RMF II background session ASD A,A, ALL and ARD A, A, ALL at 10 second intervals
or less.
Best served with MXG.
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Peter
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2016 2:44 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
On 2016-04-29, at 15:06, R.S. wrote:
>>
>> Works for me.
> You are right. Please rerun the job. I bet you'll get SB214 abend.
>
I know that well. I assumed that since the OP's requirement was to avoid
overwriting an existing member, SB214 would meet his need.
I had considered the
Silly me (perhaps): It seems if I change to my IBM-MAIN mail folder from my
Inbox all the newsgroup conversations show up.
What threw me was this stuff doesn't show up if I stick in my Inbox. Hmmm.
Sent from my iPad
> On 29 Apr 2016, at 18:53, Martin Packer wrote:
>
W dniu 2016-04-29 o 22:30, Paul Gilmartin pisze:
On 2016-04-29, at 09:58, R.S. wrote:
That deserves an SR. Works in JCL; works everywhere else. The statement is
patently false.
No, it isn't. MOD is not allowed for *member* od PDS or PDSE.
MOD is allowed for PO dataset, i.e. for IEFBR14
On 2016-04-29, at 09:58, R.S. wrote:
>>>
>>> That deserves an SR. Works in JCL; works everywhere else. The statement is
>>> patently false.
>> No, it isn't. MOD is not allowed for *member* od PDS or PDSE.
>> MOD is allowed for PO dataset, i.e. for IEFBR14 MOD,DELETE
>>
>> Try IEBGENER
Just curious: what is the price of z/TPF system?
AFAIKit is licensed as z/OS (MLC, charges based on MSU 4HRA). I'd like
to know how it's related to z/TPF price. Is it cheaper than z/OS? How much?
Another question: what is typical size of TPF LPAR in terms of MSU/MIPS
and central memory?
Perhaps the link folding. Try this: http://tinyurl.com/hnx4k4p
Can you audit down to the level of saying "Joe Sysprog changed record 247 of
this dataset"? No. Down to the member level of PDS(E)'s and down to the table
of DB2 -- that's the limits of the granularity.
Charles
-Original
Did you see the wrap?
http://s23.a2zinc.net/clients/SHARE/Winter2016/Public/SessionDetails.aspx?FromPage=Sessions.aspx=312=8
Lizette
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
> Behalf Of gsg
> Sent: Friday, April 29, 2016 12:02 PM
>
A started job will not tell you from where it came. On the other hand, it will
also not say instream.
Willy
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the
Count me in! I have 2 B's and a 3 right now looking forward to getting a
Pi zero when they come back in stock with the new 'mystery' feature
Dana
On Fri, 29 Apr 2016 08:54:41 -0700, Tom Brennan
wrote:
>David Crayford wrote:
>>
>> I've got a Pi3! Are we
Unable to access the first link tot he Share doc.
Does this auditing go down to the record level?
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO
I wouldn't - if the IBM-MAIN folder I have a Notes rule for actually sent
stuff to iOS email (like my Inbox).
Sounds like a configuration problem.
I just wondered if there was a better way.
Martin Packer,
zChampion, Principal Systems Investigator,
Worldwide Cloud & Systems Performance, IBM
I've got a horse in this race
(http://s23.a2zinc.net/clients/SHARE/Winter2016/Public/SessionDetails.aspx?F
romPage=Sessions.aspx=312=8) but you might consider
real-time auditing of ALTER access to the datasets as a way of mitigating
the risk (for the auditors).
We also have an installation that
Does anyone know if the STGADMIN Facility Class will allow the Storage Guys to
ALTER a dataset that they do not have direct access to? The RACF Administrator
thought we could remove the ALTER access from our SYSPROGs and that the Storage
guys could ALTER in the event of problems. ex. running
ex. CAI.OPS.OPSLOG or COMPWARE.LMS.CHKPTA
The concern is someone will do something and try to delete a log entry to cover
their tracks. These are mostly ISV products that I'd think would be tracked in
SMF records. My thought would be to accept the risk, since these are not
critical datasets.
On 29 April 2016 at 12:59, Jim Mulder wrote:
> The relevant comparison is not conditional branch vs.
> unconditional branch. It is branch not taken vs. branch taken.
> Sequential execution is always best. Branch prediction tries to
> mitigate some of the effects of
This is what I have. In the Data set name type ===> it is blank as
shown below.
Data set name ===> ''SYS2.BATCH.JOBS.OUTPUT'
Member to use ===> JOB06703
Disposition ===> SHR (OLD, NEW,
> >> Good point well made but can you explain why changing a B to a BE
> in a tight loop results in 43% difference?
> > But aren't those two completely different cases (even if it is the
> same instruction)? The first is an unconditional branch, the second
> one a conditional branch. That
On 29 April 2016 at 02:23, Martin Packer wrote:
> Other than using an email client on iOS has anyone found a good way of
> participating in LISTSERV groups on iOS?
>
> To keep this interesting for about half of y'all, same question for Android.
I don't use Apple
>> I assume it is 43% faster than the conditional one? If it is the other way
>> around I will be very surprised as well.
>
> No. It's the opposite which is why I originally posted. The unconditional
> branch is slower and I want to know why.
That's probably 'a branch not taken is always faster
On 29 April 2016 at 12:06, David Crayford wrote:
> On 29/04/2016 11:55 PM, Tony Harminc wrote:
>>
>> On 29 April 2016 at 11:50, Charles Mills wrote:
>>>
>>> What about substituting a branch relative for the branch on base
>>> register? Trivial code change
On 30/04/2016 12:29 AM, Windt, W.K.F. van der (Fred) wrote:
Good point well made but can you explain why changing a B to a BE in a tight
loop results in 43% difference?
But aren't those two completely different cases (even if it is the same
instruction)? The first is an unconditional branch,
On Fri, 29 Apr 2016 07:23:35 +0100, Martin Packer
wrote:
>I've participated in IBM-MAIN for MANY years - from my laptop email
>client.
>
>Other than using an email client on iOS has anyone found a good way of
>participating in LISTSERV groups on iOS?
>
>To keep this
>
> Good point well made but can you explain why changing a B to a BE in a tight
> loop results in 43% difference?
But aren't those two completely different cases (even if it is the same
instruction)? The first is an unconditional branch, the second one a
conditional branch. That probably
On 30/04/2016 12:23 AM, Windt, W.K.F. van der (Fred) wrote:
Sent from my new iPad
On 29 Apr 2016, at 18:10, Peter Relson wrote:
Since the origin for the starting post apparently lay in branching around
the eyecatcher (which really is not necessarily at all the same as a
Sent from my new iPad
> On 29 Apr 2016, at 18:10, Peter Relson wrote:
>
> Since the origin for the starting post apparently lay in branching around
> the eyecatcher (which really is not necessarily at all the same as a
> branch in a 2 instruction loop), I was surprised that
On 30/04/2016 12:10 AM, Peter Relson wrote:
Since the origin for the starting post apparently lay in branching around
the eyecatcher (which really is not necessarily at all the same as a
branch in a 2 instruction loop), I was surprised that none of the posts
that I glanced at mentioned
Since the origin for the starting post apparently lay in branching around
the eyecatcher (which really is not necessarily at all the same as a
branch in a 2 instruction loop), I was surprised that none of the posts
that I glanced at mentioned Instruction-cache misses.
Just because you think
On 29/04/2016 11:55 PM, Tony Harminc wrote:
On 29 April 2016 at 11:50, Charles Mills wrote:
What about substituting a branch relative for the branch on base register?
Trivial code change to make.
I was about to suggest that too. All the IBM published material I've
seen on
It's Friday...
1. I would like to have whole z/OS installation material (read tape
content) on pendrive. I could accept multiple volumes (pendrives)
instead of single bigger one. BTW: It's cheaper than tape cart, 32GB one
is for less than 10$.
2. I would like to have another pendrive(s) for
(resend, please be patient if got two copies)
W dniu 2016-04-29 o 17:37, R.S. pisze:
W dniu 2016-04-29 o 17:31, Paul Gilmartin pisze:
On Fri, 29 Apr 2016 11:49:57 +, willie bunter wrote:
Paul.
I tried out your suggestion using disp=mod however it doesn't work : MOD NOT
ALLOWED FOR PDS
On 29 April 2016 at 11:50, Charles Mills wrote:
> What about substituting a branch relative for the branch on base register?
> Trivial code change to make.
I was about to suggest that too. All the IBM published material I've
seen on this suggests that
-- all else being equal
David Crayford wrote:
I've got a Pi3! Are we nerds?
Me too! Yes, you didn't know?
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 9:30 AM, John McKown
wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 9:27 AM, Mike Schwab
> wrote:
>
>> Well, the obvious solution is to code the eyecatcher literals before
>> the entry point. It will be less obvious that the
>>
>> L R4,=A(1*1000*1000*1000)
>> LTR R4,R4
>> J LOOP
>> *
>> LOOP DS 0D .LOOP START
>> B NEXT
>>
>> NEXT JCT R4,LOOP
>
> The loop starts with a branch ... I tested it twice - when the CC is matched
> (branch
On 29/04/2016 11:40 PM, Jim Mulder wrote:
Well, the obvious solution is to code the eyecatcher literals before
the entry point. It will be less obvious that the eyecatcher is part
of the program (and not the end of the previous program) but as the
technique become more widespread it should
I think all issues of this general type are incredibly difficult to analyze
reliably because the hardware is so darned complex now. There are so many more
variables than back in the day when you could say "a branch consumes 'n'
microseconds" or "'n' microseconds if taken, 'm' microseconds if
This is very interesting. It explains what I thought was an anomaly of the CA
TriTune product, which we use here for profiling our in-house code. Strictly
enforced standards here require inclusion of automatically customized code at
the start of every COBOL procedure (main or subroutine) that
On Fri, 29 Apr 2016 07:15:09 -0400, Robert S. Hansel (RSH)
wrote:
>(Cross-posting to RACF-L)
>
>Mark,
>
>
>If this works as per my interpretation, then I think the concerns raised by
>others are
> valid. If I can create an alias with a name to which I have access
Try this on your hardware and post the results. Uncomment/Comment where
applicable.
BENCHCSECT
BENCHAMODE 31
SAVE (14,12)
LRR12,R15
USING BENCH,R12
L R4,=A(1*1000*1000*1000)
LTR R4,R4
J LOOP
*
LOOP DS 0D
Google 'SMF Log Streams'. If I'm not mistaken, there's a Redbook on this very
subject.
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Try this on your hardware and post the results. Uncomment/Comment where
applicable.
BENCHCSECT
BENCHAMODE 31
SAVE (14,12)
LRR12,R15
USING BENCH,R12
L R4,=A(1*1000*1000*1000)
LTR R4,R4
J LOOP
*
LOOP DS 0D
> >> Well, the obvious solution is to code the eyecatcher literals before
> >> the entry point. It will be less obvious that the eyecatcher is part
> >> of the program (and not the end of the previous program) but as the
> >> technique become more widespread it should become more trusted.
> >>
>
Plus it's really not an assembler question. The assembler is a program that
turns 'B' into '47F0'. This is a hardware performance question.
Charles
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of David Crayford
Sent: Friday,
On Fri, 29 Apr 2016 11:49:57 +, willie bunter wrote:
>Paul.
>
>I tried out your suggestion using disp=mod however it doesn't work : MOD NOT
>ALLOWED FOR PDS
>
???
That deserves an SR. Works in JCL; works everywhere else. The statement is
patently false.
-- gil
On 29/04/2016 11:10 PM, Lizette Koehler wrote:
Maybe the IBM Assembler List might be helpful here?
If you have not joined, use this URL:
https://listserv.uga.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=ASSEMBLER-LIST
Lizette
See my earlier response to Elardus. The assembler list is almost
On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 9:47 AM, John Eells wrote:
> John McKown wrote:
>
>
> What we have today for the Customized Offerings Driver in DVD format is:
>
> - An IPLable copy of standalone DFSMSdss on a DVD
> - Dump files for the z/OS COD system on DVDs
> - The capability with
On 29/04/2016 10:27 PM, Mike Schwab wrote:
Well, the obvious solution is to code the eyecatcher literals before
the entry point. It will be less obvious that the eyecatcher is part
of the program (and not the end of the previous program) but as the
technique become more widespread it should
Maybe the IBM Assembler List might be helpful here?
If you have not joined, use this URL:
https://listserv.uga.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=ASSEMBLER-LIST
Lizette
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
> Behalf Of
On 29/04/2016 10:30 PM, John McKown wrote:
On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 9:27 AM, Mike Schwab
wrote:
Well, the obvious solution is to code the eyecatcher literals before
the entry point. It will be less obvious that the eyecatcher is part
of the program (and not the end of
On 29/04/2016 9:35 PM, Windt, W.K.F. van der (Fred) wrote:
Here's the code.
I wrote a simple program - it tight loops 1 billion times
L R4,=A(1*1000*1000*1000)
LTR R4,R4
J LOOP
*
LOOP DS 0D .LOOP START
B NEXT
Paul Gilmartin wrote:
And the UNIX argv[] vector is terminated by a NULL (0) pointer, not -1.
John McKown wrote:
I am under the distinct impression that the number of elements
in argv[] is the value in argc.
You're both right.
On 29/04/2016 10:34 PM, Joe Testa wrote:
There seems to be little point worrying about the time needed to branch past an
eyecatcher at the start of a program, compared to the time used by the rest of
the program.
Unfortunately that's not true. For high frequency subroutines it can
dominate
John McKown wrote:
I can, vaguely, imagine PR/SM being able to have a special LPAR type
(conceptually like a CF LPAR) which could have a smart enough system on it
to be bootable (like CF) and has "utilities" on it to initialize DASD, then
install the base version _any_ IBM OS over the
On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 9:27 AM, Mike Schwab
wrote:
> Well, the obvious solution is to code the eyecatcher literals before
> the entry point. It will be less obvious that the eyecatcher is part
> of the program (and not the end of the previous program) but as the
>
There seems to be little point worrying about the time needed to branch past an
eyecatcher at the start of a program, compared to the time used by the rest of
the program.
From: Mike Schwab
Sent: Friday, April 29, 2016 10:27 AM
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Well, the obvious solution is to code the eyecatcher literals before
the entry point. It will be less obvious that the eyecatcher is part
of the program (and not the end of the previous program) but as the
technique become more widespread it should become more trusted.
On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at
On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 5:40 PM, Paul Gilmartin <
000433f07816-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
> This has the collateral boon that you can code an empty 64-bit parameter
> list, something not possible with a 24-bit or 31-bit parameter list.
>
> But IBM should formalize the convention.
How would one do that? Are there instructions in the manual?
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Mike Schwab
Sent: Friday, April 29, 2016 9:04 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: How to copy one pack IPL'able
On 29/04/2016 10:09 PM, Mike Schwab wrote:
The pipeline is optimized for running many instructions in a row. A
branch is not recognized until through a good part of the pipeline.
Meanwhile the data to be skipped is in the instruction pipeline.
Results meet expectations.
So branching over
> Here's the code.
>
> I wrote a simple program - it tight loops 1 billion times
>
>
> L R4,=A(1*1000*1000*1000)
> LTR R4,R4
> J LOOP
> *
> LOOP DS 0D .LOOP START
> B NEXT
>
> NEXT JCT R4,LOOP
>
> The loop
The pipeline is optimized for running many instructions in a row. A
branch is not recognized until through a good part of the pipeline.
Meanwhile the data to be skipped is in the instruction pipeline.
Results meet expectations.
On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 7:40 AM, David Crayford
On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 8:55 PM, Paul Gilmartin
<000433f07816-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
> Blu-ray?
>
> -- gil
I think they are around 25GB.
Why not an ADRDSSU IPLable backup tape image of a RESCUE volume?
We use mirrored VTAPE and restore from it, no mirrored DASD.
--
Mike A
On 29/04/2016 9:41 PM, John McKown wrote:
on my Intel PC. On my newest Raspberry Pi3, it came with a micro SD card.
The Pi3 boots from it. The supplied boot image simply puts up a splash
screen asking what you want to install from the menu, you select, it
downloads and installs it. You then
(multi-posted from thread started on IBM-MAIN)
An interesting idea in the last paragraphs? "Tooting own horn"
On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 9:18 PM, Rob Schramm wrote:
> Cloud?
>
> Rob
>
>
For installation? Why not. I can do a "PXE net boot" using an ethernet
card
on my
On 29/04/2016 9:08 PM, Vernooij, CP (ITOPT1) - KLM wrote:
I wonder if it is really a 'problem'. What kind of mormal program does this
amount of branches back to where it just came from, messing up the entire
pipeline. Is it efficient to optimize a z13 for this kind of programs? Isn't it
On 29/04/2016 8:59 PM, Bernd Oppolzer wrote:
Thank you.
Some of the versions of GCC that I use also checks the arguments of
printf etc.
using the first parameter string constant, if available. When moving
programs
from OS/2 to Linux, I discovered some hidden errors this way.
IIRC clang
Thanks!
One note on SYSSTC: Whether the velocity GOAL of "STCHI" matches the
MEASURED velocity of SYSSTC or not the latter is still protected relative
to the former.
Sensitised to this because a recent customer situation saw DBM1 in SYSSTC,
competing with IRLM.
I normally - in my graphing at
I wonder if it is really a 'problem'. What kind of mormal program does this
amount of branches back to where it just came from, messing up the entire
pipeline. Is it efficient to optimize a z13 for this kind of programs? Isn't it
better to optimize for the millions of other programs who are
On 29/04/2016 8:46 PM, Elardus Engelbrecht wrote:
David Crayford wrote:
We're doing some performance work on our assembler code and one of my
colleagues ran the following test which was surprising. Unconditional branching
can add significant overhead. I always believed that conditional
Thank you all for chiming in! Yeah the bottom line... figure out why those sub
second transactions get stalled! Hard to tune your way out of a locking
condition :-)
I will check out the SYSSTC actual velocity... that is a good bench mark to
what my max achievable would be around.
Happy
That's an excellent answer Bernd! One of the reasons why I prefer C++
over C is that iostreams are not only typesafe but they handle variable
length parameter lists by simple function calls. The downside is that
the extra function call overhead is more expensive so it's a trade-off.
It's also
David Crayford wrote:
>We're doing some performance work on our assembler code and one of my
>colleagues ran the following test which was surprising. Unconditional
>branching can add significant overhead. I always believed that conditional
>branches were expensive because the branch predictor
There is no defined standard for marking the end of a variable
length parameter (address) list in C. The header
includes functions that allow for variable number of parameters,
but then you have to have a first parameter (or first set of parameters)
that allows you to determine the number of
We're doing some performance work on our assembler code and one of my
colleagues ran the following test which was surprising. Unconditional
branching can add significant overhead. I always believed that
conditional branches were expensive because the branch predictor needed
to do more work and
On Fri, 29 Apr 2016 07:21:12 -0500, Tom Marchant wrote:
>The old way, which surprises me a little, DEFINE ALIAS required access to the
>data set to which the alias is related, but not to the alias name being
>defined.
Sorry, this part seems to be incorrect. The old way didn't require any
On Thu, 28 Apr 2016 12:01:17 -0500, Mark Zelden wrote:
>I'm applying z/OS 2.1 RSU1603 and came across this PTF. Is anyone running
>with
>it in production and has it caused you any grief? This seems to change a
>behavior
>that has been around "forever", so it concerns me a bit even though
What I'm curious about is: _what does XLC do?_
-- R; <><
On 04/28/16 19:15, Charles Mills wrote:
As a C/C++ convert, I like 0_0 (NULL in C lingo) better than _
(only because it is a widely-used convention in C). (OTOH FFF... is widely-used
in CMS.)
Agree with Gil's
Paul.
I tried out your suggestion using disp=mod however it doesn't work : MOD NOT
ALLOWED FOR PDS
On Thu, 4/28/16, Paul Gilmartin
<000433f07816-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
Subject: Re: SAVING JOB OUTPUT IN A PDSE FROM SDSF
To:
Data set name ===> 'ABCDE.FGHIJK.LMNOP'
Member to use ===> QRSTUV
Disposition===> NEW(OLD, NEW, SHR, MOD)
Lizette,
I tried your suggestion using NEW but it doesn't work. I get the message
MEMBER NAME NOT ALLOWED
I hit the PF1 option but it wasn't much help.
On Thu, 4/28/16, Lizette Koehler wrote:
Subject: Re: SAVING JOB
(Cross-posting to RACF-L)
Mark,
I have not worked with this APAR and PTF. Below is my interpretation of it. I
agree this is a huge change. I think careful testing is needed to confirm this,
and as I don't have access to a system with the change, I would be happy to
help you with the test out
Timothy Sipples wrote:
>>Are there any stats on the number of z/OS installs and the number of installs
>>that are using z/OSMF?
>The direct answer is no.
Actually yes, but NEVER made public. This question has been asked many times
without any definitive answers.
>IBM obviously has
>If your batch jobs are running Dicretionary at a DP lower than CICS, it is
>very
>unlikely that they are causing significant CICS delays.
True from a CPU perspective. But the batch jobs could be locking resources in
DB2 that are delaying the CICS transactions. And if the batch jobs holding
Rob Schramm asked:
>Are there any stats on the number of z/OS installs and the number of
>installs that are using z/OSMF?
The direct answer is no. IBM obviously has statistics on the number of
authorized z/OS licensees. It's possible to estimate the number of z/OS
installs, but it'd be only an
No, you cannot prevent it.
Been there...
--
Radoslaw Skorupka
Lodz, Poland
W dniu 2016-04-29 o 00:59, willie bunter pisze:
Hallo All,
I need your suggestions. I am savings job output in a PDSE using SDSF. The
member name I use is the job number e.g.
Member to use ===> JOB067XX
I am
Thank you for the heads-up. A coworker is installing it as I type. I'll now go
RTFMs and browse the 2.2 parmlib. :-)
Bob
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Anthony Thompson
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2016 9:40 PM
To:
I use a dedicated email address. It is accessible from my iPhone and W7 PC.
Linda
Sent from my iPhone
> On Apr 29, 2016, at 12:39 AM, Elardus Engelbrecht
> wrote:
>
> Martin Packer wrote:
>
>> I've participated in IBM-MAIN for MANY years - from my laptop
Martin Packer wrote:
>I've participated in IBM-MAIN for MANY years - from my laptop email client.
Excellent! And I learn from your posts!
>Other than using an email client on iOS has anyone found a good way of
>participating in LISTSERV groups on iOS?
What about using the browser (Safari?)
On 29/04/2016 2:23 PM, Martin Packer wrote:
I've participated in IBM-MAIN for MANY years - from my laptop email
client.
Other than using an email client on iOS has anyone found a good way of
participating in LISTSERV groups on iOS?
I've used NewsTap on my iPad but TBH it's not really a step
gsg wrote:
>As part of a systems programmer duties, they have ALTER access to many
>datasets. They need/require this access to install, upgrade, maintain and
>resolve problems. Audit has been pushing more and more to remove the ALTER
>access.
>Has anyone else been experiencing this?
Nearly
Agree: "Achievable" is what's important here. Please measure it - with
load.
This is where I struggle without IBM-MAIN being a visual medium. :-) I
plot velocity WITH LOAD and see how it droops. My code has done this for
years and I present this graphing method regularly - to individual
I've participated in IBM-MAIN for MANY years - from my laptop email
client.
Other than using an email client on iOS has anyone found a good way of
participating in LISTSERV groups on iOS?
To keep this interesting for about half of y'all, same question for
Android.
Use case: Mental
My experience is that CICS will suffer if the LPAR is being soft capped, no
matter what you try to do to this situation.
So I think the best and only solution is to avoid that the LPAR becomes capped
by keeping the batch consumption under control. Not with a limited number of
initiators,
94 matches
Mail list logo