Re: System Trace Table SSIR entries

> I'm using IPCS to look at the System Trace Table from an SVD dump. > I'm puzzled by a sequence of over 100 SSIR entries prior to the > program check I'm investigating. The SSIR entries have no PSW > address or time stamp. How do I interpret the SSIR entries? Two > address spaces are involved

Re: System Trace Table SSIR entries

So in the z/OS MVS Diagnosis: Tools and Service Aids>System trace>Reading system trace output>Summary of system trace entry identifiers it states BSG Branch on subspace groupBSG, PC, PR, PT, PTI, SSAR and SSIR trace entries In the z/OS MVS Diagnosis: Tools and Service Aids>System

Re: ShopZ

Steve Beaver wrote: Is anyone aware of a document that teaches/describes the how to use ShopZ that I can give to someone that has Never done SHopZ. Recently, I've been involved in a project to install and deploy a product suite, soup to nuts, exactly as a customer would, something I have

Re: System Trace Table SSIR entries

Thanks. I've resolved the program exception for which the SVC dump was taken and the SSIR entries are not related to the problem. However I am still puzzled that the SSIR entry does not identify the address of the SSAIR instruction it apparently represents. Steve -Original Message-

Re: Disabled wait 000

000A. Silly me, I forgot about ESA mode. Bob, thank you for your help Refards -- Radoslaw Skorupka Lodz, Poland W dniu 2016-01-25 o 11:49, Bob Rutledge pisze: IBM Mainframe Discussion List wrote on 01/25/2016 05:39:41 AM: From: "R.S."

Re: COBOL v5

You are not alone, but this request has not prevailed. Charles -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Robert A. Rosenberg Sent: Monday, January 25, 2016 11:15 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: COBOL v5 At 10:00

Re: COBOL v5

Of course. I knew that when I wrote it. Nonetheless, it is true. Suppose IBM added a restriction that the output of the COBOL V5.2 compiler could only go into a PDSE whose name began with Q. It would be pretty silly, but it would still be a requirement. It would be just as "true" as if it were

Re: the Queen of Coding - Adm. Grace Hoper

>>> On 1/25/2016 at 02:49 PM, "Nims,Alva John (Al)" wrote: > Yes, if I remember correctly (note message about memory core), but she had > brought in a large coil of wire for that one. That might have been a millisecond. Mark Post

Re: COBOL v5

PDS/PO has been enhanced over the years, including a specific abend code, S213-30, to indicate that a PDS is already open for output when another task tries to update it. AFAIK that test works only within a system or at most a sysplex. But (shooting from the hip in my new post-employment mode)

Re: COBOL v5

One conversion tool in z/OS 2.2 is a facility that takes a PDS.DSN and allows you to specify PDSE.DSN that is also checked for a module name, without having to modify all the JCL. That way you can compile new programs into PDSE.DSN and be used without having to modify all the JCL. Once the

Re: COBOL v5

I just compiled a program with Enterprise COBOL V5R2, and I supplied the NOTEST(NODWARF) option. I attempted to link-edit (bind) it to a PDS and got the following error in that step: IEW2606S 4B39 MODULE INCORPORATES VERSION 3 PROGRAM OBJECT FEATURES AND CANNOT BE SAVED IN LOAD MODULE FORMAT.

Re: COBOL v5

http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg27041176 gives a bit of detail, following the statement: "IBM has investigated the possibility of changing COBOL V5 to support Load Modules and PDS load libraries, however, it is not possible." -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe

Re: COBOL v5

We'll hide behind the chainsaws! In a message dated 1/25/2016 2:08:49 P.M. Central Standard Time, jo.skip.robin...@att.net writes: They may get out alive, but don't bet on it. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff /

Re: ShopZ

Figuring out the right customer number is an ongoing headache for us. I’m personally authorized to all of them, but we have several different numbers for historical reasons and frankly IBM internal screwball rules. For example, we have two data centers located in two different but adjacent

Re: COBOL v5

On Mon, 25 Jan 2016 11:41:50 -0700, Paul Gilmartin wrote: >Can COBOL v5 objects be bound into UNIX files? Yes. A program object can be stored in either a PDSE or a Unix file. -- Tom Marchant -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe /

Re: the Queen of Coding - Adm. Grace Hoper

Lng piece of wire ... Charles -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Paul Gilmartin Sent: Monday, January 25, 2016 11:27 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: the Queen of Coding - Adm. Grace Hoper On 2016-01-25

Re: the Queen of Coding - Adm. Grace Hoper

On Mon, 25 Jan 2016 19:49:05 +, Nims,Alva John (Al) wrote: >Yes, if I remember correctly (note message about memory core), but she had >brought in a large coil of wire for that one. Yep. Very long. 186,000 miles, or about a billion feet. > >-Original Message- >From: IBM Mainframe

Re: COBOL v5

Someone named Bill Woodger posted to the Google Groups mirror of this list the following link that gives several reasons why COBOL V5 requires PO executables and therefore PDSE or Unix directories: http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg27041176 >From that link (which is for a white

Re: zEDC

Yes, a client we support is seeing very positive results, exploiting zEDC data-compression (up to 8-to-1) with SMF LOGSTREAMs and sequential datasets; just now starting to investigate DFHSM opportunities. Important to stay current on IBM z/OS maintenance -- most recent was a nagging S002-F6

Re: COBOL v5

On 2016-01-25 12:28, Tom Marchant wrote: > On Mon, 25 Jan 2016 11:41:50 -0700, Paul Gilmartin wrote: > >> Can COBOL v5 objects be bound into UNIX files? > > Yes. A program object can be stored in either a PDSE or a Unix file. > Understood. I even believe that only Program Objects, not Load

Re: COBOL v5

On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 1:33 PM, Paul Gilmartin < 000433f07816-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > On 2016-01-25 12:28, Tom Marchant wrote: > > On Mon, 25 Jan 2016 11:41:50 -0700, Paul Gilmartin wrote: > > > >> Can COBOL v5 objects be bound into UNIX files? > > > > Yes. A program object

Re: COBOL v5

At 15:55 -0700 on 01/23/2016, Lizette Koehler wrote about Re: COBOL v5: And, yes, what they said. IBM requires PDS/E due to Program Objects being created by Cobol V5. This is a Cop-Out answer/reason in my opinion. The real question is "What is Cobol V5 creating that needs the Program Object

Re: COBOL v5

At 10:00 -0700 on 01/25/2016, Frank Swarbrick wrote about Re: COBOL v5: The one reason I know of what a PDSE is required is because TEST/DEBUG information is now stored in a DWARF NOLOAD segment, and those are only supported by PDSE (or UNIX directory). So have a compile time switch to put

Re: the Queen of Coding - Adm. Grace Hoper

No idea what Adm Hopper might have done to illustrate a light second, or indeed if she ever did, but if you take one of the 12 inch nanosecond wires, and wrap it around a half inch diameter sphere like a glass marble or a steel ball bearing, then imagine that the sphere is planet Earth, the 12

IBMLink

What level of support you have. Basic or Advanced? Thanks in Advance -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: REPORT MISSINGFIX flaw

Am I missing something obvious here or is there a flaw in the REPORT MISSINGFIX process? Apparently you're not the only one that thinks there's a flaw, as existing APAR IO19937 seems a match. It was closed FIN in 2013. If you feel strongly and want a fix in the current release, I suggest

Re: COBOL v5

The one reason I know of what a PDSE is required is because TEST/DEBUG information is now stored in a DWARF NOLOAD segment, and those are only supported by PDSE (or UNIX directory). > Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2016 14:55:31 -0800 > From: charl...@mcn.org > Subject: Re: COBOL v5 > To:

Re: Lineage of TPF

TPF was testing in VM when ACP was production... etc. 4.1 when... z/TPF when... well, yes, that's just test. On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 1:36 PM, Phil Smith III wrote: > Gregg wrote: > > >ACP/TPF/zTPF on silicon/in LPar is one thing, as a guest on VM (test)

Re: DFHSM/SMS QUESTION - SPACE MANAGEMENT

There is no HSM backup taken for this storage group. On Fri, 1/15/16, Gibney, David Allen,Jr wrote: Subject: Re: DFHSM/SMS QUESTION - SPACE MANAGEMENT To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Received: Friday, January 15, 2016, 8:06 PM What

Re: COBOL v5

In article <53170c7c-8ea7-4a0d-bc3d-1891b98ec...@googlegroups.com> you wrote: > On Monday, 25 January 2016 17:00:42 UTC, Frank Swarbrick wrote: > > The one reason I know of what a PDSE is required is because TEST/DEBUG > > information is now stored in a DWARF NOLOAD segment, and those are only

Re: COBOL v5

On 2016-01-25 11:24, Skip Robinson wrote: > > -- Here's a serious inhibitor for some shops. Despite decades of advice to > the contrary, some shops still share application load libraries across > sysplex boundaries. This practice dates back to pre-sysplex configurations. > In our case, in our

Re: COBOL v5

That *assumes* you use those facilities. Ed On Jan 25, 2016, at 11:00 AM, Frank Swarbrick wrote: The one reason I know of what a PDSE is required is because TEST/ DEBUG information is now stored in a DWARF NOLOAD segment, and those are only supported by PDSE (or UNIX directory). Date:

Re: DFHSM/SMS QUESTION - SPACE MANAGEMENT

This storage group is selected for space management. Thanks for the tip about the patch. I will try that out. On Fri, 1/15/16, Glenn Wilcock wrote: Subject: Re: DFHSM/SMS QUESTION - SPACE MANAGEMENT To:

Re: DFHSM/SMS QUESTION - SPACE MANAGEMENT

I stand corrected. There is a backup done for this storage group. On Fri, 1/15/16, Gonzalo Cengotita wrote: Subject: Re: DFHSM/SMS QUESTION - SPACE MANAGEMENT To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Received: Friday, January 15,

Re: COBOL v5

A bigger question than whether COBOL V5 requires PDSE load library--yes it does--is why that requirement causes so much consternation in the customer community. Based on discussions at SHARE, I think there are several kinds of qualms. -- Many seasoned folks still do not trust PDSE. When I entered

Re: COBOL v5

I've decided over the past few years that it's not that I don't like/trust certain things, it's that they don't like me. Some in that category are: Excel vi Java Those little white lap dogs with evil black eyes PDSE's So it's not my fault, they started it :) Skip Robinson wrote: --

Re: COBOL v5

On 2016-01-25 13:27, Mike Schwab wrote: > One conversion tool in z/OS 2.2 is a facility that takes a PDS.DSN and > allows you to specify PDSE.DSN that is also checked for a module name, > >From IBM or from ISV? Cite? > without having to modify all the JCL. That way you can compile new >

Re: COBOL v5

On Mon, 25 Jan 2016 13:42:39 -0700, Paul Gilmartin wrote: >On 2016-01-25 13:27, Mike Schwab wrote: >> One conversion tool in z/OS 2.2 is a facility that takes a PDS.DSN and >> allows you to specify PDSE.DSN that is also checked for a module name, >> >From IBM or from ISV?

Re: the Queen of Coding - Adm. Grace Hoper

A nano second was a foot. So a microsecond would be 1000 ft. A millisecond would be 1M feet or 186 miles. Even very thin transformer wire would be pretty heavy. On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 3:00 PM, Nims,Alva John (Al) wrote: > Oops, so it was not a "Second" (remember my little side

Re: COBOL v5

On Mon, 25 Jan 2016 15:06:57 -0600, Dana Mitchell wrote: > >http://www-01.ibm.com/common/ssi/cgi-bin/ssialias?subtype=ca=an=897=ENUS215-267 > >z/OS V2.2 is designed to support a new IEFOPZxx parmlib member in which you >can specify pairs of partitioned (PDS and PDSE) data sets. In each pair, you

Re: the Queen of Coding - Adm. Grace Hoper

Oops, so it was not a "Second" (remember my little side note). I am pretty sure that she had a coil of wire that represented one of the times. Al Nims Systems Admin/Programmer 3 UFIT University of Florida (352) 273-1298 -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List

Re: COBOL v5

Great sendup from Geico. . . . J.O.Skip Robinson Southern California Edison Company Electric Dragon Team Paddler SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager 323-715-0595 Mobile jo.skip.robin...@att.net jo.skip.robin...@gmail.com > -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List

Re: the Queen of Coding - Adm. Grace Hoper

Oh Ned. The 'Energy Dept' Showed up mid sixties to reclaim some motor generators on loan to the Physics Dept. in WWII. They were long since out of use and stored in the attic. After much work by some hefty guys, they were finally loaded on the Flatbed. The supervisor said on the way out, the

Re: COBOL v5

I was going to post about this but could not remember whether it was still under NDA or not and was too busy to research. Yes! Customers told IBM what has been posted on this thread: "COBOL v5.2 is out of the question because we have existing load modules in (PDS) libraries that are *never*

Re: the Queen of Coding - Adm. Grace Hoper

On Mon, 25 Jan 2016 16:25:47 -0500, Ed Finnell wrote: >Oh Ned. The 'Energy Dept' Showed up mid sixties to reclaim some motor >generators on loan to the Physics Dept. in WWII. They were long since out of >use and stored in the attic. After much work by some hefty guys, they were >finally loaded

Re: Identifying creator of SMF records

Charles Mills wrote: >230 is probably ACF2 if that is a possibility. >210 might be Voltage if that is a possibility. The Voltage SMF records are 229 by default, though this is configurable. Close, Charles! .phsiii --

Re: COBOL v5

Three guesses ... Charles -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Paul Gilmartin Sent: Monday, January 25, 2016 1:29 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: COBOL v5 On Mon, 25 Jan 2016 15:06:57 -0600, Dana Mitchell

Re: Identifying creator of SMF records

Tell Cheryl She says 210* D2 Voltage SecureData for z/OS Voltage Security, Inc. www.voltage.com/products/securedata-enterprise/encryptionfor-mainframes/ Charles -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Phil Smith III Sent:

Re: the Queen of Coding - Adm. Grace Hoper

While I was an undergrad at Western KY University in 1978 or 1979 (my memory core has worn out!) she came to talk to a group of us computer nerds while she was still Capt. Grace Hoper. She still had her "Second", "Micro" & "Nano" second lengths of wire. Still effective description. Al Nims

Re: the Queen of Coding - Adm. Grace Hoper

On 2016-01-25 12:19, Nims,Alva John (Al) wrote: > While I was an undergrad at Western KY University in 1978 or 1979 (my memory > core has worn out!) she came to talk to a group of us computer nerds while > she was still Capt. Grace Hoper. She still had her "Second", "Micro" & > "Nano" second

Re: the Queen of Coding - Adm. Grace Hoper

Yes, if I remember correctly (note message about memory core), but she had brought in a large coil of wire for that one. Al Nims Systems Admin/Programmer 3 UFIT University of Florida (352) 273-1298 -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU]

Re: the Queen of Coding - Adm. Grace Hoper

If a mile of wire weighed one gram (very conservative) then a second's worth would weigh 186 kilograms. Grace could work miracles, but there's a limit to what a 105-pound lady can carry. Charles -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On

Re: the Queen of Coding - Adm. Grace Hoper

I saw the demo at the Pentagon in late 70's. I think it was 11.98 cm wire for nano, coil of wire for micro and a firehose for milli. She had a low opinion of Pentagon intelligence for technology. Saw the bug slide show in '76 at Ft. Ben in Indianapolis. Ted was correct it was a relay.

Re: Identifying creator of SMF records

On Mon, 25 Jan 2016 16:54:24 -0500, Phil Smith III wrote: >Charles Mills wrote: > >>230 is probably ACF2 if that is a possibility. > >>210 might be Voltage if that is a possibility. > > > >The Voltage SMF records are 229 by default, though this is configurable. >Close, Charles!

Re: Identifying creator of SMF records

Pick a number, any number ... Charles -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Dale R. Smith Sent: Monday, January 25, 2016 3:51 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Identifying creator of SMF records On Mon, 25 Jan

Re: Identifying creator of SMF records

Dale R. Smith wrote: >Hey Phil! Shouldn't they be 220?! :-)> 220, 221, whatever it takes. Actually, 229 = decimal for the letter V in EBCDIC. Seemed appropriate. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access

Re: System check stopped state - what is it?

If all elses fail, you could open a PMR to explain your message more clearly, including the error codes. Kees. -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of R.S. Sent: 22 January, 2016 17:02 To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject:

Re: Identifying creator of SMF records

I think you can use the SMF exits IEFU83/84/85. They run in the address space of the record producer and can log/display the information in some way. Kees. -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Field, Alan Sent: 22

System Trace Table SSIR entries

I'm using IPCS to look at the System Trace Table from an SVD dump. I'm puzzled by a sequence of over 100 SSIR entries prior to the program check I'm investigating. The SSIR entries have no PSW address or time stamp. How do I interpret the SSIR entries? Two address spaces are involved and they

REPORT MISSINGFIX flaw

Am I missing something obvious here or is there a flaw in the REPORT MISSINGFIX process? In the following example, a PTF was available and received for a PE PTF but wasn’t included in the APPLY JCL. HOLD MISSING HELD RESOLVING SYSMOD_ FIX CATEGORY

Disabled wait 000

I've got Disabled wait 000 (PSW 000a000f) I believe the reason is lack of IPL text on the volume, but ...there is no description for this wait in MVS System Codes. Q: Is it documented anywhere? -- Radoslaw Skorupka Lodz, Poland -- Treść tej wiadomości może

Re: Disabled wait 000

IBM Mainframe Discussion List wrote on 01/25/2016 05:39:41 AM: > From: "R.S." > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Date: 01/25/2016 05:39 AM > Subject: Disabled wait 000 > Sent by: IBM Mainframe Discussion List >

Re: REPORT MISSINGFIX flaw

What does the report look like if you do an APPLY CHECK? Maybe there are other PTFs involved that I cannot see at this time. Or you could open an SR to IBM and ask them. Lizette > -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On > Behalf