Mark said:
snip
I had the same issue with operlog years ago and I wanted the LOG command
to always default to syslog. By the time we implemented OPERLOG, it was
already too late since the default was operlog if active and already saved in
everyone's profile. Besides the performance issues when
On Thu, 29 May 2008 09:12:33 -0500, Martin Kline [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
On the other hand, I'd be interested in what your exit alters to force the log
default to change.
I would bet this is in the archives because this subject has come up before,
but here it is (2 lines of code added to
We tried APPC OFF as well, but didn't work. Slowdown occurs in the same
conditions depicted in other posts.
We're still workin on this issue.
Thank you all for replies.
Max Scarpa
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff /
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Skip Robinson
We saw this problem during our 1.9 ESP when we went to our
first production system. Turning off APPC resolved the
slowdown. Seems no one has sorely missed APPC output, so
we've left it off for the
cc
Discussion List
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject
.EDU Turning off APPC? (was RE: SDSF
slow after migration
On Wed, 28 May 2008 08:03:46 -0700, Skip Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Sorry for the fuss I generated. The workaround I referred to is nothing
more than an SDSF 'filter' so as to ignore any APPC output. We could not
live long or well without APPC functions.
The workaround was suggested by
: Turning off APPC? (was RE:
SDSF slow after migration to z/OS
1.9)
05/28/2008 08:51
AM
Hi all
Thank you all for replies. Unluckily PTF PK52910 indicated was applied (with no
luck) and we're waiting further IBM's hints.
Regards
Max Scarpa
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send
We are also experiencing this slowdown on our Z/OS 1.9 sandbox, when users
enter ST JOBNAME and have their SDSF options set to PREFIX=* OWNER=*.
Max Scarpa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all
Thank you all for replies. Unluckily PTF PK52910 indicated was applied (with no
luck) and we're waiting
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Max Scarpa
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 10:58 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: SDSF slow after migration to z/OS 1.9
Hi all
Thank you all for replies. Unluckily PTF PK52910 indicated was applied
(with no
luck) and we're waiting further IBM's hints
Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Max Scarpa
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 10:58 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: SDSF slow after migration to z/OS 1.9
Hi all
Thank you all for replies. Unluckily PTF PK52910 indicated was applied
(with no
luck
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject
.EDU Re: SDSF slow after migration to
z/OS 1.9
See PK52910.
Bob Shannon
Rocket Software
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at
Greetings listers
We're facin a problem we met after migration to z/OS 1.9. It's with SDSF.
After migration we saw that SDSF is slow in response, expecially in
displaying output classes. In some cases is VERY slow even if CPU is quite
far from 100%.
Did anyone encounter the same problem
14 matches
Mail list logo
