On Fri, 2 Nov 2018 13:01:05 -0500, Chris Bowen wrote:
>
>Customers are free to use such circumventions, vendors have to assume that
>their customers would prefer not to.
>
>Full disclosure - I have no idea if my colleague's original code was intended
>to run on customer systems or is for
Thanks for all the responses. I wasn't aware of any vulnerabilities, patched or
otherwise. I don't handle our mainframe's security, another department does
that.
Frightening.
Regards,
Eric Verwijs
Programmeur-analyste, RPC, SV et solutions de paiement - Direction
>W dniu 2018-11-01 o 23:46, Paul Gilmartin pisze:
>> On Thu, 1 Nov 2018 22:37:32 +0100, R.S. wrote:
>>
>>> While it's interesting issue, ...wouldn't it be practical to avoid
>>> spaces in pathname?
>>> My€0.02
>>>
>> Like any circumvention, it mqy be practical, but the underlying
>> defect should
My fault I had inadvertently left
Both EXTR and ECB on the attach
My code as documented with just ECB= on the attach worked just fine
Thanks to Tony Hameric who helped me with
This apologies to others
On Nov 2, 2018, at 12:48 PM, Michael Stein wrote:
>> Joseph Reichman
>> I know system
> Joseph Reichman
> I know system 23E is for invalid TCB it seems to me that TCB is valid
> could any confirm that the following is the correct sequence of step to
> terminate a TASK.
A TCB is destroyed when the task terminates unless it was attached with
EXTR or ECB in which case it is
Nah - it's actually how they are on the IBM manual page - weird.
On Fri, 2 Nov 2018 at 15:38, Paul Gilmartin <
000433f07816-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
> On 2018-11-02, at 05:39:38, R.S. wrote:
> > ...
> > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
> > Content-Type: text/plain;
On 2018-11-02, at 05:39:38, R.S. wrote:
> ...
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed
>
> ... 16␠777␠215 tracks ...
>
I had to look it up:
The following table lists some symbols, in decreasing order by practical
usefulness.
I would love to see that RACF screen...
.
.
J.O.Skip Robinson
Southern California Edison Company
Electric Dragon Team Paddler
SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager
323-715-0595 Mobile
626-543-6132 Office ⇐=== NEW
robin...@sce.com
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
On Fri, 2 Nov 2018 10:25:27 +, Sankaranarayanan, Vignesh
wrote:
>Hello lists,
>
>I've look around a bit and also realise there's a screen within the RACF
>panels itself to do the following:
>Show all dataset profiles that a user has some access to.
>
>Is it possible to produce this as a
Another poster (sorry I deleted the post so can't credit him) already
stated that the addressable range depends on the method you use to access
the data set.
Yes relative track addressing is 2 bytes and limited to 64K tracks.
But relative block addressing is 3 bytes and so limited to 16M blocks.
It is 170 cyls in 14 extents with 3011 CIsplits and 157 CAsplits after 11 years.
Kees.
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
> Behalf Of R.S.
> Sent: 02 November, 2018 14:16
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: VOLCAT
W dniu 2018-11-02 o 13:41, Vernooij, Kees (ITOPT1) - KLM pisze:
Ok, interesting to hear from David Jousma, that the limit might be at 50.
We have 125000 at the moment, so we don't have to worry now.
I understand it not as hard limit, rather performance degradation.
IMHO it depends on tape
On Nov 2, 2018, at 7:29 AM, Giliad Wilf
<00d50942efa9-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
>
> ...so, I must assume ADABAS has a way for accessing records of a dataset that
> large...
Actually, current ADABAS versions don’t use an access method; they write their
own channel programs and
Ok, interesting to hear from David Jousma, that the limit might be at 50.
We have 125000 at the moment, so we don't have to worry now.
Kees
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
> Behalf Of R.S.
> Sent: 02 November, 2018
Interesting.
I recall two statements, probably from two different sources:
One states that BDAM does not support large format datasets.
The other states that DA datasets accessed by relative track address are
limited to 65536 tracks.
...so, I must assume ADABAS has a way for accessing records
It is a little bit more complex. There is third flavour or DSORG=PO, it
is DSNTYPE=HFS. ;-)
HFS is also constrained to single volume when non-SMS-managed. In the
past it was simply single volume.
Last, but not least: a database structure (table, tablespace, index) may
or may not be constrained
This link works for me this morning:
https://www-304.ibm.com/ibmlink/servicelink/servicelink.wss?lc=en
_
Dave Jousma
Mainframe Engineering, Assistant Vice President
david.jou...@53.com
1830 East Paris, Grand Rapids, MI 49546 MD
I am getting that error trying to access the Service Request tool this
morning
Bonnie Barthel
Senior IT Specialist
GTS, Solutions, Delivery and Transformation
cobon...@vtext.com 719.649.7888 Mobile
720.396.6755 Office
bonnie.bart...@us.ibm.com
IBM Services
From: "PINION, RICHARD W."
To:
Hi Radoslaw,
That's true, but I believe the OP was asking whether the entire data set
was limited to 64K tracks and I believe only PDS and PDS/E are limited to
one volume.
https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/SSLTBW_2.3.0/com.ibm.zos.v2r3.idad400/d4002.htm
None of my database data sets
Is anyone else receiving "500 Internal Server Error"
trying to get into Service Link?
FIRST TENNESSEE
Confidentiality notice:
This e-mail message, including any attachments, may contain legally privileged
and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient(s), or
the
Mick,
You are still missing the point: 64k TRK limit is PER VOLUME. It regards
PDS, (basic) PS, and DA.
In other words, BDAM datasets are 64k TRK constrained as some other
datasets are.
Of course some (PDS) datasets cannot be multivolume, while DA (and PS)
can be, but that's different story.
Hi Radoslaw,
If you combine all the rules for direct data sets across 2 or 3 pages of
the manual you get:
65,535 tracks per volume, 59 volumes, 16 extents per volume, 255 extents
across all volumes.
Which suggests to me a limit of 3,866,565 tracks.
Cheers,
Mick.
On Fri, 2 Nov 2018 at 11:40,
Documentations says the following:
/Many types of data sets *are limited* to 65␠535 total tracks allocated
on any one volume, and if a greater number of tracks is required, this
attempt to create a data set will fail./
//
/Data sets that *are not limited* to 65␠535 total tracks allocated on
W dniu 2018-11-02 o 09:11, Vernooij, Kees (ITOPT1) - KLM pisze:
Just out of curiosity: why do you want to split VOLCAT?
I'm going to use virtual tapes. Real tape volumes are huge (4/12TB), so
there are few of them.
Virtual tapes are much smaller and tend to not be filled up (it does't
make
Hi All,
I can confirm that there is no 64K tracks limit on DSORG=DA data sets.
I inherited a number of Adabas databases and they use DSORG=DA.
One of my larger databases has a data storage component that is 240,525
tracks (16,035 cylinders) in 9 extents across 8 volumes.
Organization . . . : DA
W dniu 2018-11-01 o 23:46, Paul Gilmartin pisze:
On Thu, 1 Nov 2018 22:37:32 +0100, R.S. wrote:
While it's interesting issue, ...wouldn't it be practical to avoid
spaces in pathname?
My€0.02
Like any circumvention, it mqy be practical, but the underlying
defect should be fixed.
It's
We've got over 50 entries in our volcat.vgeneral and have had some
performance issues. For now we bumped up the STRNO to 10 and that has helped
some.It's hard to stop all tape processing in our environment to move
entries out of vgeneral. Our storage guys have committed to creating
Hello lists,
I've look around a bit and also realise there's a screen within the RACF panels
itself to do the following:
Show all dataset profiles that a user has some access to.
Is it possible to produce this as a report by parsing DBU00?
Found this -
I guessed so too, but if so, I am interested in number of volsers that hits the
limit of 1 volcat.vgeneral.
Kees
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
> Behalf Of Giliad Wilf
> Sent: 02 November, 2018 10:06
> To:
Maybe it became too "crowded" and one sees alarming message IEC361I...or it
became a performance issue...
On Fri, 2 Nov 2018 08:11:38 +, Vernooij, Kees (ITOPT1) - KLM
wrote:
>Just out of curiosity: why do you want to split VOLCAT?
>
>Kees.
>
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: IBM
Just out of curiosity: why do you want to split VOLCAT?
Kees.
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
> Behalf Of R.S.
> Sent: 01 November, 2018 21:50
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: VOLCAT split
>
> I have single file
The HLQ of hlq.VOLCAT.VGENERAL is in LOADxx. I suppose this will also be for
the VOLCAT.Vx's.
Kees
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
> Behalf Of Lizette Koehler
> Sent: 02 November, 2018 1:55
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
>
32 matches
Mail list logo
