On Mon, 22 Aug 2022 10:23:01 +0400 Peter wrote:
:>One of our online application started task got abended with S23E with
:>reason code 0.
:>Recently we swapped our production site with our DR site.
:>The person who supports that product believes that the system swap could be
:>a reason
You can also take a standalone dump and then use the
COPYCAPD subcommand of IPCS to extract a captured SVC Dump
from the standalone dump and write it to a data set.
Jim Mulder King of z/OS Dumping
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of
Barbara Nitz
Look at the SVC 3E trace entry in the dump. It shows R1 and the PSW at the
time.
Look at the key of R1 storage.
The minidump indicates that the DETACH was issued in key8.
Not clear to me why DETACH requires R/W access to the passed R1, but so it is.
On Mon, 22 Aug 2022 12:43:28 +0400 Peter
Hi
Is there any documentation available to review the below work exception
report that I got under RMF
Name Reason Critical val. Possible cause or action
z/OS 2.4
JES2 ENQ -SYSZJES2 12.0 % delay VERSION.00092B33
Regards
Jake
Hello
One of our online application started task got abended with S23E with
reason code 0.
Recently we swapped our production site with our DR site.
The person who supports that product believes that the system swap could be
a reason
But during swap all we did was upgrading our DR machine
What is they key of the storage? Certainly doesn't look like a TCB.
What was the PSW key when the DETACH was issued?
On Mon, 22 Aug 2022 12:14:30 +0400 Peter wrote:
:>1B10A920 E6C1D7C1 D9D47A6C C8F84040 40404040D7D3C9E2 E37A6CC8 F8404040
:>40404040 *WAPARM:%H8 PLIST:%H8
:>
:>This is
This is what I can see
IEA995I SYMPTOM DUMP OUTPUT 416
SYSTEM COMPLETION CODE=23E REASON CODE=
TIME=13.40.32 SEQ=03035 CPU=4000 ASID=00C2
PSW AT TIME OF ERROR 078C3000 8132DC5C ILC 4 INTC 04
NO ACTIVE MODULE FOUND
NAME=UNKNOWN
DATA AT PSW 0132DC56 - 10005070
1B10A920 E6C1D7C1 D9D47A6C C8F84040 40404040D7D3C9E2 E37A6CC8 F8404040
40404040 *WAPARM:%H8 PLIST:%H8
This is what I see in dump
On Mon, Aug 22, 2022, 11:57 AM Binyamin Dissen
wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Aug 2022 10:23:01 +0400 Peter wrote:
>
> :>One of our online application started task
Hi,
So, using
"call *(IDCAMS)"
is not an option?
Regards,
Jack
On Sat, 20 Aug 2022 at 21:28, Lizette Koehler
wrote:
> I think what I am having a challenge with is the STGADMN.IDC.DCOLLECT in
> Facility Class
>
> The UACC is NONE but the ACL has * READ
>
> The process creates the JCL
The SDSF Security Migration guide says OWNER, GPLEN and ISYS are not
applicable to SAF but the “clean up ISFPRMxx” section show them being
removed from ISFPRMxx.
If they are not applicable to SAF why are they being removed after
conversion to SAF?
The ISYS seems to be controlled by the SYSNAME
I forgot to mention that "IDCAMS" is included on the
SYS1.PARMLIB(IKJTSOxx)) AUTHPGM NAMES list
Regards
Jack
On Mon, 22 Aug 2022 at 13:53, Paul Gilmartin <
042bfe9c879d-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Aug 2022 11:46:17 +0100, Jack Zukt wrote:
> >
> >So, using
> >
> >"call
When under ISPF, I run the REXX from a SYSEXEC or SYSPROC DD concatenation
and it works fine.
Regards
Jack
On Mon, 22 Aug 2022 at 12:48, ITschak Mugzach wrote:
> As Walt noted, it requires APF authorization. I run my dcollect via
> SystemRexx (which is APF auth).
>
> ITschak
>
> ITschak
What is missing here? Ran SDSF in 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4 with full SAF
configuration. No issues in prior releases but getting the following with z/OS
2.5 and can't see where the issue is with group assignment.
ISF024I USER xxx NOT AUTHORIZED TO SDSF, NO GROUP ASSIGNMENT
Stc SDSF and SDSFAUX
As Walt noted, it requires APF authorization. I run my dcollect via
SystemRexx (which is APF auth).
ITschak
ITschak Mugzach
*|** IronSphere Platform* *|* *Information Security Continuous Monitoring
for z/OS, x/Linux & IBM I **| z/VM coming soon *
On Mon, Aug 22, 2022 at 1:46 PM Jack Zukt
On Mon, 22 Aug 2022 11:46:17 +0100, Jack Zukt wrote:
>
>So, using
>
>"call *(IDCAMS)"
>
>is not an option?
>
Doesn't TSO use the authorized fork for that?
--
gil
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access
On Mon, 22 Aug 2022 14:01:46 +0100, Jack Zukt wrote:
>I forgot to mention that "IDCAMS" is included on the
>SYS1.PARMLIB(IKJTSOxx)) AUTHPGM NAMES list
Yes, that would be required in order for your TSO CALL command to invoke IDCAMS
with APF-authorization.
--
Walt
On Mon, 22 Aug 2022 09:42:25 -0500, Walt Farrell wrote:
>>I forgot to mention that "IDCAMS" is included on the
>>SYS1.PARMLIB(IKJTSOxx)) AUTHPGM NAMES list
>
>Yes, that would be required in order for your TSO CALL command to invoke
>IDCAMS with APF-authorization.
>
Why is such specific
AFAIK, APF authorized pgms execute under TSO/E in a sister task to
IKJEFT09...the original IKJEFT09 task is in a wait until the APF authorized
pgm ends. Maybe the AUTHPGMS list in IKJEFTxx came into being as part of
that mechanism...
Mike
On Mon, Aug 22, 2022, 10:47 AM Paul Gilmartin <
https://knowledge.broadcom.com/external/article/51114/isf024i-user-acidname-not-authorized-to.html
Joe
On Mon, Aug 22, 2022 at 8:57 AM James, Joseph L. (CTR) <
04326c675d2d-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
> What is missing here? Ran SDSF in 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4 with full SAF
>
You can invoke an authorized command from the READY prompt or from ADDRESS TSO,
and you can invoke an authorized program with CALL, asdsuming that they are in
the relevant lists, but: "To invoke an *unauthorized* program from an exec, use
one of the link or attach host command environments that
I believe the documentation needs updating for both ISYS and OWNER as they can
be used to force users into specific ring-fenced settings when used alongside
denying the users access to the SYSNAME and OWNER commands.
I will get a doc update case created for this internally.
Rob Scott
Is the R1 address fetch protected? R1->A(TCB) with bit 0 a flag.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of
Binyamin Dissen [bdis...@dissensoftware.com]
Sent:
Apologies all for my misleading answer...
- KB
--- Original Message ---
On Monday, August 22nd, 2022 at 10:42 AM, Brian Westerman
wrote:
> I think that you will find that until you fix the problem with backing up the
> MCDS, that you won't be able to release the rest of the work
Many thanks for sharing everyone's thoughts on this matter. I think that there
are a lot of applications that could benefit from having access to the
capabilities of a GPU or two (or ten:-), maybe not as a replacement or
competitor for large Intel-based supercomputers, of course.
Do you have a SDSF class GROUP.groupname.servername profile? With 2.5,
you must have this to control who falls into which group.
On Mon, Aug 22, 2022 at 8:56 AM James, Joseph L. (CTR) <
04326c675d2d-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
> What is missing here? Ran SDSF in 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4
And were the last 2 records as follows:
.
---
. BROWSEDV.DARSTMF.V20030.Z221.BATCH.XMITLine 088572 Col
001 080
. Command ===> Scroll ===>
CSR
Hey Jake,
Even if you didn't get an ARC0745, I recommend following the steps of that
message. You need to see what your current backup copies are cataloged as. If
you don't have any, allocate as many as backup copies that you will be keeping.
Notice that you have to allocate them for the
In SDSF 2.5, the only criteria used to place a userid into a SDSF group is
their SAF authority to the GROUP.groupname profile in the SDSF class.
Previous releases would process any NTBL statements for keywords like IUID and
ILPROC when SAF gave an indeterminate response.
SDSF process the
It depends on the AMS function that you are using. Some AMS functions don't
have to be authorized, but others require APF authorization.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
Why do you say that? The CALL command is a very different animal from ADDRESS
LINKMVS.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of
Jack Zukt [jzuk...@gmail.com]
ok, maybe I just missed it, do you resolve your issue?
my ISRFIND shows IEBGENER in my linklist in the SYNCSORT LINKLIB, did
the vendor change the usermod to assign an alias rather than use the
IEBGERNER module name?
in my SYS1.LINKLIB IEBGENER is an alias of OLDGENER
maybe the usermod
correction:
in my SYS1.LINKLIB, IEBGENR is an alias of OLDGENER, since if SYNCGENER
cannot perform as IEBGENER it will call OLDGERNER IIRC
Carmen
On 8/22/2022 2:19 PM, Pommier, Rex wrote:
Answers embedded.
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of
I think that those IDCAMS verbs/functions that require authorisation can also
be run as TSO commands as long as the command name is present in the AUTHCMD
list. So if the requirement is to run DCOLLECT, an entry for DCOLLECT can be
placed in the AUTHCMD list. Then DCOLLECT can be run using
Peter
I am just trying to get all the memory object of the asid I am running in.
I am running the code in SRB mode
Before the IEAMSCHED takes off I verified that its was the asid the SRB
scheduled in
Thanks
STORASID DSH
F108DC F'108'
-Original Message-
From: IBM
Well, TSO Commands doesn't mention DCOLLECT.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of
Lennie Dymoke-Bradshaw [032fff1be9b4-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu]
No, it doesn't. Nor does it mention IMPORT, DEFINE or ALTER but these are
all TSO commands.
Lennie
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of
Seymour J Metz
Sent: 22 August 2022 23:17
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: rexx and IDCAMS functions
Well, TSO
I recall her writing that she was using ADDRESS LINKMVS IDCAMS, but not that
management was requiring her to do so. ADDRESS TSO "CALL *(IDCAMS)" and a RYO
authorized command are the only options that I'm aware of, and if management
allows neither then ...
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
IBM did make an attempt to 'offload' some workloads from z to Intel and System
p with the zBX. There weren't many takers for this. My 2 cents worth - using
the I/O drawers may impact power/cooling requirements and other infrastructure
within the z frame(s). Having onboard 'accelerators' on the
Hi list,
I don't know if this is specifically a Syncsort issue or a more generic
confusion about linklist datasets. Here goes.
We have the SYNCLINK library defined in the linklist. We have installed
Precisely's IEBGENER replacement as part of our install. We determined
SYNCLINK was too
I think the original linklist is still active, shutting down LLA and
VLF, only used to fetch members faster. I think you need to create a new
LINKLST
https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/zos/2.4.0?topic=command-updating-lnklst-concatenations
and make it active
Carmen
On 8/22/2022 1:32 PM, Pommier,
you're sure the library is on the same volume?
did the new library contain secondary extents?
did you follow the syncsort process or usermod process to make syncgener
available as IEBGENER?
it renames IEBGENER as OLDGENER, I don't have the MOD in front of me
currently but I think
I agree
On Mon, 22 Aug 2022 09:47:44 -0500, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
>On Mon, 22 Aug 2022 09:42:25 -0500, Walt Farrell wrote:
>
>>>I forgot to mention that "IDCAMS" is included on the
>>>SYS1.PARMLIB(IKJTSOxx)) AUTHPGM NAMES list
>>
>>Yes, that would be required in order for your TSO CALL command to invoke
You might have got away with a F LLA,REFRESH. I think you are correct, all
UNALLOCATE/AlLOCATE does is ENQ related. No re-reading the libraries involved.
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On
> Behalf Of Pommier, Rex
> Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 11:32 AM
>
Jake,
I have seen a somewhat of a similar problem however I received the
following other messages before the ARC0774E. Check your syslog for other
messages It may be that the Journal file needs to be enlarged.
ARC0026E JOURNALING DISABLED DUE TO EOV ERROR ON
ARC0026E (CONT.) JOURNAL.
Hi,
If you want the list of Common objects by ASID remove V64SHARED=YES. I believe
the items you are seeing returned are in V64Shared area, you can verify this by
looking at the returned starting address.
--
For IBM-MAIN
> OWNERASID=STORASID,
Joe,
Can you please show the data definition for STORASID to confirm that you
provided a 2-byte value?
(And, I suppose, "F108" while you're at it).
The behavior when all of V64SHARED=YES, V64COMMON=YES, V64SELECT=YES are all
selected is not at all clear.
What are you
It's Monday, my fingers aren't doing what my brain is telling them either! LOL
Rex
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of
Carmen Vitullo
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 2:37 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Linklist and Syncsort
Hi Carmen,
Yes the issue got resolved with the IPL. I am just trying to figure out what
went wrong, why the system gave me the 106 abends after doing the dynamic
changes. I'm thinking I should have built a new linklist and activated that
one instead of just unallocating and allocating the
me too + I have to switch between a work PC and a personal PC at home.
no complains, I'm home till I retire in Jan :)
I hate Monday :(
when supporting some CA products long ago, I'd often get S016 abends, it
was self inflicted since I'd do everything possible to avoid an IPL
midnight or 2AM
On Mon, 22 Aug 2022 15:39:52 +, Seymour J Metz wrote:
>Why do you say that? The CALL command is a very different animal from ADDRESS
>LINKMVS.
As I recall, Lizette said she was mandated to use LINKMVS. And as we have
pointed out, for her purposes, LINKMVS will not work.
I think Jack was
On Mon, 22 Aug 2022 15:45:53 -0500, Walt Farrell wrote:
>On Mon, 22 Aug 2022 09:47:44 -0500, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
>
>>Why is such specific authorization required? Is there some
>>associated hazard or cost?
>
>If you're asking why she needs to run IDCAMS APF-authorized, it's because
>IDCAMS is
Seems we may be closer than we thought to getting this done. There is already a
whole chapter in the CP Planning and Administration Guide (Chapter 17. Using
PCIe Functions for z/VM Guests) showing how to set up a device on the PCI.e
bus.
Now if someone could loan me a z15 or z16 we might be
"Now if someone could loan me a z15 or z16 we might be able to try this outselves.
:-)"
Once upon a time IBM would do this, maybe not a z15 but a z16 if the
project was viable.
for 2 POC projects I was involved in we used a 4340 or a 41 I forget, as
a CADCAM CATIA processor used only for
Answers embedded.
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of
Carmen Vitullo
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 1:48 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Linklist and Syncsort confusion
you're sure the library is on the same volume? Yes
did the
If was an APF issue then the started wouldn't have started at all
This online application has 7 region with X1 until X9
only X2 and X2 are having this issue
On Tue, Aug 23, 2022, 9:03 AM Brian Westerman
wrote:
> Since this is a DR test, I would be willing to bet that someone made an
> error
On Mon, 22 Aug 2022 18:32:21 +, Pommier, Rex
wrote:
>Hi list,
>
>I don't know if this is specifically a Syncsort issue or a more generic
>confusion about linklist datasets. Here goes.
>
>We have the SYNCLINK library defined in the linklist. We have installed
>Precisely's IEBGENER
Since this is a DR test, I would be willing to bet that someone made an error
in the PROGxx member and you have at lest one and probably several datasets
that are not authorized correctly. It could be that someone forgot a comma or
they specified the wrong volume (i.e it's on Z24RES on the
57 matches
Mail list logo
