Hi John,
it's the same for me.
Sometimes I get the right behaviour and other times no !
The COBOL program does the OPEN I-O and the SMF64 states the step did both
READ and UPDATE (the flag in the SMF64 is coherently incoherent).
Look at the SMF64 record below.
In my understanding, if at CLOSE
Hello,
I am trying to setup BPX.UNIQUE.USER.
While upgrading RACf template, I am getting below issues.
//RACFAIM JOB (657),'VENKAT',CLASS=A,MSGCLASS=X,NOTIFY=SYSUID
//STEP EXEC PGM=IRRIRA00,PARM=STAGE(3)
//SYSPRINT DD SYSOUT=*
IRR66017I The system is currently operating in stage 2.
On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 10:55:27 +0100, Massimo Biancucci wrote:
Hi all,
we started analyzing SMF62 to trace which A.S. use VSAM datasets and their
intent (Read or Update).
To do the task we analyze the SMF62MC1 flag (zOS 1.13).
So, a Cobol program does the following:
..
SELECT
Since RMF has it, I would presume that it's in a control block somewhere, but
where I can't say. Maybe it's only internal to RMF.
If you have the RMF Distributed Dataserver up, you can access:
http://{rmfsys}:{port}/gpm/reports/CPC?resource=,{lpar},MVS_IMAGE
Where {rmfsys} is the system where
Is this [SMF record] flags byte recording behavior? Or is it
recording [only] open option(s) specified?
If the latter, should not opening for update set both the IN and the
OUT bits? How otherwise is the specification of update reflected in
this byte?
I think Massimo has an adequate basis for
Hello,
I am trying to setup BPX.UNIQUE.USER.
While upgrading RACF template, I am getting below issues.
//RACFAIM JOB (657),'VENKAT',CLASS=A,MSGCLASS=X,NOTIFY=SYSUID
//STEP EXEC PGM=IRRIRA00,PARM=STAGE(3)
//SYSPRINT DD SYSOUT=*
IRR66017I The system is currently operating in stage 2.
Lloyd Fuller wrote:
Actually in some products quite a lot.
Some other applications like your example:
1. Astronomy: (Calculating position/movements of space things from x
year/month/day/etc to y year/etc...)
2. Statistics and Mathematics: Census processing of population of people,
animals,
On Fri, 14 Feb 2014 07:39:24 -0500, John Gilmore wrote:
Is this [SMF record] flags byte recording behavior? Or is it
recording [only] open option(s) specified?
If the latter, should not opening for update set both the IN and the
OUT bits? How otherwise is the specification of update reflected
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Micheal Butz
Seems like one of my sort fields maybe beyond a short record Anything I can
do about this
DFSORT has an OPTION VLSHRT to handle that situation. I'm confident that
Syncsort has something similar if
Thanks to Bill for his update.
I agree with John that IBM should better explain the meaning of the byte
and, furthermore, the Cobol behaviour.
In my opinion, from version to version (or single PTF) the Cobol Behaviour
could had been changing. Puzzling !
Thanks to everybody, of course I'll give
It's SMF 64 which gives you a clue as to what actually HAPPENED - with
Read, Update, Insert and Delete counters, plus the CI / CA Split counts,
level changes etc. No 62. 64 is CLOSE, 62 is OPEN.
Cheers, Martin
Martin Packer,
zChampion, Principal Systems Investigator,
Worldwide Banking Center
Actually NOMAD. The dates can be stored in NOMAD internal databases, IMS,
IDMS, DB2, SQL/VM.
And the suggestion to use the input window for dates dated to 1979 or so. It
was actually implemented in the early 1990s.
Lloyd
From: Elardus Engelbrecht
Well if you check the manual you'll see that you need to be at STAGE 3 to setup
BPX.UNIQUE.USER.
RACF Security Administrator's Guide 17.4.2.1
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of venkat kulkarni
Sent: Friday, February 14,
Yes, I checked it before. It just talked about UNIXMAP class should be
active and profile should be defined under that. But the return code
Return code 80. Reason code 0.
80 (128) This is a data sharing mode return code. A coupling facility
function had a problem when dealing with the ICB
talks
Bill,
I value your contributions here. They are always appropriately
informed, as was your last post in this thread.
That said, it seems clear to me beyond argument that the appropriate
way to record an open-for-update macro instruction is to set BOTH the
in and the out bits, which is not being
venkat kulkarni wrote:
80 (128) This is a data sharing mode return code. A coupling facility function
had a problem when dealing with the ICB
talks about CF with ICB issue, and I have no idea on this to solve this issue.
Show us the result of RVARY. Is it in DATASHARE or not?
Groete /
You are looking at the wrong return code I think. Decimal 80, Hex 50.
50 (80) An attempt was made to update one of the following (by a request other
than ALTERI):
The RACF database that has been locked by a RACF utility
The RACF database from a system that is in read-only mode (in a RACF
1) My RACFDB was not locked.
2) Yes, my RACF DB is in SYSPLEX Env. . But how can I check that its in
READ only mode.
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 8:27 PM, Dennis Trojak dennis.tro...@radioshack.com
wrote:
You are looking at the wrong return code I think. Decimal 80, Hex 50.
50 (80) An attempt was
Are you sure you're in Sysplex, Data Sharing Mode? On our system it says
this;
ICH15013I RACF DATABASE STATUS:
ACTIVE USE NUM VOLUME DATASET
-- --- --- -- ---
YES PRIM 1 XRACF1 SYS1.RACF.PRIM.DBASE
YES BACK 1 XRACF2 SYS1.RACF.BACK.DBASE
MEMBER IS SYSPLEX
RACF DATABASE STATUS:
ACTIVE USE NUM VOLUME DATASET
-- --- --- -- ---
YES PRIM 1 RCF051 SYS1.V2R1.RACFP
YES BACK 1 RCF052 SYS1.V2R1.RACFB
RVARY COMMAND HAS FINISHED PROCESSING.
***
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 8:16 PM, Elardus Engelbrecht
On Fri, 14 Feb 2014 09:43:28 -0500, John Gilmore jwgli...@gmail.com wrote:
Bill,
I value your contributions here. They are always appropriately
informed, as was your last post in this thread.
That said, it seems clear to me beyond argument that the appropriate
way to record an open-for-update
venkat kulkarni wrote:
1) My RACFDB was not locked.
Really? How did you see it?
2) Yes, my RACF DB is in SYSPLEX Env. . But how can I check that its in READ
only mode.
How are you sure it is in SYSPLEX Env? Your reply on my question shows it is
not in a CF environment. Check your SYSLOG. Or
Bill Godfrey wrote:
Are you saying that the IN bit should be set for updates, and not for writing
new records, as a way of distinguishing between the two?
[... snipped ...]
I think the documentation about those SMF records are somewhat not clear. I
really wish someone from IBM Storage would
Is there any way to take log for auditing RMM CHANGEVOLUME and DELETEVOLUME?
I think that RMM journal may be used but format of RMM journal is not
disclosed.
Your help would be highly appreciated.
--
全先 実 - Minoru Massaki (M*M)
E-mail: mmass...@gmail.com
Are there any activities that operations has to perform when a CPU model
change is dynamically made by IBM for it to take effect? We're going
from a 406 to a 603 on our z196 processor soon, and we're not sure if
zOS will disable three of the six CPU's automatically, or if we have to
do
Bill,
The 'compatibility problem' you mention is not obvious to me.
Currently--I have tested all of the permutations---either the IN bit
is set or the OUT bit is set. Both are never set.
My view is, yes, that both the IN bit and the OUT bit should be set in
the ACB at open time when the file is
Mark Jacobs wrote:
Are there any activities that operations has to perform when a CPU model
change is dynamically made by IBM for it to take effect? We're going from a
406 to a 603 on our z196 processor soon, and we're not sure if zOS will
disable three of the six CPU's automatically, or if we
On 02/14/14 14:52, Elardus Engelbrecht wrote:
Mark Jacobs wrote:
Are there any activities that operations has to perform when a CPU model change
is dynamically made by IBM for it to take effect? We're going from a 406 to a
603 on our z196 processor soon, and we're not sure if zOS will
What did the vendor say in the PASR?
In a message dated 2/14/2014 1:52:19 P.M. Central Standard Time,
elardus.engelbre...@sita.co.za writes:
Same z196 machine or new machine? It depends
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe /
We do periodic CBU activation for DR testing. At the end of a test, we
turn off CBU and the extra CPs go away. By that time however we've shut
down the DR systems that used them, and no extras have been configured
online to the SDM/XRC systems. In other words, not quite the same
situation.
You're right, the zOS lpar currently has all six CPs assigned to it.
I'll pass the information to the right parties asap.
Thanks.
Mark Jacobs
On 02/14/14 15:05, Skip Robinson wrote:
We do periodic CBU activation for DR testing. At the end of a test, we
turn off CBU and the extra CPs go away.
On 02/14/14 15:02, Ed Finnell wrote:
What did the vendor say in the PASR?
In a message dated 2/14/2014 1:52:19 P.M. Central Standard Time,
elardus.engelbre...@sita.co.za writes:
Same z196 machine or new machine? It depends
At the time you perform the conversion, expect to see this message from
WLM:
IWM063I WLM POLICY WAS REFRESHED DUE TO A PROCESSOR SPEED CHANGE
This message can indicate a true hardware problem, but we also see it
routinely as part of CBU activate/deactivate. Just don't freak out.
.
.
On Fri, 14 Feb 2014 14:33:03 -0500, John Gilmore jwgli...@gmail.com wrote:
Bill,
The 'compatibility problem' you mention is not obvious to me.
Currently--I have tested all of the permutations---either the IN bit
is set or the OUT bit is set. Both are never set.
My view is, yes, that both the
At 13:28 + on 02/14/2014, Chase, John wrote about Re: WER027A
control field beyond record:
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Micheal Butz
Seems like one of my sort fields maybe beyond a short record
Anything I can do about this
DFSORT has
Robert:
My memory has faded a lot but IIRC there are regularly SMF records
that are short all the time.
Without digging into the books too much I would print a few out and
find which type is the short ones and exclude those before the sort.
It seems to me that most SMF recs(except for the
Is there a standard IBM z/OS XLC macro for is compiling on z/OS? I looked
for __ZOS and __MVS and so forth but did not find anything.
I have code that runs Windows or z/OS and I have just been using #ifdef
WIN32 to differentiate the two cases, but now I need code that will run
Windows, z/OS or
There is the VLTEST parameter that can be specified as a PARM= option or as a
$ORTPARM parameter. There are eight possible tests that it can perform, but
for the OPS case there is only one answer.
He should specify VLTEST=0, which says, for purposes of comparison, any short
key fields will be
Macros as you suggest (slightly different names) should be fully documented
in the c/c++ users guide or language reference.
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Charles Mills charl...@mcn.org wrote:
Is there a standard IBM z/OS XLC macro for is compiling on z/OS? I looked
for __ZOS and __MVS and
On Fri, 14 Feb 2014 15:14:44 -0800, Charles Mills wrote:
Is there a standard IBM z/OS XLC macro for is compiling on z/OS? I looked
for __ZOS and __MVS and so forth but did not find anything.
I have code that runs Windows or z/OS and I have just been using #ifdef
WIN32 to differentiate the two
Thanks for your incredibly helpful answer. Stupid me -- I looked at
Appendix A. XL C/C++ Macros in the library reference.
Charles
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
Behalf Of Sam Siegel
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2014 3:57 PM
To:
Thanks.
Charles
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Paul Gilmartin
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2014 4:05 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Is there a C macro for is z/OS
On Fri, 14 Feb 2014 15:14:44 -0800,
__MVS__
On 15/02/2014, at 7:14 AM, Charles Mills charl...@mcn.org wrote:
Is there a standard IBM z/OS XLC macro for is compiling on z/OS? I looked
for __ZOS and __MVS and so forth but did not find anything.
I have code that runs Windows or z/OS and I have just been using #ifdef
WIN32 to
I do not have access to the SMF Record formats at hand but I have the
impression that if you are doing a mass sort of SMF records (as
opposed to sorting a subset of the records), you are going to run
into problems. All SMF records share a common prefix (type,
timestamp, and maybe some other
Yes, UNLOADED IRRUT400 worked for me and now RACF is at AIM stage 3. As
I mentioned earlier, we have we have z/OS 1.13 and z/OS 2.1 system in
sysplex. So, As per document upto z/OS 1.13, we can use BPX.DEFAULT.USER
and then on z/OS 2.1, we will have to use BPX.UNIQUE.USER .
But when I
Does this existing code do updates only after checking to ensure
that the In bit is not set (off)?
I doubt that. Compatibility arguments are certainly not dismissible;
some, even many, of them are substantive; but they are too often
advanced as a convenient, not at all substantive rationale for
On Fri, 14 Feb 2014 22:36:37 -0500, John Gilmore wrote:
Does this existing code do updates only after checking to ensure
that the In bit is not set (off)?
I doubt that. Compatibility arguments are certainly not dismissible;
some, even many, of them are substantive; but they are too often
47 matches
Mail list logo
