as being loaded from APF authorized library"?
--
Peter Hunkeler
Credti Suisse
--
For IBM-
On Aug 21, 2007, at 9:52 AM, Veilleux, Jon L wrote:
John Chase said:
Well, in retrospect, I suppose it could use overlays.
OH GOD! I hope not!
I don't think that there are many application programmers that have
even
heard of overlay programs, let alone code one and the corresponding
bi
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 12:48:10 -0400, Veilleux, Jon L wrote:
>
>Tom, you're talking about folks who were familiar with writing programs
>when virtual storage was very limited. MVT has been gone for a long
>time.
Agreed. There is little, if any, need for overlay structures these days. I
was
taki
Tom Marchant said:
>Really? Who do you think used overlays? It was SOP for application
programmers where I came from when running in MVT. > Debugging isn't
particularly an issue. Of course, the Linkage Editor can't resolve an
external reference to a module
> that is in a different leg.
Tom,
A.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: LPA Module Size 80MB impact on system?
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 10:52:52 -0400
John Chase said:
>Well, in retrospect, I suppose it could use overlays.
OH GOD! I hope not!
I don't think that there are many application programmers that have even
heard of overlay prog
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 11:05:13 -0400, Veilleux, Jon L wrote:
>
>If you are using Dynamic LPA you can delete and reload the module fairly
>easily
You can delete the module only when you know that no one is using it.
>If you are using
>PLPA you are stuck without an IPL.
You can't delete the PLPA co
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 10:52:52 -0400, Veilleux, Jon L wrote:
>John Chase said:
>>Well, in retrospect, I suppose it could use overlays.
Not in LPA.
>OH GOD! I hope not!
>I don't think that there are many application programmers that have even
>heard of overlay programs, let alone code one and t
Tom Marchant said:
>Another consideration might be how often the module needs to change.
If it needs to be updated often it might be a
> hassle for you. Also, each time you update it, you take another chunk
of ECSA. You'll need procedures to delete the
>old copy when it is inactive. IIRC, you
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 08:36:07 -0500, Mark S. House wrote:
>Looking for recommendations on adding an 80 megabyte load module to the
>LPA. What are the negatives. The reason we would like to do this is that
>one of our application programs that use this module can be used by 1 to
>10 jobs runnin
Veilleux, Jon L wrote:
John Chase said:
Yeah, like 500% of what exists down there. :-)
Right...DUH. I slept through that one
Jon L. Veilleux
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(860) 636-2683
I was typing the same information into a response but realized the error
of my ways before I sent
John Chase said:
>Well, in retrospect, I suppose it could use overlays.
OH GOD! I hope not!
I don't think that there are many application programmers that have even
heard of overlay programs, let alone code one and the corresponding
binder statements, correctly. Not to mention trying to debug
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Veilleux, Jon L
>
> John Chase said:
> > Yeah, like 500% of what exists down there. :-)
>
> Right...DUH. I slept through that one
Well, in retrospect, I suppose it could use overlays.
-jc-
---
John Chase said:
> Yeah, like 500% of what exists down there. :-)
Right...DUH. I slept through that one
Jon L. Veilleux
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(860) 636-2683
This e-mail may contain confidential or privileged information. If
you think you have received this e-mail in error, please advise the
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Veilleux, Jon L
>
> Two questions/comments:
> 1. Is the module AMODE 31 RMODE 31? If not, you are taking a
> sugnificant chunk of below the line storage.
Yeah, like 500% of what exists down there. :-)
> If it is
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 08:36:07 -0500, Mark S. House
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Looking for recommendations on adding an 80 megabyte load module to the
>LPA. What are the negatives. The reason we would like to do this is that
>one of our application programs that use this module can be used by 1 t
Two questions/comments:
1. Is the module AMODE 31 RMODE 31? If not, you are taking a sugnificant
chunk of below the line storage. Is it worth it?
If it is AMODE/RMODE 31, then you should be OK.
2. Is the module truly reentrant? If not, then it doesn't belong in LPA.
Jon L. Veilleux
[EMAIL PRO
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 08:36:07 -0500, Mark S. House wrote:
>Looking for recommendations on adding an 80 megabyte load module to the
>LPA. What are the negatives. The reason we would like to do this is that
>one of our application programs that use this module can be used by 1 to
>10 jobs running a
> > -Original Message-
> > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Mark S. House
> >
> > Looking for recommendations on adding an 80 megabyte load module to
> > the LPA. What are the negatives. The reason we would like
> to do this
> > is that one of our application programs
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Mark S. House
>
> Looking for recommendations on adding an 80 megabyte load
> module to the LPA. What are the negatives. The reason we
> would like to do this is that one of our application programs
> that use thi
Looking for recommendations on adding an 80 megabyte load module to the
LPA. What are the negatives. The reason we would like to do this is that
one of our application programs that use this module can be used by 1 to
10 jobs running at the same time. Our thought is that by making this
modul
36 matches
Mail list logo
