On Fri, 2010-10-22 at 07:44 -0400, Veilleux, Jon L wrote:
> Which is a terrible idea when it comes to security. Combining DATA and
> PROGRAMs in one directory can open you up to a lot of integrity issues.
>
If the data is read-only and the directory read/execute other than to
the owner, why woul
On 10/22/2010 3:29 AM, R.S. wrote:
Well... Since we talk about FBA drives, then reliationship to
3390 track size is simply irrelevant.
I don't know what google searching results you've seen, but IMHO
no consideration applies to FBA, especially because most OS'es
does not address single sector, th
On 10/22/2010 7:54 AM, Tom Marchant wrote:
A single 512 byte block on a 3390 uses less than 1% of the 56,664
byte capacity of the track.
At 512 bytes, 49 blocks will fit on a 3390 track, utilizing 44% of the
track capacity.
Sometimes making oneself look foolish has good consequences. The
prog
A thousand pardons. Sent to wrong e-mail address.
Charles
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf
Of Charles Mills
Sent: Friday, October 22, 2010 2:54 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Status of Windows XP and Windows 7 [non-TSR]
Re: recent discussions here:
Happy Birthday Windows 7: one year old today.
1. As indicated here, it is impossible now to buy a new PC with
Windows XP:
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/microsoft/no-more-windows-xp-preloads-allowed-on-n
ew-pcs/7797?tag=nl.e589
2. As indicated here, peo
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 1:57 PM, Veilleux, Jon L wrote:
> I wish I could find it but I am not having any luck today. I had found a
> specific reference to that happening, somewhere, but I will retire that
> opinion for lack of corroborating evidence.
> Everyone have a great weekend.
>
The real p
On 22 October 2010 16:08, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 12:58:05 -0700, Charles Mills wrote:
>>
>>A PDSE can hold program objects that are effortlessly converted to
>>conventional load modules when you copy them to a PDS. How's that?
>>
>>From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:i
On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 12:58:05 -0700, Charles Mills wrote:
>
>A PDSE can hold program objects that are effortlessly converted to
>conventional load modules when you copy them to a PDS. How's that?
>
>From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf
>Of Tom Marchant
>Sent: F
Well, you're right, I stand corrected:
SAVE OPERATION SUMMARY:
LOAD LIBRARY..LOADPDSE
PROGRAM TYPEPROGRAM OBJECT(FORMAT 5 OS COMPAT LEVEL z/OS V1R8 )
A PDSE can hold program objects that are effortlessly converted to
conv
I wish I could find it but I am not having any luck today. I had found a
specific reference to that happening, somewhere, but I will retire that opinion
for lack of corroborating evidence.
Everyone have a great weekend.
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-
Upon re-reading Bob's post below, I realize that I don't have a problem. The
3590 drives are not emulating 3490s so according to the manual capacitymode
will be ignored.
Thank You,
Dave O'Brien
NIH Contractor
From: O'Brien, David W. (NIH/CIT) [C]
Sent: Fr
I doubt the likelihood of transient "insufficient storage" fetch
failures after linklst activation, both because I have never seen an
instance and because it doesn't make logical sense that this should be
so unless there is an APARable bug in the linklist activate code.
Previously running addr
On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 07:55:41 -0400, Veilleux, Jon L wrote:
>I am trying to find the specific reference, but I saw IBM entries
>stating that there is a span of time after a second linklist set is
>activated that there can be this type of fetch errors and yes it
>does say that they are due to ins
OK, had my h/w config guy create an esoteric that included addresses at both
the local and remote sites.
Recycle successfully allocated input, output and duplex correctly with SMC
Tapereq statements directing the allocations.
However Capacitymode is still **none**.
I'm using the following defi
Hi Bob,
Thanks for responding.
I was using an esoteric but only the local drives were defined. Realized what
the problem was right after posting, naturally.
Thank You,
Dave O'Brien
NIH Contractor
From: Richards, Robert B. [robert.richa...@opm.gov]
S
The CAPACITYMODE subparameter is valid when all the following are true:
* CAPACITYMODE is used in conjunction with UNITTYPE
* The subparameter of UNITTYPE is an esoteric that is specified through
SETSYS USERUNITTABLE
* The UNITTYPE contains only IBM 3590 drives that are emulating IBM
I'm obviously missing something here.
Parmlib has the following entry:
SETSYS -
TAPEUTILIZATION (UNITTYPE(3590-1) -
CAPACITYMODE(EXTENDED) -
PERCENTFULL(97)) TAPESPANSIZE(2000)
HSM initializes without any obvious problem but Q Sets
Tonni
As indicated by the Subject line change, PPO is not the only way that,
typically in order to automate or perhaps to have a consolidated log, you
can "trap" messages, including VTAM, IST..., messages.
It's possible your colleague has misled you by mentioning "PPO". "PPO" is a way
of "trap
Apologies to all. My AOL account was compromised, and several listers
received bogus email messages. This has been fixed.
David
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.
Joel C. Ewing pisze:
[...]
Re HFS/ZFS file-level security:
But isn't default security in UNIX normally inherited from the directory
level?
No. It usually takes a place in Windows or Novell, and in fact does not
mean that inheritance must be used.
In Unix world file attributes are "inherited
The reason to convert would be money. We would be forced to do the
conversion in house, or not at all.
--
John McKown
Maranatha! <><
Sent from my Vibrant Android phone.
On Oct 22, 2010 6:24 AM, "Marc Heimlich" wrote:
SFI (www.streamfoundry.com) has done 3 TSA migrations in the last six
months.
Veilleux, Jon L pisze:
Yes, security is at the file level, but there are way too many tasks and users
that 'need' UID0 and can, therefore, bypass file-level security.
But this is unrelated to the previous sentence about keeping programs
and other files in common directory.
--
Radoslaw Skoru
On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 06:54:24 -0500, Tom Marchant wrote:
>On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 02:52:00 -0400, Gerhard Postpischil wrote:
>
>>block size of 512 uses less than 1% of a track on a 3390. 4K
>>uses 86%, which is tolerable.
>
>A single 512 byte block on a 3390 uses less than 1% of the 56,664
>byte capaci
On 10/22/2010 07:32 AM, Tom Marchant wrote:
On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 08:13:36 -0400, Veilleux, Jon L wrote:
Because, usually data files are R/W and PROGRAM files should be R/O to
prevent inadvertent (or not) updates should someone be able to bypass the
UNIX security bits on the files.
As Radoslaw
Chris -
Thanks a lot!
The confusing thing here is about a new customer coming in. We are trying
to figure out how automation
and monitoring network connections are handled. A colleague claims that
OPS/MVS is PPO.
I did exactly what you suggest and made a search in VTAMLST for 'PPO' and
found only
Yes, security is at the file level, but there are way too many tasks and users
that 'need' UID0 and can, therefore, bypass file-level security.
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of
Tom Marchant
Sent: Friday, October 22, 2010 8:
Tonni
> Can an application be PPO without an open ACB with AUTH=PPO i. e.
OPS/MVS?
No.
>From the description of the AUTH operand in the z/OS Communications Server
Resource Definition Reference manual:
AUTH=(NOACQ,NOASDP,NOCNM,NOPASS,NOPO,NOTSO,VPACE)
...
AUTH=PPO
AUTH=SPO
AUTH=NOPO
Spec
On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 08:13:36 -0400, Veilleux, Jon L wrote:
>Because, usually data files are R/W and PROGRAM files should be R/O to
prevent inadvertent (or not) updates should someone be able to bypass the
UNIX security bits on the files.
As Radoslaw mentioned, security in an HFS/ZFS is at the fil
Because, usually data files are R/W and PROGRAM files should be R/O to prevent
inadvertent (or not) updates should someone be able to bypass the UNIX security
bits on the files. I guess I am a suspenders and belt person when it comes to
security and integrity. I just think that it is a bad idea
Veilleux, Jon L pisze:
Which is a terrible idea when it comes to security. Combining DATA and PROGRAMs
in one directory can open you up to a lot of integrity issues.
Not quite, because you can set security at file level. Caution: in fact
we don't talk here about operational data, rather quiva
On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 07:44:56 -0400, Veilleux, Jon L wrote:
>Combining DATA and PROGRAMs in one directory can open you
>up to a lot of integrity issues.
Can it? Why?
--
Tom Marchant
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archi
I am trying to find the specific reference, but I saw IBM entries stating that
there is a span of time after a second linklist set is activated that there can
be this type of fetch errors and yes it does say that they are due to
insufficient storage.
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainfra
On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 02:52:00 -0400, Gerhard Postpischil wrote:
>block size of 512 uses less than 1% of a track on a 3390. 4K
>uses 86%, which is tolerable.
A single 512 byte block on a 3390 uses less than 1% of the 56,664
byte capacity of the track.
Twelve 4096 byte blocks (the most that will f
Which is a terrible idea when it comes to security. Combining DATA and PROGRAMs
in one directory can open you up to a lot of integrity issues.
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of
Paul Gilmartin
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010
On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 14:59:18 -0700, Charles Mills wrote:
>Conventional load modules can live in PDSEs.
Not quite. You can copy a load module from a PDS to a PDSE and
IEBCOPY converts it into a program object.
--
Tom Marchant
-
SFI (www.streamfoundry.com) has done 3 TSA migrations in the last six months.
We can help.
Marc
heiml...@streamfoundry.com
--Original Message--
From: Andreas Steinberg
Sender: IBM-MAIN
To: IBM-MAIN
ReplyTo: IBM-MAIN
Subject: SPAM-LOW: Re: CA-OPS/MVS to IBM's System Automation?
Sent: Oct
Hi -
I have a confusing situation which causes me to ask some questions about
PPO (Primary Program Operator).
How can I determine who is PPO?
Can an application be PPO without an open ACB with AUTH=PPO i. e. OPS/MVS?
What happens if two applications competes to become PPO?
Thanks -
Venlig hi
John,
we did it 5 years ago with a lot of help by consultants. Because we dropped
NetView off before that, it came back again through the backdoor. And
because of the pricing model we were not amused.
IMHO many things are easier using OPS, some don't work, so you need to have
System Automation if y
Gerhard Postpischil pisze:
On 10/22/2010 2:24 AM, R.S. wrote:
Reasons:
- 4096 is only 8 times more than 20+ years old 512. Although
single disk capacity does not grow so rapidly as it was few
years ago, but it will grow. So, 4k could become too small as
512B became.
Sometimes bigger is better.
39 matches
Mail list logo
