Hi,
Sorry for late replay.
There is no relative between the systems (CPUs) I mean there is no LPAR
definition . The only relative is share DISKs.
The Load and IPL disk are same. The IOCP mostly same, the
only deference are channel paths.
From: McKown,
Hi,
Sorry for late replay.
No there is no message on HMC no message on Console.
We removed all the channels and isolate the system in IOCP as follows:
Remove all the channels,( left one for disk and one for console) but same
problem happened.
While your system is hung what's its status on
Dear Lizette,
thanks for your fast response. I was already aware of the CSI, I used it
in other REXX procedures to search for some datasets similar to ISPF
3.4. But AFAIK CSI only gives the name of a dataset, but no other
attributes (size etc.). In the case I#m talking about now, I already
For NONVSAM LISTDSI may work, for VSAM CSI will work.
And CSI returns the VOLUMES, RBA, and any other catalog information for both
VSAM and NONVSAM. Including if it spans multi volumes. If you look at my
other postings on CSI you will see that IBM has provided other samples to show
how to
mike.a.sch...@gmail.com (Mike Schwab) writes:
10 or 20 Linux servers consolidated onto 1 x86-64 blade server.
300 Linux servers consolidated onto 1 zIFL.
Now that looks reasonable. A full speed z processor is still 15 to 30
times faster than Virtual x86-64.
re:
Jurgen,
You could also call idcams, output sysprint to a Qsam file, read with rexx and
parse
Scott ford
www.identityforge.com
On Sep 8, 2012, at 6:46 AM, Lizette Koehler stars...@mindspring.com wrote:
For NONVSAM LISTDSI may work, for VSAM CSI will work.
And CSI returns the VOLUMES,
Scott:
I think IBM seriously suggested that this was not to be used as it is
not a programming interface.
One off the wall vendor does/did that and every few years it breaks
as IDCAMS output changes.
Ed
On Sep 8, 2012, at 9:43 AM, Scott Ford wrote:
Jurgen,
You could also call idcams,
Ed,
IBM says these things and I understand, but what alternative has been provided
and samples with the alternative.
Scott ford
www.identityforge.com
On Sep 8, 2012, at 7:06 PM, Ed Gould edgould1...@comcast.net wrote:
Scott:
I think IBM seriously suggested that this was not to be used as
Scott:
I would suggest rather than to suggest a bad approach is to keep
looking.
You never know in 2 years someone might be researching for a similar
problem and the issue becomes a problem yet again.
Ed
On Sep 8, 2012, at 6:24 PM, Scott Ford wrote:
Ed,
IBM says these things and I
