Re: Already logged on message - Wrong System ID

Jake, Some additional details will help Are you using a session manager? Are you logging on with an APPL (LOGON APPL() ) command? Have you verified your definitions for the two lpars are set up correctly? Did you code LPAR1 Appl for LPAR2 and so forth? Please provide a display of your

Re: Already logged on message - Wrong System ID

Dr Alan Scherr was the primary designer of TSO, and the team was working late nights (to get better response!). Late on the night when the product was due to be delivered to PID for shipment, he had gone out for dinner, and when he came back, he logged on but was receiving no messages back at

Re: SMF type 89 records reporting RMF usage

RMF will be in the PRODFEAT fields of TYPE89-2 (PDB.TYPE892 in MXG) but SCRT does not read that field and SCRT does not report that fields. In the same records, the PRODREGS should be zero if you are not using RMF. Al Sherkow, I/S Management Strategies, Ltd. Consulting Expertise on IBM Workload

Re: Error in a simple COBOL program

For my TSO test I did a DDLIST and freed the SYSIN allocation. Once that was done I executed my program: TSO CALL 'DVFJS.APPLIB.LOAD(ACC)'. The following are the results: IEC130I SYSINDD STATEMENT MISSING IGZ0017S The open of DISPLAY or ACCEPT file with environment name SYSIN was

Re: Error in a simple COBOL program

Touché. Charles -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Tom Marchant Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2016 5:50 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Error in a simple COBOL program On Tue, 12 Jul 2016 14:19:26 -0700,

Re: Error in a simple COBOL program

I can't see to find the original post that started all of this. Can someone find it and quote it here? The reason I ask is I swear that the original issue was a compile time issue, not a run-time issue. Or perhaps I'm mixing up two different conversations. FWIW, I'm going to see what

Re: Already logged on message - Wrong System ID

What level of z/OS? If you create unique ISPF Datasets for things like PROFILE You look at IKJTSOxx in SYS1.PARMLIB for LOGONHERE You make sure you have SHR On those files that can be shared between LPARs in a plex. And review the TSO Customization manual for logging on to more than one system

Re: Already logged on message - Wrong System ID

Hi Liz, "Did you logon to LPAR2 and forget to logoff when you tried to logon to LPAR1?" You are correct.. So this become a pain when we try to logon other LPARs in sysplex without being aware of Our ID logged on to the other System. On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 7:01 PM, Lizette Koehler

Re: Considering Enterprise COBOL 5.2 "exit" enhancements

Frank, It should be quite easy to achieve what you want by introducing user-written FUNCTIONs, callable by name [i.e. NOT via CALL "xyz" verb] Consider the below code: PERFORM PROCESS-MY-RECORD UNTIL GET-NEXT-REC(NEXT-RECORD) = 0 END-PERFORM Here GET-NEXT-REC is a FUNCTION name which

Re: Error in a simple COBOL program

I not sure of the z/OS or OS/390 level he might be working on or the level of the compiler. That might make the difference Lizette > -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On > Behalf Of Frank Swarbrick > Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2016

Re: Any Gotchas going from V1.13 to V2.2

On 7/14/2016 5:11 AM, Peter Relson wrote: Any idea how it will perform in a zIIP/zAAPles hardcapped environment Poorly. zIIP is recommended for any Java-based workload. I do not think of the recommendation has having to do with performance, instead having to do with cost. (although perhaps

Re: Considering Enterprise COBOL 5.2 "exit" enhancements

Indeed, Victor, you are quite correct! And as soon as Enterprise COBOL supports user-written functions I will start using them! FWIW, I don't think your code would work as-in even then, because END-PERFORM is only for inline performs, but you are doing an "out of line" perform. You'd really

Re: Already logged on message - Wrong System ID

On 7/14/2016 1:08 PM, Jesse 1 Robinson wrote: Absolutely. My logon proc contains this: //ISPPROF DD DISP=SHR,DSN=TSOSKIP.$SYS This DD resolves correctly on each member of the plex. I must respectfully disagree with my good friend, the distinguished gentleman from the great state of

Re: Error in a simple COBOL program

Certainly anything is possible. I used Enterprise COBOL 4.2 for my tests. From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of Lizette Koehler Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2016 10:29 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU

Re: Already logged on message - Wrong System ID

Yes, You could do internet searches to get better details. Use phrases like TSO MULTILOGON TSO MULTI LOGON ISPF SHARED LOGON ISPF SHARED And so forth. Try looking in www.ibm.com For more details as well. Lizette > -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List

Re: Considering Enterprise COBOL 5.2 "exit" enhancements

Yes, thanks for catching the wrong END-PERFORM, I meant to suggest this - PERFORM UNTIL GET-NEXT-REC(NEXT-RECORD) = 0 END-PERFORM As far as updating parameters passed to functions - there is no real functional difference between passing parameters to functions vs called subroutines as

Re: Mainframe Testing

>> Can anybody tell me about Mainframe testing Our QA uses Rational Functional Tester. See: http://www-03.ibm.com/software/products/en/functional -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to

Re: Already logged on message - Wrong System ID

During the course of setting up z/OSMF 2.1/2.2, I learned that there is now an option to actually share a single profile dataset. This is needed for z/OSMF ISPF interface where the web access would otherwise clash with the same user logged on to TSO on the same system. This of course introduces

Re: Already logged on message - Wrong System ID

Absolutely. My logon proc contains this: //ISPPROF DD DISP=SHR,DSN=TSOSKIP.$SYS This DD resolves correctly on each member of the plex. . . . J.O.Skip Robinson Southern California Edison Company Electric Dragon Team Paddler SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager 323-715-0595 Mobile 626-302-7535 Office

Re: Already logged on message - Wrong System ID

I should qualify my statement about the 'need' to use SHRPROF with z/OSMF. When entering ISPF under z/OSMF, you must specify a logon proc. If you specify the same proc that you use on native TSO, you would probably get a profile clash. But for z/OSMF you could create an alternate proc that

Re: Already logged on message - Wrong System ID

Hi, It is a system wide defaults they have set and I am not sure if I can modify. So from a Userid individual perspective. Can i control my ISPFPROF allocation by having ? On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 9:50 PM, Jesse 1 Robinson wrote: > During the course of setting up

Re: Error in a simple COBOL program

Several people pointed me to the OP. Thank you. Thanks. I'm guessing the student was scared off my the topic diversion, but anyway... I just tested what the student posted, but I am not getting identical results. Firstly, the student ran the "compile/link/GO" procedure. And yes, the

Re: Any Gotchas going from V1.13 to V2.2

Well, yes, I hardcap my 28 MSU capable z9 and 16 MSU to save software costs. I have no JAVA production workload. The current crop of JAVA infrastructure for support (CA-CSM, z/OSMF) do not run well :) And any argument to increase the cap, with the resulting increase in z/OS, Cobol, CICS charges

Re: CERTAUTH vs SITE vs user certificate

I could be wrong and I did use CERTAUTH inappropriately (should have been SITE) in the past. I use: CERTAUTH to sign other certs. SITE for SERVERS User for users :) > -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] > On Behalf Of Phil Smith III

CERTAUTH vs SITE vs user certificate

I've never understood how you choose between adding a certificate as CERTAUTH, SITE, or user. And not having a lot of luck Googling for it. Can anyone describe the choice, or point me at something coherent? Thanks. -- For

Re: SMF type 89 records reporting RMF usage

I suspect you mean MULC and not SCRT. We had a similar issue. Once we disabled RMF in IFA it stopped reporting in the MULC Software Summary Report section... I don't remember this being about usage but it showing up in Summary Report ... this back in 2010... Sent from my Verizon

Re: OA49677: Safe Cross-Memory POST

They preserve regs 2 - 13 as opposed to killing everything besides 9 > On Jul 14, 2016, at 3:31 PM, Ed Jaffe wrote: > > After 42 years, MVS now provides a service to safely perform cross-memory > POST. > > Hallelujah! >:o > >

Re: OA49677: Safe Cross-Memory POST

And railroad syntax diagrams to boot! V2R2 only, or ... ? Charles -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Ed Jaffe Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2016 12:31 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: OA49677: Safe Cross-Memory POST

Re: Considering Enterprise COBOL 5.2 "exit" enhancements

Hi Victor. It looks like you are correct. My concern was that in some programming languages, function parameters cannot (per the language specification) be changed by the function. Of course we know COBOL does not have that "restriction" for programs, and it does look like it also does not

OA49677: Safe Cross-Memory POST

After 42 years, MVS now provides a service to safely perform cross-memory POST. Hallelujah! >:o http://publibz.boulder.ibm.com/zoslib/pdf/OA49677.pdf -- Edward E Jaffe Phoenix Software International, Inc 831 Parkview Drive North El Segundo, CA 90245 http://www.phoenixsoftware.com/

Re: [EXTERNAL]Re: SMF type 89 records reporting RMF usage

The issue was in an IBM software audit ... in addition to the SCRT reports, which did not report on RMF, the audit required us to run Usage Reports. @ the time we had 3 separate environments - two of them had RMF enabled in IFAPRD00, the 3rd plex did not. There was usage listed on one of the

Re: [EXTERNAL]Re: SMF type 89 records reporting RMF usage

Are all references to RMF libraries also removed...are you using SDSF? Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone Original message From: "Tobleman, Vicky" Date: 07/14/2016 3:35 PM (GMT-05:00) To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU

Considering Enterprise COBOL 5.2 "exit" enhancements

Well, "way to stay on-topic". :-) I should have left the discussion in the "now impossible to determine (so more interesting) S0C1 in COBOL" topic. I was going to wait for Frank's comment, then realised he'd already posted the same code. I thought we'd agreed "always check the file status".

Re: Error in a simple COBOL program

Yep a 1 a 1 in hex,dec, Oct. On Tuesday, July 12, 2016, Steve Thompson wrote: > On 07/12/2016 05:27 PM, Bill Woodger wrote: > >> Well, I guess my question was, then, is the 1 in PIC 1, base 10 or base >> 16? I now know it to be base 16. I think. >> >>

Re: SMF type 89 records reporting RMF usage

After some research... I am starting to think this might be the case. It appears we had RMF enabled in IFAPRD00, but were not running it. We are running CMF. Can a SMF type 89 record indicating RMF use be cut under these circumstances?

Re: SMF type 89 records reporting RMF usage

Hi Peter, I think it still goes back to the original contract that has you entitled to RMF, so I would check that first. Best regards, Cheryl -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Peter Ten Eyck Sent: Thursday, July 14,

Re: Already logged on message - Wrong System ID

On 7/14/2016 1:26 PM, Tom Conley wrote: On 7/14/2016 1:08 PM, Jesse 1 Robinson wrote: Absolutely. My logon proc contains this: //ISPPROF DD DISP=SHR,DSN=TSOSKIP.$SYS This DD resolves correctly on each member of the plex. I must respectfully disagree with my good friend, the distinguished

Re: Error in a simple COBOL program

It is quite possible the OP is running with different LE options. For example, the TRAP option controls some aspects of LE error trapping. (There are others that govern things like SPIE processing). If LE does not "trap" the abend, and z/OS is allowed to process it, you will probably see some

Re: Already logged on message - Wrong System ID

Here it is again, but now with quotes around the JCL ... Update and submit the following JCL, but from a different LPAR and on which you can logon: '/*ROUTE XEQ ' '//*'

Re: Already logged on message - Wrong System ID

Update and submit the following JCL, but from a different LPAR and on which you can logon: /*ROUTE XEQ //* //* //* ISSUE MVS COMMANDS IN BATCH

ISPF Extended Stats and NFS

(I posted this to ISPF-L a few days ago and got no replies. But I remain curious, so I'll try here. Perhaps IBMTCP-L or even MVS-OE would be better?) I was mildly surprised that when I create PDSE members via the z/OS 2.2 NFS server, then display them with "ls" on a Solaris workstation, the

Re: Already logged on message - Wrong System ID

2 of my faves. Thanks for posting for the group. If you haven't seen these recently, you should! zNorman -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Tom Conley Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2016 2:25 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU

Re: Considering Enterprise COBOL 5.2 "exit" enhancements

Gee, Bill, you really know how to drag a "good idea" down! :-) But seriously, I think everything you have said is unfortunately true. :-( It's worth noting that the latest COBOL standard(s) do allow for both BIT (PIC 1 BIT) and DISPLAY (PIC 1 DISPLAY) (and probably NATIONAL as well) fields,

Re: Error in a simple COBOL program

For what its worth, I just ran it (in batch) with TRAP(OFF,NOSPIE) and I still don't get a S0C1 (or any different result at all, that I can see). From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of Bill Hitefield

Re: Error in a simple COBOL program

Is your LE configured to allow run-time overrides? If it is, and your overrides were honored by LE, then this is a good example of one of the aspects of LE that still causes me to shake my head. Given that one of the "fundamentals" of our industry is the repeatability of a symptom (i.e., if a

Re: CERTAUTH vs SITE vs user certificate

Dave Gibney wrote: >I could be wrong and I did use CERTAUTH inappropriately (should have been SITE) in the past. >I use: >CERTAUTH to sign other certs. >SITE for SERVERS >User for users :) I like this, Dave-it's certainly coherent and *sounds* logical! So: CERTAUTH - root certs SITE

Re: OA49677: Safe Cross-Memory POST

On 7/14/2016 12:40 PM, Joseph Reichman wrote: They preserve regs 2 - 13 as opposed to killing everything besides 9 Indeed they do! It's a far more "civilized" service than poor old POST. :) And, for the record, I'm not sure why you've suddenly decided to start using your real name when

Re: Error in a simple COBOL program

Yes: IGZ0017S The open of DISPLAY or ACCEPT file with environment name SYSIN was unsuccessful. From compile unit CALC1000 at entry point CALC1000 at compile unit offset +03CA at entry offset +03CA at address 0E8003CA. Options Report for Enclave CALC1000 07/14/16

Already logged on message - Wrong System ID

Hello, I am trying to access one of an LPAR1 within a sysplex. Where I get a message as you already logged on to LPAR1. When I have someone to check my ID from other system its shows that My ID is active in LPAR2. We have MIM but we have not enabled Parallel Logon facility serialization. I am

Re: Any Gotchas going from V1.13 to V2.2

>> Any idea how it will perform in a zIIP/zAAPles hardcapped environment >Poorly. zIIP is recommended for any Java-based workload. I do not think of the recommendation has having to do with performance, instead having to do with cost. (although perhaps there's an aspect of "hardcapped" that

Re: Already logged on message - Wrong System ID

On Thu, 14 Jul 2016 17:08:28 +0530, Jake Anderson wrote: >I am trying to access one of an LPAR1 within a sysplex. Where I get a >message as you already logged on to LPAR1. When I have someone to check my >ID from other system its shows that My ID is active in LPAR2. We cannot help you to

Re: Considering Enterprise COBOL 5.2 "exit" enhancements

On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 11:35 PM, Edward Gould wrote: > > —SNIP > > ALTER is bad because its not obvious when you look at a piece of code > where it might actually branch to. > > > > Alter has *ALWAYS* been bad. > > Ed > >

Re: Any Gotchas going from V1.13 to V2.2

We had an issue with dataspace and aleentries, using aleserv-macros. What was it? Per default there are about 510 entries in the ale-list. Every ale-entry must be deleted explicitly, as stated int the IBM-description. Up to zOS 1.13 , when deleting a dataspace, the ale-entries were deleted

Considering Enterprise COBOL 5.2 "exit" enhancements

Why has ALTER always been bad? Because of the potential scope of things that you can do with it, or because COBOL programmers will ignore or be unaware of any "best practice" for using it, or something else? If either of the first two, then away goes "EXIT PARAGRAPH/SECTION" into the

Re: Size default in CEEPRMxx V5R1

Thanks Tom. Too late for migrate to V5R2. We're out of date. Regards -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Any Gotchas going from V1.13 to V2.2

W dniu 2016-07-13 o 21:52, Ward, Mike S pisze: Hello all, we will be migrating from V1.13 of z/OS to V2.2 in the next couple of months. Is anyone aware of any gotchas that we need to look out for? Root filesystem is big. It is less than 4GB, but close to. So, you may want to allocate it as

Re: OA49677: Safe Cross-Memory POST

> V2R2 only, or ... ? APPLICABLE COMPONENT LEVEL/SU: R7A0 PSY UA82016 UP16/06/29 P F606 R790 PSY UA82017 UP16/06/29 P F606 Jim Mulder z/OS System Test IBM Corp. Poughkeepsie, NY -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff /

Re: [EXTERNAL]Re: SMF type 89 records reporting RMF usage

[Default] On 14 Jul 2016 12:45:43 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main vicky.toble...@americannational.com (Tobleman, Vicky) wrote: >The issue was in an IBM software audit ... in addition to the SCRT reports, >which did not report on RMF, the audit required us to run Usage Reports. @ >the time we

Re: [EXTERNAL]Re: SMF type 89 records reporting RMF usage

Well - now we have RMF disabled in IFAPRD00. We have deleted all start up PROCS and are working to identify TSO panels and batch jobs as well as any remaining RMF load modules. Yes we are using SDSF. -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List

Re: Any Gotchas going from V1.13 to V2.2

[Default] On 14 Jul 2016 10:41:38 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main edja...@phoenixsoftware.com (Ed Jaffe) wrote: >On 7/14/2016 5:11 AM, Peter Relson wrote: Any idea how it will perform in a zIIP/zAAPles hardcapped environment >>> Poorly. zIIP is recommended for any Java-based workload. >> I

Re: Error in a simple COBOL program

(Sorry if this is a duplicate post. I think I messed up and lost my response during my initial attempt to post) It is quite possible the OP is running with different LE options. For example, the TRAP option controls some aspects of LE error trapping. (There are others that govern things like

Re: [EXTERNAL]Re: SMF type 89 records reporting RMF usage

Yeah if you have MXG there's ANAL30DD PROC that will point out pgms and EXCPs. With slight modification could only look for ERB* modules. In a message dated 7/14/2016 4:33:43 P.M. Central Daylight Time, vicky.toble...@americannational.com writes: Well - now we have RMF disabled in

Re: Considering Enterprise COBOL 5.2 "exit" enhancements

Errr try fixing a program that uses alter at 0300. Nothing is clear through gritty eyes at that time of the AM. A company I worked at a while ago. I put in the standards manual never use ALTER and every team leader wanted it emblazened across every programmer forehead. Ed > On Jul 14, 2016,

Re: Any Gotchas going from V1.13 to V2.2

Dave Gibney wrote: >Well, yes, I hardcap my 28 MSU capable z9 and 16 MSU to save >software costs. Out of curiosity, why a *hard*cap if that's the motivation? Softcaps also do that. (So do lots of other things, such as upgrading to a z13s machine, upgrading to the latest release of DB2, using the

Re: Already logged on message - Wrong System ID

Don't really understand that JCL. What is the point of IEBGENER stuff there? Isn't the only DD-card of relevance the /*$VS 'CANCEL ' ? Wouldn't IEFBR14 do just as well? Why not the more modern // COMMAND syntax, avoiding the cumbersome $VS crap (and use C U= rather than the bigger hammer

Re: Any Gotchas going from V1.13 to V2.2

On 7/14/2016 2:29 PM, Clark Morris wrote: Would it make sense to make it a kneecapped 2 way with a zIIP? Are there areas where this would improve performance? Over the years, we have tried 1-way, 2-way, 3-way and 4-way. For our environment a 3-way + zIIP + ICF + IFL works best... --