Peter Hunkeler wrote:
>> Wasn't this asked here recently? Check the archives.
>Sorry, I missed that one. My excuse is: Been on holiday :-)--
But does that discussion started by Rex Pommier relates to that two APARs?
Groete / Greetings
Elardus Engelbrecht
> Wasn't this asked here recently? Check the archives.
Sorry, I missed that one. My excuse is: Been on holiday :-)--
Peter Hunkeler
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to
On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 14:43:00 +0200, Peter Hunkeler wrote:
>Below text was posted on MXG-L recently. It made me curious, so I tired
>to read the APARs mentioned. Unfortunately, IBM's support site does not
>have them (for public access) anymore.
>Can someone shed some light on this? What was the
Peter Hunkeler wrote:
>Below text was posted on MXG-L recently. It made me curious, so I tired (sic)
>to read the APARs mentioned. Unfortunately, IBM's support site does not have
>them (for public access) anymore. Can someone shed some light on this? What
>was the original problem? Why did it
Below text was posted on MXG-L recently. It made me curious, so I tired to read
the APARs mentioned. Unfortunately, IBM's support site does not have them (for
public access) anymore.
Can someone shed some light on this? What was the original problem? Why did it
increase CPU time for many STCs
n
06/26/2017 07:24:37 AM:
> From: Barry Merrill <ba...@mxg.com>
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Date: 06/26/2017 03:38 PM
> Subject: FW: common storage usage question
> Sent by: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU>
>
> My 2003 Newsletter has t
g.com
tel: 214 351 1966
fax: 214 350 3694
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Vernooij, Kees (ITOPT1) - KLM
Sent: Monday, June 26, 2017 4:11 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: common storage usag
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
> Behalf Of Pommier, Rex
> Sent: 20 June, 2017 16:12
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: common storage usage question
>
> Hi all,
>
> Curiosity questio
> On Jun 20, 2017, at 3:37 PM, Ed Jaffe wrote:
>
> On 6/20/2017 8:24 AM, Jesse 1 Robinson wrote:
>> SWA is another candidate, but don't just move it up across the board without
>> some testing. Above the line can cause problems there.
>
> Of course SWA is private,
On 6/20/2017 8:24 AM, Jesse 1 Robinson wrote:
SWA is another candidate, but don't just move it up across the board without
some testing. Above the line can cause problems there.
Of course SWA is private, not common...
--
Edward E Jaffe
Phoenix Software International, Inc
831 Parkview Drive
On Tue, 20 Jun 2017 14:11:39 +, Pommier, Rex wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>Curiosity question. Due to some storage issues we've had
>recently with old 24 bit programs, I am revisiting our common
>storage configuration - CSA and SQA. Taking fragmentation
>into account, it appears that I'm using
⇐=== NEW
robin...@sce.com
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Roach, Dennis
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2017 8:12 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: (External):Re: common storage usage question
Things to consider
SQA can expand
8799
dennis.ro...@aig.com | www.aig.com
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Pommier, Rex
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2017 9:12 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: common storage usage question
Hi all,
Curiosity question.
Hi all,
Curiosity question. Due to some storage issues we've had recently with old 24
bit programs, I am revisiting our common storage configuration - CSA and SQA.
Taking fragmentation into account, it appears that I'm using about 38% of my
allocated SQA and about 46% of my allocated CSA.
14 matches
Mail list logo