It's not normally a CA-1 caused problem. This is "normally" caused when tapes
are added to the VTS and you forget to update the ROBTY and VENDOR fields so
tht when a tape is used (and scratched) that CA-1 can tell the VTS and OAM that
it's again available.
Someone always forgets to do this at
You can run the CA-1 CTSSYNC utility, to synchronize the TCDB from the TMC.
Kees.
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Nai, Dean
Sent: 15 January 2020 18:31
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Tape problem
Anyone ever
> On our z/OS 2.4 system there's still a SDSFAUX address space.
Yes, SDSFAUX remains to execute various data gatherers, XCF communications and
so on, but the allocation of HSFLOG and HSFTRACE was moved to the SDSF address
space with z/OS 2.3.
Ant.
On our z/OS 2.4 system there's still a SDSFAUX address space.
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Don't forget Nixdorf, although the machine I worked with was built by
Hitachi in Israel. It had a 3274 emulator that worked on a early LAN type
architecture, not quite the same and it also had a comms controller that
behaved like a 3174.
On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 6:40 PM Timothy Sipples wrote:
>
I was under the impression that newer releases of a compiler might smarten
up inefficient code, such as moving assignments that are unchanging out of
loops, or opening out loops, for example. None of this should affect a
program flow detrimentally or produce a bug.
We're currently moving from
> I believe it's SDSFAUX that allocates these files...
> Dan
Used to be SDSFAUX. With z/OS 2.3, the SDSF address space took over this
function.
Ant.
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email
I did indeed misunderstand what you meant by "implemented." I interpreted
that as meaning "rolled out into production" but you meant "recompiled."
Absolutely I would NOT test under 6.2 and then release compile under 6.3.
Yeah, it should work, but I would not do it.
Charles
-Original
You might say it, but the IETF did not. In particular, RFC 1576 does not, but
refers to the client as an emulator.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of
Charles Mills
Sent: Tuesday,
A new version that doesn't affect the generated code may have an IFREQ that
affects the run-time environment. But it's not my dog.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of
Frank
1. If you're trying to look like a 3270 on a 3174 and you need to be usable as
a console before VTAM is up then you need to connect over B, ESCON
or FICON. A TN3270 session with an OSA-ICC will do the trick.
2. The 3174 had both synchronous and asynchronous RS-232-C adapters.
a. A
Allocate them yourself.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of
Gadi Ben-Avi
Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2020 1:40 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: HSFLOG and HSFTRACE
Hi,
If you want to look like the host side then your options are B, BSC,
Ethernet, SDLC and TR, depending on the controller model and configuration. For
BSC and SDLC you would need a synchronous serial adapter, not the asynchronous
adapter that some PCs come with. If you have a B adapter and
> Does that mean that citations in wiki should use trailing-edge? If so, does
> wiki know?
Most bitsavers mirrors tend to be well synced, so it probably does not
really matter.
--
Will
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff /
Does that mean that citations in wiki should use trailing-edge? If so, does
wiki know?
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of
William Donzelli
Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2020 3:24
No, bitsavers.
Do you mean http colon
//bitsavers.org/pdf/ibm/3270/GA23-0059-4_3270_Data_Stream_Programmers_Reference_Dec88.pdf?
/pdf/ibm/3274/GA23-0061-2_3274_Control_Unit_Description_and_Programmers_Guide_Mar85.pdf?
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
> Why trailing-edge rather than the bitsavers.org site?
Things may have changed over the years, but Al and Tim decided to
mainly point people towards Tim's servers, to keep Al's bandwidth
down.
--
Will
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe
No, I meant bitsavers, not archive or trailing edge. HTTP colon
//bitsavers.org/pdf/ibm/3270 is probably of most interest, but pdf/ibm/370
might have something of interest.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
From: IBM Mainframe
Why trailing-edge rather than the bitsavers.org site?
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of Tom
Marchant <000a2a8c2020-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, January 15,
Wiki? NFW. Bitsavers is an archive.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of
Charles Mills
Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2020 12:04 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Talking
The early you catch compatibility issues the better. IMHO, rolling out source
and recompiling is much safer.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of
Steve Smith
Sent: Wednesday,
We got bit by that years ago too. IBM seems to be pretty good now with hold
actions on COBOL PTF that requires a specific LE PTF to be available everywhere
prior to the introduction of the Cobol PTF.
Here's another gotcha to worry about regardless of compiler version. It was a
real problem, not hypothetical. We installed a new z/OS Server Pac that
happened to include a new COBOL release: 4.2 to replace 4.1. As others have
mentioned, the ancient practice here is to do *all* compiles on the
IBM 3494. I’ll open a ticket with CA….thanks
Dean Nai
Senior z/OS Systems Programmer
Technical Services Group
Department of Information Technology
State of New Hampshire
27 Hazen Drive
Concord, NH 03301
work: 603-271-1529
Statement of Confidentiality: The contents of this message are
Yeah. We do have regressions tests, but it's not built in to change control
itself. Perhaps something we should look in to enhancing. Thanks.
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of
Jousma, David <01a0403c5dc1-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu>
We migrate source *and* executable into a controlled stage environment where
the app folks are supposed to do one last round of tests. From there, its
straight copy to all PROD locations.
_
You’ve got me there! I would think that chance is relatively small and
wouldn’t worry about it.
On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 12:08 PM Frank Swarbrick <
frank.swarbr...@outlook.com> wrote:
> Intentional differences, yes. Bug; probably not!
>
>
> From: IBM
Intentional differences, yes. Bug; probably not!
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of
Michael Babcock
Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2020 11:04 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Migrating to new compiler release
Any difference should
Any difference should be documented in the migration guides I would think.
On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 1:38 PM Frank Swarbrick
wrote:
> I understand that the runtime is part of LE, and is generally shared
> between versions (at least V5 and V6 seem to share the same runtime for
> many/most
That doesn't fit in to our current processes. We migrate source code, not
executables. I guess we could consider changing that, but this is small enough
an issue.
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of
Steve Smith
Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2020
Are you using IBM VTS, emc vts, other tape appliance
I have found the CA 1 Support team to be very helpful.
Lizette
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of
Nai, Dean
Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2020 10:31 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Tape
Seems to me your problem is recompiling after testing. If you want to
avoid problems that re-compiling could introduce, then don't.
sas
On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 11:59 AM Frank Swarbrick <
frank.swarbr...@outlook.com> wrote:
> I was just stating what a theoretical new version of a theoretical
>
Anyone ever run into a problem where the CA-1 catalog and the volcat seem to be
out of sync? We keep getting the below messages and aren’t able to eject tapes.
Thought it was 3494 hardware related by IBM doesn’t thing so. Any suggestions?
CBR3770I Volume T00xxx misplaced in library TAPELIB1
Bitsavers.org is a "wiki" site with scans of out-of-print tech manuals.
Charles
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
Behalf Of Alexander Huemer
Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2020 8:02 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re:
I was just stating what a theoretical new version of a theoretical compiler
might provide. In the specific case of E.C. 6.3 you are certainly correct. Of
course there is no requirement to change ARCH level upon implementation of a
new version, even if you're at that necessary hardware level.
You are misunderstanding. My concern, and I admit its a small one, is about
those programs that were tested prior to the version upgrade but implemented
after the version upgrade. Meaning they were tested having been compiled with
V6.2, but compiled for implementation using V6.3. It's a
On Wed, 15 Jan 2020 10:48:26 -0600, Tom Marchant wrote:
>or, perhaps more specific to the OP's question,
>http://bitsavers.trailing-edge.com/pdf/ibm/360/
Oops. I meant
http://bitsavers.trailing-edge.com/pdf/ibm/3270/
--
Tom Marchant
On Wed, 15 Jan 2020 08:29:38 -0800, Tom Brennan wrote:
>I think Shmuel is talking about https://archive.org/details/bitsavers
I think he meant http://bitsavers.trailing-edge.com/
or http://bitsavers.trailing-edge.com/pdf/ibm/
or http://bitsavers.trailing-edge.com/pdf/ibm/360/
or
But a couple of minutes earlier you said:
> Well, I guess the proposal was to write a piece of software that a
> TN3270 client connects to and is able to exchange data with it.
Do you really have a 3174? Do you have a real IBM terminal?
Or another way to ask: If you created such a program,
I am aware of hercules, an amazing piece of software. Though I am more
looking for a dedicated piece of software just to talk to terminals, not
as part of a S3*0 OS.
> I think I've recently read some articles where someone is trying to
> use a 3270 as a terminal for a Unix (Linux?)
I am aware RS232 is just a low-level protocol, though, if I decide to
really spend time on this, I have to interface with a 3174 somehow,
low-level. And I wonder which options I have for that, regardless of the
higher protocol layer. I am not questioning that they have to be figured
out.
What
Well, I guess the proposal was to write a piece of software that a
TN3270 client connects to and is able to exchange data with it.
I think that's a neat idea, especially as that removes the dependency on
ancient hardware that I don't currently have.
You say TN3270 merely encapsulates 3270, which
I read through the thread. Not sure I fully understand what is happening
over there. Will read again.
On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 11:44:46AM -0600, Mike Schwab wrote:
> https://turnkey-mvs.yahoogroups.narkive.com/YoMvjj8Q/turnkey-mvs-under-vm-and-3270-w-3174
> 3174 with ethernet and token ring.
I didn't think of TN3270 as an intermediate step so far. I cannot really
assess how much value that brings for the end goal, though it might be
at least fun and educational.
Thanks for the insights, especially 3270.pdf seems very interesting.
On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 07:23:55AM -0800, Charles
>If you plan to continue to use SMP/E 36.105 or higher when processing
>the subject target and dlib zone, then it is perfectly safe to use the
>UPGRADE command.
Thanks Kurt, for confirming that it should not be a problem. In the meantime I
found out that IBM had ordered V24 for us *without*
45 matches
Mail list logo
