Re: SFTP on z/OS

On Sun, 5 Feb 2017 09:26:53 +0300, venkat kulkarni wrote: >Hello All, >Problem has been resolved. The issue with target host authorize key and >permission but all now all looks good. > >But one issue, I am still facing is when I try to save RSA public key in >omvs authorized_keys file is the

Re: SFTP on z/OS

Hello All, Problem has been resolved. The issue with target host authorize key and permission but all now all looks good. But one issue, I am still facing is when I try to save RSA public key in omvs authorized_keys file is the space . I try to enter key but after 255 character, I am not able to

Re: SFTP on z/OS

W;ere going thru the same process right now with Sftp, we found out we needed ICSF up, we don';t have any crypto express hardware, but do have CPAF enabled - Original Message - From: "Mark Jacobs - Listserv" To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Sent: Saturday,

Re: SFTP on z/OS

If you don't have CryptoExpress processors, but do have CPAF enabled on your processor/LPAR, you still might need ICSF active. I don't know off hand if ssh will directly use the CPAF facilities without ICSF being available. Mark Jacobs scott Ford February 4, 2017

Re: COBOL/LE question

Rex, I sure would re-compile the Cobol programs. I have ran into issues but it was going backward. It was in regard to callable LE functions and what was supported... Scott On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 12:12 PM, Bill Woodger wrote: > The IGZ0268W is a warning message (no

Re: SFTP on z/OS

Guys: I have a SSH question, we dont have a ICSF , do i need one to do SSH ? We want to do scp from Windows to z/OS . I want stepping thru the ICSF stc doc and read about 'head 'dev/random' and its not working returning an error Scott On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 8:58 AM, Kirk Wolf

Re: BSAM vs QSAM

On Sat, 4 Feb 2017 13:24:41 -0500, Jim Mulder (d10j...@us.ibm.com) wrote about "Re: BSAM vs QSAM" (in ): > I asked Wayne Rhoten. His recollection is that SAMe GAed as a product > around 1978, > and was

Re: BSAM vs QSAM

013a910fd252-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu (David W Noon) writes: > All of the buffer fills and buffer flushes occur quite separately from > the application program. The EXCP macro is a wonderful thing. A big problem with the EXCP semantics ... it had applications (and/or libraries running in

Re: BSAM vs QSAM

> Is this still, as Ed recalls, part of a separately-priced SAMe feature? I asked Wayne Rhoten. His recollection is that SAMe GAed as a product around 1978, and was integrated in the early 1980s. Jim Mulder z/OS Diagnosis, Design, Development, Test IBM Corp. Poughkeepsie NY

Re: BSAM vs QSAM

On Sat, 4 Feb 2017 02:06:16 +, Jesse 1 Robinson (jesse1.robin...@sce.com) wrote about "Re: BSAM vs QSAM" (in ): > I'm bowled over by David Noon's post. Pleased to be of service. ... :-) > I did not know that

Re: BSAM vs QSAM

> Anyway, if you have to ask whether to use QSAM or BSAM, the answer is always > QSAM. EXACTLY!  CharlesSent from a mobile; please excuse the brevity. Original message From: Steve Smith Date: 2/4/17 9:29 AM (GMT-08:00) To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject:

Re: BSAM vs QSAM

I haven't heard of SAME for years, my bet is it was integrated. And why would update have any effect on read-ahead? QSAM fills all the buffers it gets, and keeps them full. It can and does keep track of where you are vs. where it is quite easily. Anyway, if you have to ask whether to use QSAM

Re: BSAM vs QSAM

>> > Is this still, as Ed recalls, part of a separately-priced SAMe feature? No it was integrated into the base (with XA?? its been a LONG time). > > Thanks, > gil > > -- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access

Re: BSAM vs QSAM

On Sat, 4 Feb 2017 01:49:13 -0500, Jim Mulder wrote: > There are no coding requirements for the application, When you do >a QSAM OPEN for Input, the first read-ahead I/Os are scheduled by OPEN, >and the application program can proceed without waiting after the OPEN at >least to the point of