On 12/1/22 8:34 am, Wayne Bickerdike wrote:
Fundi, now Rocket, bought a licence for MFNetdisk. Dave Crayford might know
if it's still available or in use.
We used it up for HSM ML2 until we purchased a second hand ATL. It was a
very innovative product and worked well. However, like all
Fundi, now Rocket, bought a licence for MFNetdisk. Dave Crayford might know
if it's still available or in use.
I used the free version for a while, it was a great concept.
On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 10:18 AM PINION, RICHARD W. <
rpin...@firsthorizon.com> wrote:
> Let's not forget Shai Hess's
I've asked, and they only do FC, with a series of PCIe cards.
https://www.synology.com/en-us/compatibility?search_by=category=fc_host_bus_adapters=1_log_p=1
On Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 10:24 PM Radoslaw Skorupka
wrote:
>
> Does it support CKD volumes and FICON connectivity?
>
>
> --
> Radoslaw
Let's not forget Shai Hess's MFNetDisk. I don't think it's available anymore.
But, I used it extensively from 2010 to 2016.
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of
Radoslaw Skorupka
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 5:32 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
W dniu 10.01.2022 o 13:00, Colin Paice pisze:
Having a playful and inquiring mind, I wondered if it was possible to get
HSM etc to work with a Network Attached Storage box (Synology). For
education - not production.
Colin
Yes and no.
1. Yes, you can configure your NAS as NFS (I hope so) and
Does it support CKD volumes and FICON connectivity?
--
Radoslaw Skorupka
Lodz, Poland
W dniu 08.01.2022 o 21:44, AbsKerneels pisze:
Why do you not just get yourself the latest SYNOLOGY device.
Cost much less and can do 10 times more :
https://www.synology.com/en-us/support/nas_selector
What is your MAXSYSTEMS value? There is a false lock contention penalty
when your MAXSYSTEMS value exceeds 7 or 23. Of course your MAXSYSTEMS has
to match the actual number of parallel sysplex members :) Also what is
your false lock contention rate? 1% is typically acceptable though it
really
I can't remember other than it was only around 10 lines. I think just
variable access and some simple calculations.
On 1/11/2022 10:47 AM, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
What didn't your "small performance test" do?
--
For IBM-MAIN
(Subject: and content trimmed.)
On Tue, 11 Jan 2022 09:41:23 -0800, Tom Brennan wrote:
>...
>finally pushed me over: I ran a small performance test and Rexx beat
>CLIST by about 1000 times if I remember correctly. So I pulled out the
>Rexx manuals.
>
Back in the day when fiche was available
Nice! Now do CLIST
Ok, just joking. I was probably the last person on my block to switch
from CLIST to Rexx when it became available on MVS. A simple thing
finally pushed me over: I ran a small performance test and Rexx beat
CLIST by about 1000 times if I remember correctly. So I pulled
First thing I checked when the compile issues first appeared was to
check the loadlib's luckily they all are PDS/E's :)
I hate to assume all the V6 testing that was done before I was handed
this uncovered most of these issues.
I'm gonna try and research as much as I can so I can be
On Tue, 11 Jan 2022 11:18:55 -0600, Dave Jousma wrote:
>
>There might still be reason for a level of panic.
>
>COBOL V6 required PDS-E load libraries. If you are already PDSE everywhere,
>then no issue. Not hard to convert, but disruptive.
>CPU to compile COBOL V6 goes up
On Tue, 11 Jan 2022 11:00:35 -0600, Carmen Vitullo wrote:
>good to know !
>
>seems there's been a lot of panic here for no reason, now that all the
>programmers know we're using 6.2 COBOL compilers, ever issue they see is
>related, seems about right, seen this reaction at more than one site.
>
good to know !
seems there's been a lot of panic here for no reason, now that all the
programmers know we're using 6.2 COBOL compilers, ever issue they see is
related, seems about right, seen this reaction at more than one site.
all issues have been resolved so far even some that were not
Since 1990 (or so)
//COBEXEC PGM=IGYCRCTL,REGION=4M,COND=(4,LT),
// PARM=('CICS("COBOL3,SP")',
// APOST,NOSSRANGE,LIB,MAP,OFFSET)
//STEPLIB DD DISP=SHR,DSN=SYS1.IGY.SIGYCOMP
// DD DISP=SHR,DSN=CICSTS51.CICS.SDFHLOAD
Matthew
On
Thanks Peter, in a former company that's what I was use to also.
Carmen
On 1/11/2022 10:24 AM, Farley, Peter x23353 wrote:
Bummer. I can't imagine having my SDLC admin not be at least a semi-skilled
z/OS professional, or better yet a set of skilled professionals, but ours is a
very large
Bummer. I can't imagine having my SDLC admin not be at least a semi-skilled
z/OS professional, or better yet a set of skilled professionals, but ours is a
very large shop so that's what I'm used to having.
You have my deepest sympathy.
Peter
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe
that helps Greatly thanks so much Peter, I was thinking a major project
to rework the entire process.
unfortunately our Endeavor admin has very little mainframe or Endeavor
experience :(
thanks again
Carmen
On 1/11/2022 9:34 AM, Farley, Peter x23353 wrote:
Carmen,
Not *necessary* but
Carmen,
Not *necessary* but still usable. We are V6 also (6.2, not 6.3 yet), and with
4.2 going off support this year management made a strong push to prevent 4.2
modules (changes or additions) from going into production on a going-forward
basis. OTOH, we still have many production programs
All,
I can't reconcile RLS lock structure false lock contention between the various
SMS statistics records.
According to the type 42 subtype 17 we have a lot of false contention (field
SMF42HCC). However, our type 42 subtypes 15 (storage class response time) and
16 (dataset response time)
https://www.datacenterknowledge.com/manage/noops-it-operations-getting-closer-automated-future
Regards,
Mark Regan, K8MTR General, EN80tg
CTO1 USNR-Retired (1969-1991)
Nationwide Insurance, Retired, 1986-2017
z/OS Network Software Consultant (z NetView, z/OS Communications Server)
Contractor,
Well I just inherited COBOL support and our programmers have been trying to
debug an issue with CICS COBOL, seems Ent COBOL V4 was still being used in CICS
TS 5.4. the tool used is Endeavor, long story short, V6 was being tested in
some processes but never updated in others.
my question is
On 11.01.2022 14:06, David Crayford wrote:
> I've gone silent now Rony. But if you're a Windows user you may want to check
> out Measure-Command
> for PowerShell so you don't have to instrument your code with timers.
>
> [1]
>
I've gone silent now Rony. But if you're a Windows user you may want to
check out Measure-Command for PowerShell so you don't have to instrument
your code with timers.
[1]
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/powershell/module/microsoft.powershell.utility/measure-command?view=powershell-7.2
On
And here an example of ooRexx being used without any direct access to Java:
d1=.datetime~new /* take time */
"java squares"/* run command */
d2=.datetime~new /* take time */
say "duration:" d2-d1
The results of running this program are:
Now, if you want ooRexx to control an application and need to run the NetRexx
program from it, you
can do that with ooRexx (including timings) as such:
/* ooRexx solution to control execution of NetRexx' squares */
clz=bsf.loadClass("squares") /* load NetRexx' squares class */
/*
On 11.01.2022 05:46, David Crayford wrote:
> On 10/1/22 11:15 pm, Seymour J Metz wrote:
>>> ooRexx will never be high speed because it's implementation is
>>> fundamentally ineffecient.
>> That seems to be begging the question. Certainly the current implementation
>> is inefficient, but
>> what
On 10/1/22 11:28 pm, René Jansen wrote:
I find that a very interesting question - I think there is no real reason, and
that is one of the things CREXX is trying to prove.
I've already said enough in this thread. CREXX looks interesting and
fun. I'm happy to contribute.
For the other
28 matches
Mail list logo
