Saurabh,
just a couple of questions:
I started NFS client at 23.35.45 but it actually started at 00.10.15e. So,
it took more then 30 min to start. Not sure, why this is happening.
When did you receive the BPXI004I OMVS INITIALIZATION COMPLETE message ?
Do you have a shared USS file system ?
Hello Walter,
Yes, we have shared USS file system. We get
BPXI004I message before the NFS client start completely. Please look at the
below job log.
*BPXI004I OMVS INITIALIZATION COMPLETE*
IEF404I BPXAS - ENDED - TIME=23.09.35
IEF404I BPXAS - ENDED - TIME=23.09.35
Rob,
One of the best strategies I feel I used to prevent problems with large
dataset allocations was to stop doing it. Rather than trying to manage
primary space requests of 1000-2000 cyls I made a standard of 500 CYL
primary and secondary for any dataset larger than 500 CYLS.
I improved that
Hello Walter,
This might be a reason. I also feel that
everything was waiting on the syslog daemon to start and due to a full file
system (/usr/local/logs), as I mentioned in last email with logs.
I am trying to read manual and checking in
On Thu, 5 Jul 2012 08:18:11 -0700, Mark Yuhas mark.yu...@paccar.com wrote:
Prior to Windows 7, the VIEW tab had a detail setting that would dispay
the title. Windows 7 doesn't work that way for me.
Have you made sure that in Windows Explorer, View-Show Details, that you have
selected the
In 5949005395636248.wa.alanaltmarkus.ibm@listserv.ua.edu, on
07/05/2012
at 09:19 AM, Alan Altmark alan_altm...@us.ibm.com said:
Fidelity in copy/paste requires that both applications know what
they're doing with the clipboard.
Of course.
Default locale for Western Windows assumes code
Another plug for Naviquest - the free IBM test facility for SMS. This is
the perfect time to start setting up your test cases learning to use it.
Unless your shop is 'rich' enough to set up a whole separate test-plex,
it's one of the few ways to actually test your code before putting it
On Fri, 6 Jul 2012 07:35:27 +0530, saurabh khandelwal
sourabhkhandelwal...@gmail.com wrote:
I started NFS client at 23.35.45 but it actually started at 00.10.15e. So,
it took more then 30 min to start. Not sure, why this is happening.
Is there any thing to do with parallel sysplex or something
On Fri, 6 Jul 2012 08:44:31 -0700, Skip Robinson jo.skip.robin...@sce.com
wrote:
Delay cause seems to be crucial here. I haven't seen anyone comment on
what I consider to be OP's unusual configuration. If I understand the
original post, two out of three 'sysplex' members are parallel while the
W dniu 2012-07-05 20:25, Mark Jacobs pisze:
I know that YMMV, but have there been any studies done on the
performance benefits of using protected keys with a crypto-express 3 vs.
secure keys?
Protected key means CPACF in use, secure key means CryptoExpress card.
The difference can be 1000
I had a similar requirement a few weeks back to capture the output on spool and
create a file on a windows file system. I had to use LRS/VPS TCPIP Socket
interface to extract the reports from spool and send to a .Net program I wrote
on Windows that accepted the data and create the file on the
R.S. wrote:
Protected key means CPACF in use, secure key means CryptoExpress card.
The difference can be 1000 times or 10 times. Of course CPACF is always
faster.
The more cpu-intensive algorithm and the smaller block of data to be
encrypted, the bigger difference is.
I think the second sentence
sigh I know...
That I didn't tell you was they created (not through dynamic but
through some other path (old TSO I'd guess) so their naming
standards was their own which was not a type situation) it
looked like one but they never fully converted to the new temp
naming stards that
Consider the cost of a CEX operation as ((ICSF call CPU)+I/O) and the cost of
a
CPACF operation as ((ICSF call)+(some CPU cycles for the operation)). So the
difference is I/O vs. CPACF cycles. The I/O cost doesn't change (much) with
larger blocks; the CPACF cycles do.
This statement
Lloyd Fuller wrote:
This statement implies that CPACF REQUIRES ICSF. That is NOT true. You can
happily do CPACF operations yourself without ICSF even configured on the
system. IBM's white papers about CPACF performance indicate that ICSF imposes
a
big performance hit on CPACF.
*blush* You're
W dniu 2012-07-06 21:49, Lloyd Fuller pisze:
Consider the cost of a CEX operation as ((ICSF call CPU)+I/O) and the cost
of a
CPACF operation as ((ICSF call)+(some CPU cycles for the operation)). So
the
difference is I/O vs. CPACF cycles. The I/O cost doesn't change (much) with
larger
A testimonial from a site that provides service to a company many of
us know well:
The biggest impact is how quickly we can bring people online to be
productive. In the past, they would train and shadow another
technician for 2-4 months. Now, they go to training and immediately go
to their desk
I doubt it. ICH408 message(s) are what you get when RACHECK fails your
attempted access.
===
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2012 16:35:10 -0400
From: scott_j_f...@yahoo.com
Subject: RACF question
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
All,
I have a question, I have a customer receiving a csv0025i
Not always, Here is the ABEND 306-30 documentation.
The user attempted to use a controlled program but is not
authorized by RACF to use that program. This can occur when a
user has EXECUTE access to a program library's data set profile,
even if none of the program modules involved are RACF
Is there a means via SYNCSORT to save a data item found on the 1st input
record and then have it placed on all subsequent output records.
For example.
1. Input 1 - 07/06/2012 asfasdlfjl. (save the date
07/06/2012 and not output the record)
2. Input 2 - poiutkjgfertqe
Sorry, the formatting didn't retain how I had originally keyed it.
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
Behalf Of George, William@FTB
Sent: Friday, July 06, 2012 2:36 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: SYNCSORT - Save a data
Yep, I saw that, we found they had no access to sys1.linklib which is we're
adduser, etc are
Scott ford
www.identityforge.com
On Jul 6, 2012, at 5:15 PM, craig.p...@fotlinc.com wrote:
Not always, Here is the ABEND 306-30 documentation.
The user attempted to use a controlled program
22 matches
Mail list logo
