Sorry for the late reply.
The problem was that it wanted to use a RACF function that wasn't
available in RAKF (the MVS user developed equivalent).
So I reassembled the code and found where the problem was and zapped it.
It will be available in the next Hercules TK5 update, I believe.
I do
On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 10:22:43PM +1000, Clement Clarke wrote:
> That is my recollection, too. MVS is when SVC99 appeared.
>
> Recently, I was looking at the source code for IEHMOVE to allow IEHMOVE to
> run under Hercules, and it uses DAIR.
Is that under some MVS system under Hercules? Why
c87-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2024 8:22 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: VTOCs vs. catalogs
That is my recollection, too. MVS is when SVC99 appeared.
Recently, I was looking at the source code for IEHMOVE to allow IEHMOVE to
run under Hercules, and i
Je suis absent le 29 mai 2024 après-midi.
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
That is my recollection, too. MVS is when SVC99 appeared.
Recently, I was looking at the source code for IEHMOVE to allow IEHMOVE to
run under Hercules, and it uses DAIR.
I think RESTORE was mentioned too, but I am not 100%. I didn't attempt to
find out any more.
Clem Clarke
On Tue, May 28,
Well, thanks. This has been interesting, with at least the typical amount of
thread drift!
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
arc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu>
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2024 7:50 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: VTOCs vs. catalogs
On Mon, 27 May 2024 23:21:43 +, Seymour J Metz wrote:
>Restore?
>
>My recollection is that DIRF came before TSO. Besides, SVC 99 *IS* Allocation.
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of
Tony Harminc
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2024 8:44 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: VTOCs vs. catalogs
On Mon, 27 May 2024 at 19:50, Paul Gilmartin <
042bfe9c879d-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
> On Mon, 27 May 2024 23:21
On Mon, 27 May 2024 at 19:50, Paul Gilmartin <
042bfe9c879d-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
> On Mon, 27 May 2024 23:21:43 +, Seymour J Metz wrote:
>
> >Restore?
> >
> >My recollection is that DIRF came before TSO. Besides, SVC 99 *IS*
> Allocation.
> >
> I k ow SVC 99 *IS*
On Mon, 27 May 2024 23:21:43 +, Seymour J Metz wrote:
>Restore?
>
>My recollection is that DIRF came before TSO. Besides, SVC 99 *IS* Allocation.
>
I k ow SVC 99 *IS* Allocation. That's why I thought of it.
TSO?
>IAC, all it took wasalllocating a new dataset to get the cleanup:
>
Monday, May 27, 2024 6:46 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: VTOCs vs. catalogs
On Mon, 27 May 2024 21:34:31 +, Seymour J Metz wrote:
>Yes, Allocation did the cleanup for the DIRF bit.
>
Why didn't Restore just SVC 99 to automate the process?
___
On Mon, 27 May 2024 21:34:31 +, Seymour J Metz wrote:
>Yes, Allocation did the cleanup for the DIRF bit.
>
Why didn't Restore just SVC 99 to automate the process?
_
>From: Tom Brennan
>Sent: Monday, May 27, 2024 4:48 PM
>
>I think I remember the DIRF
:48 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: VTOCs vs. catalogs
I think I remember the DIRF bit. That happened when I would, for
example, run a DFDSS full volume backup of a mod-3 and restore to a
mod-9, and there was a warning message indicating I needed to allocate a
dataset in order to force
on.gmu.edu/~smetz3
עַם יִשְׂרָאֵל חַי
נֵ֣צַח יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל לֹ֥א יְשַׁקֵּ֖ר
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of Charles
Mills
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2024 1:26 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: VTOCs vs. catalogs
I started my first pr
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of
Charles Mills
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2024 1:26 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: VTOCs vs. catalogs
I started my first professional programming job in January of 1969, working
with DOS/360. DLBL, EXTENT and TLBL cards existed but the
mYhlKrybn9x-ZmPbEvXi4Bs6_XiPY2ZhFGYLeUDT9UAkXR_oj8hxsaGAyq44-tIbzxarxzELtlv1VpBXhbY/https%3A%2F%2Frsclweb.com
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of
>> Joel C. Ewing
>> Sent: 24 May 2024 06:02
>> To: IBM-MA
נֵ֣צַח יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל לֹ֥א יְשַׁקֵּ֖ר
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of
Steve Thompson
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2024 11:27 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: VTOCs vs. catalogs
If I remember correctly (since I started on DOS R26?) on a
S
(Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
עַם יִשְׂרָאֵל חַי
נֵ֣צַח יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל לֹ֥א יְשַׁקֵּ֖ר
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of
Joel C. Ewing
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2024 8:18 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: VTOCs vs
I remember a lecturer at IBM in London 1975 when I was taking a PL/I course.
He asked, "Why is VSAM like a cow in a meadow".
Answer : "Because they are both outstanding in their field".
Our company was still using ISAM and continued well past 1978. I first
encountered VSAM at IBM when I went to
PS/PO/Spool alike. OMVS did slightly better:
z/FS files can be allocated as if PS, and directories read (but not
written) by BPAM. And they are not supported as SYSEXEC or as
STEPLIB. And IEBGENER can't copy load modules. Not general.
TRANSMIT/RECEIVE handle PS/PO nicely, but not zFS.
This th
> What you described about VSAM is what I heard too, a replacement of the
then dominant access methods.
>
Wow -- I distinctly remember that goal. It really scared many of us
(customers and IBMers) and made some of us aware of the gaps between
"developers" and "users".
KSDS worked well to replace
, 2024 1:12 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: VTOCs vs. catalogs
On Fri, 24 May 2024 at 15:59, Farley, Peter <
031df298a9da-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu<mailto:031df298a9da-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu>>
wrote:
> In the mid-1970’s (or it may have been t
On Fri, 24 May 2024 at 15:59, Farley, Peter <
031df298a9da-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
> In the mid-1970’s (or it may have been the early 1980’s, the memory is
> fainter now) I took an operating systems overview class at a technical
> college nearby, and the instructor was an IBM
I didn't see where Lynn mentioned VSAM development, but several Future
Systems posts leading to
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Future_Systems_project , where it
became S38, AS/400, IBM i.
https://www.garlic.com/~lynn/index.html#archpost is his posts.
On Fri, May 24, 2024 at 7:36 PM rpinion865
What you described about VSAM is what I heard too, a replacement of the then
dominant access methods.
Sent from Proton Mail Android
Original Message
On 5/24/24 8:18 PM, Joel C. Ewing wrote:
> VSAM KSDS datasets were a clear win as a replacement for Indexed
> Sequental
VSAM KSDS datasets were a clear win as a replacement for Indexed
Sequental (ISAM) datasets when adding large numbers of keyed records. I
saw cases where a KSDS implementation literally ran two orders of
magnitude faster than ISAM and also took less DASD space, because ISAM
required that
@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: VTOCs vs. catalogs
On Thu, 23 May 2024 22:24:06 -0500, Mike Schwab wrote:
>
>VSAM came from the Future Systems development as a complete
>replacement, Lynn Wheeler has posts about that.
>It was cut back to be an addition to MVS, then combined with CVO
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of Tom
Marchant <000a2a8c2020-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu>
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2024 1:54 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: VTOCs vs. catalogs
Even earlier, in November, 1966,
https://bitsavers.org/pdf/i
Hi Tony,
I meant that the (DEFINE) SPACE would be similar to a PDS and the
SUBALLOCATED Clusters would be similar to members
in that PDS (SPACE).
Regards,
David
On 2024-05-24 14:26, Tony Harminc wrote:
On Fri, 24 May 2024 at 11:31, David Spiegel <
On Fri, 24 May 2024 at 11:31, David Spiegel <
0468385049d1-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
> Hi Rex,
> VVDSs came with ICF. Before that, VSAM Clusters were ALLOCATED as either
> SUBALLOCATION or UNIQUE.
> SUBALLOCATION meant that the user ALLOCATED a "cloud" (i.e. DEFINE
> SPACE) to
t;נֵ֣צַח יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל לֹ֥א יְשַׁקֵּ֖ר
>
>
>From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of
>Lennie Bradshaw
>Sent: Friday, May 24, 2024 12:53 PM
>To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
>Subject: Re: VTOCs vs. catalogs
>
>VTOCs were introduced in a release of DOS/VS aft
Having the information about the contents of a volume on the volume itself
allows the volume to be used on more than one system. If that information was
stored in the catalog, that would not be practical.
DASD devices were not nearly as reliable as they are today, even without RAID.
When a
ל לֹ֥א יְשַׁקֵּ֖ר
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of
Lennie Bradshaw
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2024 12:53 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: VTOCs vs. catalogs
VTOCs were introduced in a release of DOS/VS after the one we were using. We
defi
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of
Michael Watkins
Sent: 24 May 2024 15:00
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: VTOCs vs. catalogs
Yes, absolutely. MVS systems were becoming larger and creating backups was
becoming an issue. Backing up to physical tape
: Re: VTOCs vs. catalogs
They say that the memory is the scond thing to go; I can't remember the first.
From DOS/VS Data Management Guide
<http://bitsavers.org/pdf/ibm/370/DOS_VS/Rel_29_Nov73/GC33-5372-2_DOS_VS_Data_Management_Guide_Rel_29_Nov73.pdf>
"In order to locate any part
Or one dataset on 59 DASD volumes. Get one out of order you might
have problems.
On Fri, May 24, 2024 at 8:21 AM billogden wrote:
>
> Subject: Re: VTOCs vs. catalogs
> > I'm curious whether any of you old-timers can explain why we have both
> VTOCs and catalogs.
>
> Ple
Of
David Spiegel
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2024 9:33 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: VTOCs vs. catalogs
Hi Rex,
You said: "...I never worked with either CVOLs or VSAM catalogs ..." If I may take the
Bible out of context, please see: DE 32:7 זְקֵנֶ֖יךָ וְיֹ֥אמְרוּ
-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of
Joel C. Ewing
Sent: 24 May 2024 06:02
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: VTOCs vs. catalogs
VTOCs did come first. The original DOS/360 Operating System did not have catalogs.
VTOCs contain not only information about physica
M-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: VTOCs vs. catalogs
On Thu, 23 May 2024 22:24:06 -0500, Mike Schwab wrote:
>
>VSAM came from the Future Systems development as a complete
>replacement, Lynn Wheeler has posts about that.
>It was cut back to be an addition to MVS, then combined with
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: VTOCs vs. catalogs
Hi Rex,
You said: "...I never worked with either CVOLs or VSAM catalogs ..." If I may
take the Bible out of context, please see: DE 32:7 זְקֵנֶ֖יךָ וְיֹ֥אמְרוּ לָֽךְ
"... Remember the days of old, Con
On Thu, 23 May 2024 22:24:06 -0500, Mike Schwab wrote:
>
>VSAM came from the Future Systems development as a complete
>replacement, Lynn Wheeler has posts about that.
>It was cut back to be an addition to MVS, then combined with CVOL
>catalogs to ICF.
>
"complete replacement" of what,
: Friday, May 24, 2024 10:44 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: VTOCs vs. catalogs
VVDS came with DFDS. ICF and קריעת תחת came with DF/EF. Things got better with
DFP and DFSMS.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
עַם יִשְׂרָאֵל חַי
נֵ֣צַח יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל
of
Pommier, Rex
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2024 10:12 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: VTOCs vs. catalogs
Hi David,
This is the part I was commenting on. " Then came VSAM (and VVDS?) and VSAM
Catalogs,...". I took that comment as being Dave guessing tha
y 24, 2024 8:55 AM
To:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: VTOCs vs. catalogs
Hi Rex,
"...Followed by SMS and VVDS for non-VSAM datasets ..."
This was meant (AFAIK) to state that VVDS for Non-VSAMs came into use with
SMS-Controlled DASD Volumes.
It is also true that VVDSs were
On Fri, 24 May 2024 09:21:30 -0400, billogden wrote:
>
>Please note that you can have datasets with exactly the same name on
>different volumes, but only one can be cataloged. This was (and might still
>be) a common practice for sysprogs who try to maintain a system. (I still do
>it when it is
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of
Joel C. Ewing
Sent: 24 May 2024 06:02
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: VTOCs vs. catalogs
VTOCs did come first. The original DOS/360 Operating System did not have catalogs.
VTOCs contain not only information about physical locat
ver worked with either CVOLs or VSAM
catalogs but I was pretty sure the VVDS came along with the ICF.
Rex
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of
David Spiegel
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2024 8:55 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: VTOCs vs. catalo
.
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of
David Spiegel
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2024 8:55 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: VTOCs vs. catalogs
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the Texas Comptroller's email
system.
DO NOT click links or open
Mainframe Discussion List On
Behalf Of Mike Schwab
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2024 8:24 PM
To:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: VTOCs vs. catalogs
[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
For the most part the catalog lets you locate your dataset no matter
which volume you put it on.
For non-vsam, that is about all that
Didn't the VVDS come along with the ICF catalog structure?
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of
Gibney, Dave
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2024 10:32 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: VTOCs vs. catalogs
All speculation on my part. One
Subject: Re: VTOCs vs. catalogs
> I'm curious whether any of you old-timers can explain why we have both
VTOCs and catalogs.
Please note that you can have datasets with exactly the same name on
different volumes, but only one can be cataloged. This was (and might still
be) a common pract
, May 24, 2024 6:02 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: VTOCs vs. catalogs
When I started on IBM System/370 the shop I was at used DOS/VS. DOS/VS at that
time did not have VTOCs. We used //DLBL statements in JCL which specified the
exact locations of datasets on disk. This changed with
to merge these.
It would probably break too many existing interfaces though.
Lennie Dymoke-Bradshaw
https://rsclweb.com
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of
Joel C. Ewing
Sent: 24 May 2024 06:02
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: VTOCs vs. catalogs
W dniu 24.05.2024 o 04:32, Phil Smith III pisze:
I'm curious whether any of you old-timers can explain why we have both VTOCs
and catalogs. I'm guessing it comes down to (a) VTOCs
came first and catalogs were added to solve some problem (what?) and/or (b)
catalogs were added to save some I/O
Thanks! You answered my questions. I always figured there was a time
before catalogs, when I assume you had to code VOL=SER= on everything,
but that was before my time. And I was trying to remember the CVOL
method. I started with ICFCAT's but come to think of it, there may have
been one or
VSAM catalog was released in 1974 in OS/VS2 R2, prior to that the catalog
was CVOL (dsname SYSCTLG with BLKSIZE=256 and KEYLEN=8). The SYSRES volume
was the primary SYSCTLG but could be linked to CVOL on other volumes. The
"new" VSAM catalog in 1974 was a big improvement.
On Fri, May 24, 2024
VTOCs did come first. The original DOS/360 Operating System did not
have catalogs. VTOCs contain not only information about physical
location and organization of datasets on the volume but also (for OS/360
and its MVS and z/OS descendants) contains a list of all the free
extents on the
nframe Discussion List On
> Behalf Of Mike Schwab
> Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2024 8:24 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: VTOCs vs. catalogs
>
> [EXTERNAL EMAIL]
>
> For the most part the catalog lets you locate your dataset no matter which
> vol
For the most part the catalog lets you locate your dataset no matter
which volume you put it on.
For non-vsam, that is about all that is stored, dataset
characteristics are in the VTOC.
And with non-SMS volumes you can have uncataloged datasets on DASD or tape.
VSAM came from the Future Systems
I'm curious whether any of you old-timers can explain why we have both VTOCs
and catalogs. I'm guessing it comes down to (a) VTOCs
came first and catalogs were added to solve some problem (what?) and/or (b)
catalogs were added to save some I/O and/or memory, back
when a bit of those mattered.
60 matches
Mail list logo
