I (really) liked the move to epub - dunno about this. Maybe I should go back to
dragging my tablet around rather than just the phone. Or maybe not.
And why, oh why, is the video in Flash for gawds sake ?. Why do IBM need to be
dragged kicking and screaming into (what some would hope to be) an
OSA Express5S 1000Base-T, EC12 machine.
1. I tried to use OSA/SF functionality from HMC, but noticed the
following error: I cannot choose LPAR (MIFID), the list contains only 00
and 07 entries, which is not true. The same with UA the panel shows
00-05, while there are more devices defined.
Every time I've reduced the machine's CPUs (either CBU or OOCoD), I've always
varied CPUs offline from z/OS such that no running system has more CPUs online
than what I'm reducing to. I'm not sure that it's an absolute requirement, but
it seems like an easy precaution to take.
Never have had a
Hello,
One of our DR activities is backing up selected data set using DFSMSdss (a
logical dump). Some of them were archived before by CA-DISK and cataloged to
ARCIVE volser.
How can we make DFSMSdss restore these datasets prior to real dump action, at
the same step ?
We know that we can first
Hello All,
Just looking for a general idea of sharing IEASYMxx in DR site. How many of
you intend to keep a different IEASYMxx member in production site and
another for DR(Disaster recovery) site or else keeping One IEASYMxx across
production and DR would be a good choice ?
Just looking for some
On Mon, 17 Feb 2014 07:54:35 +0530, venkat kulkarni
venkatkulkarn...@gmail.com wrote:
Initially my RACF DB was at AIM stage 1 but as the steps to converting
BPX.UNIQUE.USER, I converted AIM stage 1 to AIM stage 3.
As I have mentioned earlier as well, that along with z/OS 2.1, we have down
level
ABARs can read HSM migrated datasets and write them to backup tapes.
Maybe it can do the same for these datasets?
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 5:23 AM, אבנר מיכאלי avne...@malam.com wrote:
Hello,
One of our DR activities is backing up selected data set using DFSMSdss (a
logical dump). Some of them
FWIW,
If the branch technique is faster, and depending on how high a
percentage most of the time (as in most of the time CURRENT will be
zero) is, then the branch technique given as the alternative to no-branch
is likely not optimal. Even with branch prediction technology, it is still
better
Our parmlib members (including IEASYMxx) are the same for home and DR. This
reduces the level of surprise when we test/declare.
The first DR IPL is done with an Operator prompt. This first IPL the sysplex
specific settings are updated, before we re-IPL the full environment.
Part of the reason
Hi,
Would anyone know if the DCB represented by TCBJLB valid for the FIND macro
?
Thanks
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO
The use of indirect references allows for modifying the symbolics dynamically
'artificially'
i.e. SYMDEF(SYSF0='SYSR1(1:4).SYSFZOS.0')
Penina Koenigsberg
P 972-2-5602354
972-58-6540737
9 penin...@education.gov.il
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
On Mon, 17 Feb 2014 07:49:18 -0500, Peter Relson wrote:
If the branch technique is faster, and depending on how high a
percentage most of the time (as in most of the time CURRENT will be
zero) is, then the branch technique given as the alternative to no-branch
is likely not optimal. Even with
Combining the thoughts engendered from about three replies, I wonder if
avoiding a branch as follows (on a processor which supports the
instructions) would perform better than branching.
LT R0,CURRENT #LOAD CURRENT AND SET CC
SPM R1 #SAVE CC FROM LT
A R0,SUM #ADD SUM TO IT
IPM R1 #RESTORE CC
On 17/02/2014 10:25 PM, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
Then you get to factor in how much readability is worth to you.
Macros are your friend. But does providing readability at the
programming interface level make such a macro unpleasantly
verbose internally?
Unless your desperately need highly
On 17/02/2014 3:32 AM, Ed Jaffe wrote:
On 2/16/2014 1:10 AM, Binyamin Dissen wrote:
Say I have two words,
CURRENT DS F
SUM DS F
I want to add CURRENT to SUM, but most of the time CURRENT will be zero.
CURRENT and SUM are not adjacent (different data
On 2/17/2014 8:23 AM, MichealButz wrote:
Would anyone know if the DCB represented by TCBJLB valid for the FIND macro
Would anybody know whether it's faster to run a test job than ask on a
list, especially if the question has already be answered in this thread?
Gerhard Postpischil
Bradford,
Yes.
And also it depends.
Bill Fairchild
Nolensville, TN
- Original Message -
From: Gerhard Postpischil gerha...@charter.net
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Sent: Monday, February 17, 2014 9:50:48 AM
Subject: Re: IS the DCB represented by TCBJLB valid for FIND
On 2/17/2014 8:23
I think the DCB has to be owned by the TCB ?
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 17, 2014, at 10:57 AM, DASDBILL2 dasdbi...@comcast.net wrote:
Yes.
And also it depends.
Bill Fairchild
Nolensville, TN
- Original Message -
From: Gerhard Postpischil gerha...@charter.net
To:
Nice!
I got to thinking it would be nice to have a store different instruction (or
make store behave this way automatically under the covers) which would
invalidate the cache only if what it were storing were different from what was
in memory already.
Charles
-Original Message-
From:
On Mon, 17 Feb 2014 08:02:40 -0800, Charles Mills wrote:
I got to thinking it would be nice to have a store different instruction (or
make store behave this way automatically under the covers) which would
invalidate the cache only if what it were storing were different from what was
in memory
Another possibility which occurs to me, on newer hardware, is to try out
the BPRP instruction. This also addresses Gil's thought about not fetching
the cache line containing SUM unless it is necessary. Remember this assumes
that CURRENT is almost always a zero, per the OP.
*
* SET UP BRANCH
I have to ask: Why they big concern over a few instructions?
Optimisation of a few is not worth the effort
these days.
-
-teD
-
Original Message
From: John McKown
Sent: Monday, February 17, 2014 12:02
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Reply To: IBM Mainframe
On 2014-02-17, at 10:36, Ted MacNEIL wrote:
I have to ask: Why they big concern over a few instructions?
Optimisation of a few is not worth the effort
these days.
Hmmm... No single instruction is worth optimizing.
No single instruction among a million is
Ted MacNEIL wrote:
I have to ask: Why they big concern over a few instructions?
Good question. This is why I asked that loop question earlier today. But I'm
following this fun thread about the cache, fetch/modify by different CPs and
execution prediction. Just curious of course.
Optimisation
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Paul Gilmartin paulgboul...@aim.comwrote:
On 2014-02-17, at 10:36, Ted MacNEIL wrote:
I have to ask: Why they big concern over a few instructions?
Optimisation of a few is not worth the
effort these days.
Hmmm... No
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 12:06 PM, Elardus Engelbrecht
elardus.engelbre...@sita.co.za wrote:
Ted MacNEIL wrote:
I have to ask: Why they big concern over a few instructions?
Good question. This is why I asked that loop question earlier today. But
I'm following this fun thread about the
The following DFSORT JCL will give you the desired results. The trick here
is to join the file to itself which results in a cartesian join. example.
You have 8 records as sample in here, a cartesian join on the key would
result in (8 X 8 = 64 records).
Out of the 64 records you don't want the
Or if you are writing a compiler (or similar code generator, such as a sort
compare generator, or a SQL implementation). One instruction saved X a million
compiles = a million instructions saved. Some of us here do things of that type.
Charles
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe
On a 600 MIPS single engine (z/990 class) 1,000,000 instructions is 0.17% of a
CP. These days?
-
-teD
-
Original Message
From: John McKown
Sent: Monday, February 17, 2014 13:15
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Reply To: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
Subject: Re: Branch (was: Performance question
What does the statement
| 1,000,000 instructions is 0.17% of a CP
mean? What are the dimensions of %
John Gilmore, Ashland, MA 01721 - USA
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to
On Mon, 17 Feb 2014 14:04:56 -0500, John Gilmore wrote:
What does the statement
| 1,000,000 instructions is 0.17% of a CP
mean? What are the dimensions of %
I don't know, but it would appear to be a gross oversimplification. Ted should
know as well as anyone here that MIPS is meaningless,
Yep, you asked this before, I guess you forgot ….
Sent from Windows Mail
From: MichealButz
Sent: Monday, February 17, 2014 5:23 AM
To: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
Hi,
Would anyone know if the DCB represented by TCBJLB valid for the FIND macro
?
Thanks
I'm sorry to all I got it
Thanks
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 17, 2014, at 6:06 PM, Scott Ford scott_j_f...@yahoo.com wrote:
Yep, you asked this before, I guess you forgot ….
Sent from Windows Mail
From: MichealButz
Sent: Monday, February 17, 2014 5:23 AM
I develop vendor code. Customers always ask about CPU time. If I answered oh
we don't worry about that anymore do you think they would buy? Do you think I
would have a job?
Charles
Composed on a mobile: please excuse my brevity
Ted MacNEIL eamacn...@yahoo.ca wrote:
On a 600 MIPS single
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
On Mon, 17 Feb 2014 17:19:32 +0530, venkat kulkarni
venkatkulkarn...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
Thanks for reply. But as per IBM link, it says it we have down
level system well sharing RACF then older system will use BPX.DEFAULT.USER
if, they are not supported by BPX.UNIQUE.USER.
On Mon, 17 Feb 2014 14:11:32 -0600, Greg Kreth wrote:
How to issue TSO prompts in batch
Why bother? Whom would you expect to reply to such a prompt?
If I have a program that insists on issuing a prompt, such as RECEIVE,
I can (sometimes) stage a reply with a Rexx queue instruction.
-- gil
Benchmarks, features, tuning knobs, performance bonds all factor in to the
mix. The ones that scare me are the 'theoretically we can run some
gazillion transactions on a mainframe'!
In a message dated 2/17/2014 2:18:47 P.M. Central Standard Time,
charl...@mcn.org writes:
I develop
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 11:36 AM, Ted MacNEIL eamacn...@yahoo.ca wrote:
I have to ask: Why they big concern over a few instructions?
Optimisation of a few is not worth the
effort these days.
-
-teD
-
OK, this then causes me to wonder why IBM has bothered
On 2/17/2014 3:11 PM, Greg Kreth wrote:
PUTLINE and GETLINE (and PUTGET) will work in both online and offline
environments, but your input file (SYSTSIN?) must have all expected replies.
Gerhard Postpischil
Bradford, Vermont
Matthew:
Not much point since I moved to California last year.
Thanks for the thought, and good luck with the weather back east.
It's sunny here but with the drought, we may dry up and blow away.
Moral is there is no perfect place.
Mike
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe
Starting a new thread .
It seems to me that as the hardware has gotten faster and faster, it is
tempting to think that optimization and CPU time no longer matter. I think
three things have conspired to make that thought not true:
1. Of course as hardware has gotten faster and faster, transaction
Sorry for the mis-post.
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Mike La Martina
Sent: Monday, February 17, 2014 1:15 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: How to issue TSO prompts in batch
Matthew:
Not much point
My objection to sentiments like
. . . as the hardware has gotten faster and faster, it is tempting to
think that optimization and CPU time no longer matter.
is of a different sort.
They erode the notion that craftsmanship is important. It is easy to
make fun of attempts to shave a µsec from
Agreed. Pride of craftsmanship (like anything else, if not taken to an
unproductive extreme) is worthwhile.
Also, and I almost posted this on the other thread, these problems are just
plain interesting and intellectually challenging. Many hours and many pages
have been devoted to the Knight's
On Feb 17, 2014, at 3:42 PM, Charles Mills wrote:
Starting a new thread .
--
SNIP--
2. Much of the increase in speed has been due to increased numbers of
processors per box. That gives the customer
On 17 February 2014 09:37, John McKown john.archie.mck...@gmail.com wrote:
LT R0,CURRENT #LOAD CURRENT AND SET CC
SPM R1 #SAVE CC FROM LT
A R0,SUM #ADD SUM TO IT
IPM R1 #RESTORE CC FROM LT
STOC R0,SUM,NZ #STORE SUM ONLY IF CC OF LT WAS NZ
Basically this loads CURRENT into R0, setting the
On 2014-02-17, at 10:36, Ted MacNEIL wrote:
I have to ask: Why they big concern over a few instructions?
Optimisation of a few is not worth the effort
these days.
LOL. If Binyamin's question wasn't worth asking, then IBM would never
have recently introduced
Thanks for the replies, everyone!
I think the easiest way to do this is simply to add a RENAME command into
TSO command string, i.e.:
I started simply enough:
//TSORCV EXEC PGM=IKJEFT01,DYNAMNBR=300
//SYSTSIN DD *
RENAME 'DPGDK.TRANSFER.LOAD' 'DPGDK.TRANSFER.LOAD.TEMP'
RECEIVE
RESTORE
On 2/17/2014 1:42 PM, Charles Mills wrote:
It would be an interesting exercise to try to figure out an estimated dollar
cost for a million instructions executed per day, using an assumed typical
installation and an assumed typical mix of IBM and non-IBM software
Sub-capacity pricing for IBM
I am curious about the mainframes (z/9 z/10 z/196) local waxing/waning here in
Columbia SC. BlueCross and BlueShield of SC is one of the larger z/196 non
federal
government shops in the US (somewhere in top 10%). Then there is CSC at
Blythewood,
AFAIK. And there is the IT-oLogy consortium
I'm going to start keying these things in ISREDIT and then CUT/PASTE. Yeach!
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Hello,
when we discussed the one bit copy topic recently, I had a solution
in mind that was kind of inspired by the new store on condition
instruction,
but there was no such solution, because a instruction like OI on condition
or NI on condition would have been necessary, and there are no such
Hello David, tuco bonno here. you probably remember me.
sc bcb has two z10-s , 14 lpars. work load stable neither moving off of nor
toward more m/f usage.
moving very s-l-o-w-l-y into VM and linuxen app-s under VM
/s/ tuco bonno ;
graduate, College of Conflict Management;
University of
On 2/17/2014 7:34 PM, Bernd Oppolzer wrote:
My question is: if we had such an instruction, how would this fit into the
overall machine concept? And: are there some performance benefits,
or are there some problems with this approach, which I do not see?
I'm sure, that some historical machines
Isn't it called Jump, or more properly, Branch Relative on Condition?
Charles
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
Behalf Of Bernd Oppolzer
Sent: Monday, February 17, 2014 4:35 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re:
An additional note :
You may also need to renew the license keys for all CPU dependent ISV
products such as syncsort/ SAS /ASG softwares etc
Regards,
Baby
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 4:42 PM, Scott Chapman sachap...@aep.com wrote:
Every time I've reduced the machine's CPUs (either CBU or
On Mon, 17 Feb 2014 20:05:12 -0500, Gerhard Postpischil wrote:
On 2/17/2014 7:34 PM, Bernd Oppolzer wrote:
My question is: if we had such an instruction, how would this fit into the
overall machine concept? And: are there some performance benefits,
or are there some problems with this
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 6:34 PM, Bernd Oppolzer
bernd.oppol...@t-online.dewrote:
Hello,
when we discussed the one bit copy topic recently, I had a solution
in mind that was kind of inspired by the new store on condition
instruction,
but there was no such solution, because a instruction like
Finally caving in to overwhelming temptation. In my first IT job as an
assembler application trainee, my assignment was to (re)write a data base
accounting program. The program read every record in the application data
base and reported the number of each type of record. Pretty simple. There
Skip Robinson wrote:
Finally caving in to overwhelming temptation.
All of us have this ONE temptation because of branch prediction, cache,
optimization, etc:
My proposed code would really be this, but I can at most just dream... ;-D
PPB 1000 (Predict and Prevent Bugs in next 1000
On 2/18/2014 12:11 AM, Skip Robinson wrote:
L Rn,COUNTERFetch the counter
LA Rn,1(,Rn)Increment the count
ST Rn,COUNTER Update the counter
I realize hindsight is wonderful, but I can't keep wondering why you
didn't use something like:
LA Rn,1
AL Rn,COUNTER
62 matches
Mail list logo
