Hi everybody,
a simple problem ! :)
I have a couple of 3590 cartridges written on an AIX system and, as Murphy law
states, I've not a 3590 unit anymore attached to the AIX system.
Of course I could read the cartridges in a zOS env, but the question is:
Is there any meaningful process to read
Eduardo Henrique Rocha wrote:
Has anyone been able to use SDSF with JES3 ?
Are you running z/OS R10 ?
--
Gilbert Saint-Flour
GSF Software
http://gsf-soft.com
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access
The open source java based portable mainframe assembler z390 and COBOL
compiler zcobol are designed to run on any system with J2SE java runtime 1.6
or higher as the only pre-requisite. To that end a new webpage has been
developed designed to run on any operating system and web browser that
I know several of you on here have migrated from unsupported levels of one
z/OS to a supported level, but in reading the planning guide I see:
If you are migrating to z/OS V1R11 from z/OS V1R8 or earlier, you are
migrating
from a release that is no longer supported for migration. Contact your IBM
How about FTP (Binary) from z/OS tape to AIX and then restore?
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of
MASSIMO BIANCUCCI
Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 1:49 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Restoring data backed up with
Has anyone asked why the original poster has 2 SMSPlexes? His cleanest
solution might be to merge the 2.
Sounds like he has at least some shared DASD - in a previous incarnation,
we had a similar situation and I did NOT want 2 SMSPlexes controlling
volumes. So I 'merged' the code - basically
Presuming you are recent enough to have SMS, catalogs should not be a
problem. z/OS 1.11 should support all of the 1.8 and below
structure(s).
In short, IBM's position is that things will not inter-operate more than
n-2 levels apart. This forces you into a cold turkey migration.
Discard
On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 22:09:43 -0500, Eduardo Henrique Rocha
ehro...@gmail.com wrote:
Has anyone been able to use SDSF with JES3 ?
I tried a variety of different options on the ISFPRM00 and i still get
those unbearable NOT AUTHORIZED FOR JOB messages, even for the
jobs I have submitted myself.
Do
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 07:40:28 -0400, larry macioce mace1...@gmail.com wrote:
I know several of you on here have migrated from unsupported levels of one
z/OS to a supported level, but in reading the planning guide I see:
If you are migrating to z/OS V1R11 from z/OS V1R8 or earlier, you are
Good Morning Gentle Readers,
It is quite a mystery to me as to why several tapes are not expired even though
it has the
EXPDT = 2009/244. The tapes were expired (via CA 1 / ISPF) on August 31,
2009. I verified if the TMS jobs which scratch the tapes were executed and I
received
EDM flag set? Vault Code? Multi-file tape? Might be helpful if you
could include the record.
ddk
It is quite a mystery to me as to why several tapes are not expired even
though it has the
EXPDT = 2009/244. The tapes were expired (via CA 1 / ISPF) on August
31, 2009. I verified if
My main doubt about that is what's the right way to read the data from the tape
(DITTO, IEBGENER maybe not).
Thanks a lot.
-Messaggio originale-
Da: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] Per conto di
Staller, Allan
Inviato: giovedì 24 settembre 2009 14.18
A:
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 07:30:38 -0500, Darth Keller darth.kel...@assurant.com
wrote:
Has anyone asked why the original poster has 2 SMSPlexes? His cleanest
solution might be to merge the 2.
Good point.
Sounds like he has at least some shared DASD - in a previous incarnation,
we had a similar
Darth,
I did an inquiry on a tape and it is not Multi-file. The outcode is VMS which
means that they are still offsite. Below is some information:
FLAG1 = E0 FLAG2 = C0 FLAG3 = 20 BATCHID= 0E = TMSUPDTE
FLAG4 = 00 FLAG5 = 00 FLAG6 = 00 HOOKID = FE
Thank you for the pointers,
It looks like the issue is resolving back to the server side running
explicit FTPS on port 990 rather than implicit which is what you would
normally expect on that port. Apparently this was done to get around some
firewall limitations with the normal port 21.
Is
I don't think you should translate the data in any way. FTP directly
from tape to AIX. MVS can do this. You may or may not have shop rules
that prevent FTP from tape.
HTH,
snip
My main doubt about that is what's the right way to read the data from
the tape (DITTO, IEBGENER maybe not).
Thanks a
Hi
In our production LPAR I had a terrible experience(you can't restart
the system, it has worked 10 minutes before )
After some DISK errors I made an IPL , but TCPIP etc. has not started ,
and after a while of panic I have seen the
OMVS is in init wait :
OMVS 000E ETC/INIT WAIT
In
Esmie,
I did an inquiry on a tape and it is not Multi-file. The outcode is VMS which
means that they are still offsite. Below is some information:
The blankVMS code in the the outcode means that the tape was sent offsite via
the vaulting portion of CA1 and should be returned to the tape
Depending on how you have the ZFS address space option setup. ZFS files need to
do recovery if errors/verifications are required and require RDRW. There was
an PTF about 1 yrs ago that allowed
romount_recovery=on option to be set in the IOEPRMxx, to perform this task
even if the file system
[rant]
This whole thread really irks me. Simply the idea that a program might move a
variable length string without first checking for limits is just appalling. I
would be pretty ashamed if I found I had done that in any of my personal
programs, let alone any code I wrote when I was working
John,
The tape librarian did confirm that it was run and it is run daily. Most
probably a manual update must be made in CA-1 to change the OUTCODE.
--- On Fri, 9/25/09, John Kington john.king...@convergys.com wrote:
From: John Kington john.king...@convergys.com
Subject: Re: CA-1 QUESTION :
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 15:12:21 +0200, Miklos Szigetvari
miklos.szigetv...@isis-papyrus.com wrote:
Hi
In our production LPAR I had a terrible experience(you can't restart
the system, it has worked 10 minutes before )
After some DISK errors I made an IPL , but TCPIP etc. has not started ,
and
Miklos wrote:
...snip
In our production LPAR I had a terrible experience(you can't restart
the system, it has worked 10 minutes before )
After some DISK errors I made an IPL , but TCPIP etc. has not started ,
and after a while of panic I have seen the
OMVS is in init wait :
OMVS 000E
You will need to set EDMID=' ' and also FLAG3=00
These field tell CA-1 that the tape is externally managed, so CA-1 will not
return the tape to scratch.
Brian
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 9:01 PM, esmie moo esmie_...@yahoo.ca wrote:
Darth,
I did an inquiry on a tape and it is not Multi-file.
OK - I was regretting my post somewhat, but perhaps this will reduce the pain:
APF authorized programs can be called from JCL, from a TSO TMP and from
Unix System Services. For TSO and -perhaps?- USS (note context) the
specific programs that can be called is restricted. The programs that can
Hi
Thank you, I understand this.
I would like to have some message if this kind of wait occurs .
I have noticed that something wrong, as I got some FSS messages .
Paolo Cacciari wrote:
Miklos wrote:
...snip
In our production LPAR I had a terrible experience(you can't restart
the system,
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 9:31 AM, Scott Rowe scott.r...@joann.com wrote:
[rant]
This whole thread really irks me. Simply the idea that a program might move
a variable length string without first checking for limits is just appalling.
I would be pretty ashamed if I found I had done that in
The problem is that in many companies the pressure is to make the schedule
rather than to write robust code. Additionally, the knowledge base of
competent z/OS programmers grows smaller each year. I have encountered
numerous cases of this and other 'appalling' coding practices during
On 24 Sep 2009 06:33:24 -0700, scott.r...@joann.com (Scott Rowe)
wrote:
[rant]
This whole thread really irks me. Simply the idea that a program might move a
variable length string without first checking for limits is just appalling. I
would be pretty ashamed if I found I had done that in any
Following this thread a while now and although some missing
competence (me) it seems to me that Binyamin Dissen had the
most practical suggestion.
My only input is: keep it simple, keep it general.
Regards,
Thomas Berg
__
Thomas Berg Specialist
It sounds like you probably have the answer from the people who posted
answers. Another thing to consider is just call CA1 support. In my
dealings with CA1, they provide very good service.
Eric Bielefeld
Sr. Systems Programmer
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
414-475-7434
- Original Message -
Esmie,
Oops, Brian is right about the external data manager being the culprit. My
apologies for not looking at your email closely.
Regards,
John
You will need to set EDMID=' ' and also FLAG3=00
These field tell CA-1 that the tape is externally managed, so CA-1 will not
return the tape to
On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 10:04:42 +0100, Terry Sambrooks wrote:
2) With my bias set aside, I acknowledge that the existing two byte prefix
associated with EXEC PARM data is capable of holding a length up to 65535
(X'') although this may appear negative depending upon field definition.
As an
- Original Message -
From: John Kington john.king...@convergys.com
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main
Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 10:20 AM
Subject: Re: CA-1 QUESTION : TAPE DOES NOT EXPIRE
Esmie,
Oops, Brian is right about the external data manager being the culprit. My
snip
Has anyone been able to use SDSF with JES3 ?
/snip
But why would you use SDSF on JES3, it's bad enough on JES2 and EJES does
better, is cheaper and ...
Jack Kelly
202-502-2390 (Office)
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe /
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 10:36 AM, Paul Gilmartin paulgboul...@aim.com wrote:
As an experiment, I tried calling BPXBATCH from Rexx with a 65535-byte
parm (x'' in the length field). It executed without error, and
correctly processed the entire PARM string.
VERY interesting. So a poorly
There was a question about indemnifying users, but the answer was given
very quickly.
Jeff Holst wrote:
The remarks I have seen from IBM seem to be saying that if a company runs
software that allows software to run on specialty engines (ZIIPs or ZAAPs)
that IBM did not intend to be permitted
Finley, Frank wrote:
Thank you for the pointers,
It looks like the issue is resolving back to the server side running
explicit FTPS on port 990 rather than implicit which is what you would
normally expect on that port. Apparently this was done to get around some
firewall limitations with the
Christ Craddock's point is ineluctable.
Well before the Y2K problem had been recognized by hoi polloi IBM guaranteed
that the CICS Command-Level EIB (Execution Interface Block) would not be
altered in a way that would break old CICS APs, in effect that old
DSECTs/templates would continue to
I erred when I said the vault code wouldn't hurt. It'll have to be hex
zeros for scratch
Jack Kelly
202-502-2390 (Office)
From:
John Kelly john_j_ke...@ao.uscourts.gov
To:
IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Date:
09/24/2009 11:15 AM
Subject:
Re: CA-1 QUESTION : TAPE DOES NOT EXPIRE
Sent by:
IBM Mainframe
I suspect if you are far enough back, the only really safe way to convert to
1.11 is to do either an FDR or DFDSS backup of everything, just before the
initial IPL of 1.11. Going forward is never an issue, its coming back that
can be a problem. By doing backups of everything, you can restore
I didn't hear anything either that Neon said they would pay for the charges
if IBM billed them. If that happened, obviously one would be better off
without the product, as they wouldn't save anything, plus they had to pay
for zPrime.
Eric Bielefeld
Sr. Systems Programmer
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
snip
You will need to set EDMID=' ' and also FLAG3=00
/snip
This assumes that your external tape manager doesn't need to scratch the
tape. Tapes seem old so maybe HPDM isn't around any more. The Outcode just
meant that the volume was checked in but not read.
Jack Kelly
202-502-2390 (Office)
CERT alert?
Bugs in authorized programs cause problems all the time. IBM even has a 'red
alert' newsletter to quickly inform the community when a bug in their code
poses a serious threat.
This is a key reason why update access to authorized libraries has to be
tightly controlled.
What I got out of the presentation was that NEON reviewed publically
available contracts from IBM (yours may be different of course) and
there was nothing explicitly stated in the contracts limiting the
workloads that could be run on a zIIP/zAAP. There may have been wording
as to Designated
thank you for the replies I am coming from 1.6. I thought about 1.10 and
then thought what the heck go to the latest and greatest one cant be much
different than the other.Mark I will go over the presentation
thanks
Larry
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 11:24 AM, Eric Bielefeld
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Jeff Holst
Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 9:58 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: NEON zPrime webinar
The remarks I have seen from IBM seem to be saying that if a
company
Something I read in the planning guide and was brought up again in the share
presentation was the COD. Will I need it to lay down my serverpac or can my
1.6 system do that?
thanks
Larry
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 11:39 AM, mace1953 mace1...@gmail.com wrote:
thank you for the replies I am coming
Thanks everyone for your input.
Has anyone asked why the original poster has 2 SMSPlexes? His cleanest
solution might be to merge the 2.
Good point.
The bronze sysplex is fairly recently merged from seperate sysplexes to take
advantage of licensing savings. Merging the 2 completely to a
One other thing to think of. I believe 1.11 is just being released, or will
be released in the next few days. I assume it will take you at least 3 to 6
months to get this to the point where you will be putting it into
production. Make sure you collect all of the maintenance, or at least the
As you can see from the z/OS R11 driving system requirements at:
http://publibz.boulder.ibm.com/cgi-bin/bookmgr_OS390/BOOKS/E0Z2B1A0/3.2?SHELF=EZ2ZBK0HDT=20090805163148
You need a z/OS R9 or higher system to install z/OS R11. The COD always
supplies a supported driving system level for
Indeed - I'm already hearing of software vendors wanting to charge based on the
total machine size to include the specialty engines. If they succeed, then I
guess it would behoove the poor customer to somehow make sure the product
actually runs on the specialty engines as well as any other
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 11:29 AM, Hal Merritt hmerr...@jackhenry.com wrote:
CERT alert?
Bugs in authorized programs cause problems all the time. IBM even has a 'red
alert' newsletter to quickly inform the community when a bug in their code
poses a serious threat.
This is a key reason why
I just finished writing a new semi-technical paper,
Creating Modern Business Computer Applications on z/OS.
(The subtitle is: It's Not Rocket Science, But It's Not
Easy.)
This paper is an attempt to point out how even fundamental
products (ISPF, Assembler, COBOL, and more) have changed
and why
Any idea what the APAR number is for this issue?
Patti Horne
Senior Systems Programmer
Enterprise Storage Management
(414) 577-9520 or 6-9520
patti.ho...@metavante.com
larry macioce
I doesn't have to be an end user interface, and you don't need update
access. Almost everyone has read access and can invoke authorized code in
authorized libraries.
Lou
Artificial Intelligence is no match for Natural Stupidity
Sent from Gurnee, IL, United States
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 11:23
I understand the concerns, but this sounds like a good reason for all ISVs to
review their code. Consider the case of user key common storage: that took a
while to get code clean, but it was a good thing, and worth the effort.
My point is that there is no 100 byte limit on the interface,
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 10:51:05 -0400, John Kelly
john_j_ke...@ao.uscourts.gov wrote:
snip
Has anyone been able to use SDSF with JES3 ?
/snip
But why would you use SDSF on JES3, it's bad enough on JES2 and EJES does
better, is cheaper and ...
And does not require MQseries to DA properly in a
Not MQSeries but RMF.
Atenciosamente / Regards / Saludos
Ituriel do Nascimento Neto
Banco Bradesco S/A
4254 - DPCD Engenharia de Software
Sistemas Operacionais Mainframes
Tel: 55 11 4197-2021 R: 22021 Fax: 55 11 4197-2814
|-Mensagem original-
|De: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
- Original Message -
From: larry macioce mace1...@gmail.com
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main
Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 7:43 AM
Subject: migration to 1.11 from an unsupported level
I know several of you on here have migrated from unsupported levels of one
z/OS to a supported
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of john gilmore
Christ Craddock's point is ineluctable.
Well before the Y2K problem had been recognized by hoi polloi IBM
guaranteed that the CICS Command-
Level EIB (Execution Interface Block) would not be
Sorry I don't, but you might be able to search the archives as I thought I
saw it here. I want to say I saw the problem very early in the year and IBM
was to have an apar out mid year.Larry
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 12:41 PM, Patti Horne patti.ho...@metavante.comwrote:
Any idea what the APAR
In your SYSFTPD DD or equivalent specify:
TLSPORT 0 ; don't treat port 990 as implicit TLS
--
Frank Swarbrick
Applications Architect - Mainframe Applications Development
FirstBank Data Corporation - Lakewood, CO USA
P: 303-235-1403
On 9/24/2009 at 7:03 AM, in message
Christ Craddock's point is ineluctable.
Funny coming from a guy who takes great pains to use the English
language correctly.must be the second coming...
_
Dave Jousma
Assistant Vice President, Mainframe Services
We are implementing FTPS, and noticed a breath-taking increase in the time it
takes to transfer a file. A 20 megabyte file takes about 9 seconds to transfer
without TLS and about 160 seconds with TLS. The transfer rates are about
130 kbytes/sec with TLS and almost 2000 Kbytes/sec without.
Are
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 13:06:01 -0400, Scott Rowe
scott.r...@joann.com wrote:
I understand the concerns, but this sounds like a good reason for
all ISVs to review their code. ...
Not just ISV; shops should review their own code, too.
My point is that there is no 100 byte limit on the
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Patrick O'Keefe
Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 2:26 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: Long parms ... again (was: Reading DD card information)
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 13:06:01
snip---
I would hope that I would never do that, either. However, for code that
uses an interface that has been unchanged for 45 years with a 100-byte
limit, I'm not sure I'd be quite that hard on someone whose code copied
the
Just wanted to try it out.
And Yes, I'm running Z1.10.
--
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 Thu, 24 Sep 2009 13:01:01 -0500, Chase, John jch...@ussco.com
wrote:
. . .
EIBDATE is, and has been long enough to be forever, a four byte
packed-decimal field. From SDFHMAC:
EIBDATE DSPL4 DATE IN 0CYYDDD+ FORMAT,
* where C is the
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 14:19:14 -0500, Neal Eckhardt
neckha...@penntraffic.com wrote:
... A 20 megabyte file takes about 9 seconds to transfer
without TLS and about 160 seconds with TLS. The transfer rates
are about 130 kbytes/sec with TLS and almost 2000 Kbytes/sec
without.
Are there any
Jousma, David (david.jou...@53.com) writes of my use of ineluctable that it
is 'funny from a guy who takes great pains to use the English language
correctly'.
Mr. Jousma may well have his own view of what this word means, but in standard
English it means impossible to avoid.
John Gilmore
Neal,
What TLS are you using TLS-128 or TLS 256?
I believe once you go over 128; the overhead is significant without a
Crypto processor.
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On
Behalf Of Neal Eckhardt
Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009
At 14:08 +1200 on 09/23/2009, Gainsford, Allen wrote about Re: Long
parms ... again (was: Reading DD card information):
Any programmers who abide by these statements are not producing
defective code. They are following IBM's rules. Increasing the
PARM length will break perfectly valid
At 19:50 -0500 on 09/22/2009, Paul Gilmartin wrote about Re: Long
parms ... again (was: Reading DD card information):
For a good example of how your primary mode programs
can pass parameters, consider the way the system uses
a register to pass information in the PARM field of an
EXEC
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 16:11:34 -0400, Robert A. Rosenberg wrote:
This provides a way to support PARMX while staying compatible with
PARM (and programs that use it). If PARMX is not supplied in the JCL,
act as now. If there is a PARMX pass a 2 FW list in R1 (with the
second FW flagged as
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 14:43:31 -0500 Rick Fochtman rfocht...@ync.net wrote:
:snip---
:I would hope that I would never do that, either. However, for code that
:uses an interface that has been unchanged for 45 years with a 100-byte
On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 01:23:26 -0400, Jim Mulder d10j...@us.ibm.com
wrote:
. . .
There is an extensive discussion of the long PARM
topic in the archives starting on May 12,2005, under
the subjects PARM= and Re: PARM= .
While this was being investigated, Karl Schmitz decided
to look at
-Original Message-
snip
:There's no excuse for knowing what you're doing and
PLANNING AHEAD. I've
:always coded my programs with the assumption that the parm
field might
:be as long as 255 bytes, the max that can be described in a
single byte.
Is this tongue in cheek? The
Wonderful,
Now, after all these skills are acquired and these newbies without any
practical experience, entering a VERY limited mainframe market place are
competing with experience systems programmers with years of experience...what
happen?
Want cheap..hire a newbie low salary and what not.
Read it again John:
' Christ Craddock's point is ineluctable.
Funny coming from a guy who takes great pains to use the English
language correctly.must be the second coming...'
It had nothing to do with the use of ineluctable, it was the big job
promotion you gave to Chris(t) Craddock!
What happens if the length of this thread exceeds 100 posts? Will
listserv 0C4? :-)
--
Mark Zelden
Sr. Software and Systems Architect - z/OS Team Lead
Zurich North America / Farmers Insurance Group - ZFUS G-ITO
mailto:mark.zel...@zurichna.com
z/OS Systems Programming expert at
As others noted, encryption/decryption is not cheap. But FTP is IO intensive
over a very slow path, so transmission times ought not be impacted all that
much.
I would suspect that network data compression facilities are being defeated.
Because of the tiny block sizes used on many networks
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 13:56:31 -0700, Howard Rifkind
ibm_m...@yahoo.com wrote:
...
Want cheap..hire a newbie low salary and what not.
Want to get the job done pick an experience sysprog.
...
Ok. 2 not particularly compatable problems:
1. a large number of experienced programmers out of work
2.
Key in mainframe at http://www.google.com/insights/search/#
Kind of hard to pick a search term that results with anything other than
India at the top.
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On
Behalf Of Howard Rifkind
Sent: Thursday,
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 13:56:31 -0700, Howard Rifkind
ibm_m...@yahoo.com wrote:
...
Want cheap..hire a newbie low salary and what not.
Want to get the job done pick an experience sysprog.
...
Well 25 years ago the same decisions had to be made and that was when the
American Universities were
- Original Message -
From: Patrick O'Keefe patrick.oke...@wamu.net
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main
Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 5:22 PM
Subject: Re: IBM Program To Help Students Gain Critical Mainframe Skills
Grows To More Than 600 Universities
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 13:56:31
snip---
:Granted that guns have safeties (most of them, anyway). But if you have
:to worry about whether it's on or off, you're already doing something
:very wrong.
:There's no excuse for knowing what you're doing and
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 14:24:36 -0300, ITURIEL DO NASCIMENTO NETO
4254.itur...@bradesco.com.br wrote:
Not MQSeries but RMF.
Atenciosamente / Regards / Saludos
That you need RMF to use DA I agree
But i thought you could not display the latest lines of output of say a CICS
STC in
another lpar in
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 16:11:34 -0400 Robert A. Rosenberg hal9...@panix.com
wrote:
:At 19:50 -0500 on 09/22/2009, Paul Gilmartin wrote about Re: Long
:parms ... again (was: Reading DD card information):
:For a good example of how your primary mode programs
:can pass parameters, consider the
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 17:00:34 -0500, Bruno Sugliani oldti...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 14:24:36 -0300, ITURIEL DO NASCIMENTO NETO
4254.itur...@bradesco.com.br wrote:
Not MQSeries but RMF.
Atenciosamente / Regards / Saludos
That you need RMF to use DA I agree
But i thought you could
Everything being said; where are the new mainframe installations?
You need those in order to fill jobs for both newbies and experience sysprogs.
--- On Thu, 9/24/09, Pinnacle pinnc...@rochester.rr.com wrote:
From: Pinnacle pinnc...@rochester.rr.com
Subject: Re: IBM Program To Help Students
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of john gilmore
Jousma, David (david.jou...@53.com) writes of my use of
ineluctable that it is 'funny from a guy
who takes great pains to use the English language correctly'.
Mr. Jousma may well have his own view
After being a sysprog for 20+ and a consultant when the rates wer
All,
After being a sysprog for 20+ and a consultant when the rates were good, over
$65 an hr in NYC , I agree with Tom. The bottom fell out of the consulting
market , a lot of companies also figured well they didnt ppl like us.
snip
Rick propably felt that 255 was sufficient for his purposes. And it is
the max number in a single byte, for loading with an IC instruction. And
it is the max number which can be MVC'ed using an EX instruction to a
---snip-
Wonderful,
Now, after all these skills are acquired and these newbies without any
practical experience, entering a VERY limited mainframe market place are
competing with experience systems programmers with years of
*
Has anyone experienced no NIP console and no MASTER console with an IBM
2074 ?
*
During a D/R exercise the NIP console failed to appear on the PCOM emulator.
It was available at the HMC software console. The IPL proceeded using the
HMC console and after the Communication Server was started,
Yep Rick, i agree the mainframe is not 'point and shoot' like
a PC..Education is great as long as you have experience to go along with
it.
Scott J Ford
www.identityforge.com
From: Rick Fochtman rfocht...@ync.net
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Sent:
I think its long past 100 posts. It only 0C4's after 256 posts!
Eric Bielefeld
Sr. Systems Programmer
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
414-475-7434
- Original Message -
From: Mark Zelden mark.zel...@zurichna.com
Subject: Re: Long parms ... again (was: Reading DD card information)
What
---snip-
*
Has anyone experienced no NIP console and no MASTER console with an IBM
2074 ?
*
During a D/R exercise the NIP console failed to appear on the PCOM emulator.
It was available at the HMC software console. The IPL proceeded
1 - 100 of 115 matches
Mail list logo
