You're incorrect, you don't need a coupling facility to share PDS/e, you can
(and I do at several sites) use FICON CTC's just as well, and in fact it's a
lot cheaper, (unless you already have a coupling facility installed in which
case it would be silly to not use it).
IBM does not require a
Cmg on the various codes
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t=web=j=https://www.cmg.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/the-what-and-why-of-system-z-millicode.pdf=2ahUKEwiVgKrnkNL7AhUeQzABHV6nCAEQFnoECBMQAQ=AOvVaw1z9331tDaCUEnXojJZXGMG
Rob Schramm
On Fri, Nov 25, 2022, 11:30 Seymour J Metz wrote:
> The
I vote with Brian.
Rob
On Mon, Nov 28, 2022, 16:34 Tom Marchant <
000a2a8c2020-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
> PDSE sharing is only supported within a Sysplex. XCF signalling is
> required to maintain
> integrity. When you say that PDSEs can be fully shared, I think you are
>
OK, so you are suggesting "DSN" as the prefix, "T" for Test or Training in the
fourth position, something else for the fifth character (or maybe Tx as a
2-character meaning of some kind in 4 and 5), and A/C/P for the language in the
sixth position. I can see that as a reasonable explanation.
Hello Peter,
IMO, the P in the name DSNTEP2 is because it is written in PL/1.
There are some other sample programs like DSNTIAD and DSNTIAUL, which
are written in ASSEMBLER,
that's why IMO the 6th letter depends on the programming language.
DSNTIAUL is heavily used at my customer's site to do
Cross posted to IBM-MAIN.
I asked this question earlier today over on DB2-L (the one run by IDB2UG), but
it later occurred to me that someone here might also know the answer to my
question.
Peter
_
From: Farley, Peter
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2022
On Wed, 23 Nov 2022 16:56:42 -0800, Leonard D Woren
wrote:
>You could have two members originally linked to different
>areas of the original PDS, decently utilizing 32K blocks. Now you
>IEBCOPY the data set and those two members end up one following one
>another in the target, and the
PDSE sharing is only supported within a Sysplex. XCF signalling is required to
maintain
integrity. When you say that PDSEs can be fully shared, I think you are
referring to
Extended Sharing, not Normal Sharing. Following is from
During normal activity the processing of the IOS050I message will be governed
by the MPFLSTxx setting which in your case means it will not be suppressed. If
Message Flood Automation detects that the IOS050I is part of a flood then the
MSGLFDxx settings will take effect - in your case the
Yeah, this all makes sense. Basically, the idea of APPLY is to build the
LMOD with everything that's been ACCEPTed or previously APPLYed to it.
SMP/E has enough information to reconstruct it from scratch if needed, but
will save itself the work of rebuilding the LMOD from the MODs if it
doesn't
During APPLY processing SMP/E may or may not include the existing load module
when replacing MODs. If the load module does not actually exist in the target
library, or if the LMOD entry has any CALLLIBS subentries, then the load module
is constructed from scratch, including all of the MODs
Classification: Confidential
I would share devices at the physical level (all devices can be brought online
to any LPAR)
I would not share those devices at the logical level (all devices are offline
where not normally used).
HTH,
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
12 matches
Mail list logo
