Ah, that new 'baby' mainframe smell: IBM shows off z13s from a different POV

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/02/16/ ibm_z13s_mainframe_security_enhancements/ -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

IBM z13s article. - Multi-Factor Authentication for z/OS

Here's a direct link to the announcement letter for IBM Multi-Factor Authentication for z/OS: http://www-01.ibm.com/common/ssi/rep_ca/9/897/ENUS216-069/ENUS216-069.PDF It's a tremendously important new capability -- or, more precisely, newly integrated set of security capabilities -- I agree. Th

Re: Query: Will modern z/OS and z/VM classes suffice for MVS and VM/370

Thanks, everyone, for the interesting comments and stories. I have used Hercules in the past (3 or 4 years ago, briefly) and am familiar with it. I was already planning to involve it in setting up the real hardware. The 4341 which we used at UChicago to move from SVS on an Amdahl 470/v7 to MVS

Re: Meaning of CSV0002I

On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 16:46:29 -0600, Mike Schwab wrote: >When you issue a LOAD for a Load Module, when done you should issue a >DELETE for the load module, true. >but some programs don't, and it is an >non-fatal, non-harmful bug. It won't hurt the system, but the program has failed. >If the to

Enterprise COBOL 6.1 announced

There used to be a lot more 97s, before Language Environment. Now LE CLOSEs open files at the end (ab or otherwise) of a run-unit. The description of 97 from the COBOL Language Reference seems, to me, cavalier: "For VSAM only: OPEN statement execution successful: File integrity verified." Hidd

› Default overrides for binder?

Well, I suppose every time the product was updated. Periodically checking would not be a problem. I assume this is all for checking out little bits and pieces, where it is convenient to have fixed (even more than one set of fixed) but non-site-standard options available. With the COBOL options

Re: Meaning of CSV0002I

Here is a local fix from last November. Does it fit? http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=isg1OA47098 When you issue a LOAD for a Load Module, when done you should issue a DELETE for the load module, but some programs don't, and it is an non-fatal, non-harmful bug. If the total number of

Re: Meaning of CSV0002I

Yes, it looks like, but it is not. The PTF UK77627 is SUPBU UK95352, which was APPlied several weeks ago. It seems the new PTF provided the old error. -- Radoslaw Skorupka Lodz, Poland W dniu 2016-02-16 o 22:16, Farley, Peter x23353 pisze: Maybe this APAR? http://www-01.ibm.com/support/

Re: Enterprise COBOL 6.1 announced

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 3:16 PM, Bill Woodger wrote: > A quote from 2009: > > "In fact, the fact that it is rare and should not happen for 'normal' > processing tells me that you perhaps *shouldn't* just treat '97' as > "everything is ok" and ignore it. Seems to me that even if you elect to > co

Re: Real Storage Allocation

Thank you all for your replies. My immediate concern was whether there were any issues/problems with over-allocating storage and with your responses, I am confident I can plough ahead. Thanks also for all the tips on how to debug and what to analyze. That's a step for later. Your time and assistanc

Re: Meaning of CSV0002I

Maybe this APAR? http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=isg1PM60289 HTH Peter -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of R.S. Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2016 4:07 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Meaning of CSV0

Enterprise COBOL 6.1 announced

A quote from 2009: "In fact, the fact that it is rare and should not happen for 'normal' processing tells me that you perhaps *shouldn't* just treat '97' as "everything is ok" and ignore it. Seems to me that even if you elect to continue processing it would be nice to know that the 97 status o

Re: Meaning of CSV0002I

2016-02-16 15:07 GMT-06:00 R.S. : > I'm getting the following message: > CSV002I REQUESTS FOR MODULE GXLIMODV EXCEED MAXIMUM USE COUNT > > I did RTFM, but stlll I don't know: Should I worry about it or just ignore? > ​Personally, I would not worry much. What it means is that something, or somethi

Meaning of CSV0002I

I'm getting the following message: CSV002I REQUESTS FOR MODULE GXLIMODV EXCEED MAXIMUM USE COUNT I did RTFM, but stlll I don't know: Should I worry about it or just ignore? -- Radoslaw Skorupka Lodz, Poland -- Treść tej wiadomości może zawierać informacje prawnie chronione Banku przeznac

Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] UADS (was Re: [Bulk] Re: COBOL v5)

W dniu 2016-02-15 o 12:48, Robert S. Hansel (RSH) pisze: I wholeheartedly agree with Joel's recommendation for having a backup copy of the RACF database readily available for recovery. I just want to add that it is crucial to use RACF utilities to create the backup and to allocate it with the

Re: Using IBM z/OS TDMF Product to Migrate 3390-9 to 3390-27's

I have moved z/VM volumes from z/OS with z/VM shut down. Should apply to z/Linux too. On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 2:29 PM, Jasi Grewal wrote: > Thank You Mike , Jerry and Steve for your recommendations and suggestions. We > only have z/VM and zLinux DASD minidisk/fullvolumes left to migrate as I ha

Re: Using IBM z/OS TDMF Product to Migrate 3390-9 to 3390-27's

Thank You Mike , Jerry and Steve for your recommendations and suggestions. We only have z/VM and zLinux DASD minidisk/fullvolumes left to migrate as I have completed all z/OS DASD through DFDSS and we just have to migrate zVM and zLinux minidisks to new targets and hopefully it would be easier.

Re: Enterprise COBOL 6.1 announced

Long live 1.13 and may it last until 2050 (at least). Ed On Feb 16, 2016, at 12:14 PM, Jim Mulder wrote: The requirement for z/OS 2.1 is disappointing. We haven't been on 1.13 for all that long, and I don't know that we have an upgrade due any time soon... :-( Support for z/OS 1.13 ends soo

Re: Using IBM z/OS TDMF Product to Migrate 3390-9 to 3390-27's

Yes, you can use TDMF / FDRPAS / etc, to move a volume to the same size or larger. After the move is complete TDMF or you run ICKDSF to pick up the new size. The VTOC and VTOCIX are not extended. You should select the volumes with the hardest to move datasets. If you need to increase the VTOC /

Re: Using IBM z/OS TDMF Product to Migrate 3390-9 to 3390-27's

You can use TDMF to move z/VM volumes - but the z/VM system will need to be down while doing so. z/Linux disks under z/VM move just like any z/VM disk. Be careful in your z/VM config files as to what volumes are online/offline at IPL **BEFORE** you shutdown the z/VM system. I'd suggest setting u

Re: Using IBM z/OS TDMF Product to Migrate 3390-9 to 3390-27's

I would suggest if you DONOT a full copy migration, that you user an ADRDSSU COPY/Catalogue that would Allow you to be selective Steve -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Jasi Grewal Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2016 11

Using IBM z/OS TDMF Product to Migrate 3390-9 to 3390-27's

Greetings, I would like to know, if we can use IBM z/OS TDMF to migrate z/VM and zLinux DASD to newer model 3390-27's from 3390-09. The other problem is that we don't have that many targets as Source vols so every MDISK would have to be migrated to consume DASD Space and does TDMF supports the f

Re: CSVFETCH exit

On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 19:17:10 +, Gibney, David Allen,Jr wrote: >I am finding this interesting. One thing I think you are missing was the >advisability >to use STMG/LMG to save and restore all 64 bits of the registers. Not a lot of >stuff >running above the bar as yet, but it will be there s

Re: CSVFETCH exit

I should not be playing with storage above the bar but I guess I'll use STMG to be sure. Thanks everyone for their input! Much appreciated! Regards, Leo -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Tom Marchant Sent: Tuesday, Feb

Re: z14 Drops Support for ESA/390 Mode (Was: Re: zEC12)

On 16 February 2016 at 11:31, Joel C. Ewing wrote: > That seems pretty explicit to me that the plan is that on z14 and beyond > an operating system will be required to start and run exclusively in > z/Architecture mode and that there will simply be no hardware capability > to run in ESA/390 mode,

Re: CSVFETCH exit

On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 19:11:38 +, Leonardo Vaz wrote: >I see. In the case of CSVFETCH there is a 1024-byte work-area passed, so no >getmain should be needed, in this case, STM should be the best option? You are passed a 144-byte save area, so I would use STMG to save the registers in F4SA for

Re: CSVFETCH exit

I am finding this interesting. One thing I think you are missing was the advisability to use STMG/LMG to save and restore all 64 bits of the registers. Not a lot of stuff running above the bar as yet, but it will be there sooner than we expect. :) > -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainfr

Re: CSVFETCH exit

I had not followed the discussion very closely, but it sounds like they have given the exit enough working storage so that no GETMAIN/FREEMAIN is needed. In that case it is clearly a performance advantage to use STM/LM over BAKR/PR. Chris Blaicher Technical Architect Software Development Syncsort

Re: CSVFETCH exit

On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 18:49:36 +, Blaicher, Christopher Y. wrote: >BAKR/PR does take a lot more time then STM/LM, but most times you can't just >use STM/LM, you also have a GETMAIN/FREEMAIN for a register save area and >other setup/restore things to do. > >So, once you factor in those other ov

Re: CSVFETCH exit

I see. In the case of CSVFETCH there is a 1024-byte work-area passed, so no getmain should be needed, in this case, STM should be the best option? -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Blaicher, Christopher Y. Sent: Tuesday,

Re: Query: Will modern z/OS and z/VM classes suffice for MVS and VM/370

On 16 Feb 2016 09:11:30 -0800, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote: >For the record, I was once zookeeper for a 4341. West Coast technology >subsidiary of a major East Coast bank. It ran native 'commercial' MVS (no VM) >in the early 80s. It may have been an oddball for having been delivered with

Re: CSVFETCH exit

BAKR/PR does take a lot more time then STM/LM, but most times you can't just use STM/LM, you also have a GETMAIN/FREEMAIN for a register save area and other setup/restore things to do. So, once you factor in those other overheads, which is faster? I don't know as I haven't set up the tests to

Re: CSVFETCH exit

Well, I guess using the linkage stack is cleaner because the state of the caller is preserved. Thanks for your reply, that is what I wanted to know, I was going to use STM but I remember reading somewhere before (maybe linkedin?) that they would never approve any assembler code written in the p

Re: › Default overrides for binder?

Set what up? I compiled the IEWBODEF CSECT to a library of my own and then did a STEPLIB to it, but the binder did not appear to "see" it. > Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 11:36:12 -0600 > From: bill.wood...@gmail.com > Subject: › Default overrides for binder? > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > > Yes.

Re: › Default overrides for binder?

On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 11:36:12 -0600, Bill Woodger wrote: >Yes. Perhaps attempt to set it up in a library of your own? I wonder how long it would take to have an obsolete copy of the module. -- Tom Marchant >On Tuesday, 16 February 2016 16:55:00 UTC, Frank Swarbrick wrote: >> Thanks. It looks

Re: Enterprise COBOL 6.1 announced

So what do your programs do when they get an FC97 on an OPEN? Display a message to the console and wait for a response? Display a message to the console and continue on? Something else? > Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 11:28:28 -0600 > From: bill.wood...@gmail.com > Subject: Enterprise COBOL 6.1 anno

Re: Enterprise COBOL 6.1 announced

> The requirement for z/OS 2.1 is disappointing. We haven't been on > 1.13 for all that long, and I don't know that we have an upgrade due > any time soon... :-( Support for z/OS 1.13 ends soon (Sept. 30, 2016). Jim Mulder z/OS System Test IBM Corp. Poughkeepsie, NY

Re: CSVFETCH exit

On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 16:52:03 +, Leonardo Vaz wrote: >I apologize if the question is silly, but I am wondering if for a performance >sensitive >exit like this one I should use STM/LM instead of BAKR/PR. I believe it's >"cheaper" to >do STM/LM, bur "cleaner" to do BAKR, right? Why do you t

› Default overrides for binder?

Yes. Perhaps attempt to set it up in a library of your own? On Tuesday, 16 February 2016 16:55:00 UTC, Frank Swarbrick wrote: > Thanks. It looks like this behaves a bit differently than the others, in > that it is a CSECT directly linked in to IEWBLINK, rather than being separate > modules. I

Enterprise COBOL 6.1 announced

I agree, but I guess it must be coming. I saw someone looking for such a thing (they only have V4.2) the other day, two-way processing of JSON. XML is already used for inter-system data-transfer, so JSON is a natural progression. Using XMLSS is one of the few ways that COBOL gets the chance to

Enterprise COBOL 6.1 announced

I'm one of those who prefers to see the 97, and take a little time out to wonder why it happened. "the file was being updated, and something went wrong because the file was not closed properly - I've fixed the statistics for you" always makes me wary. Of course, there is the fun where a program

Re: Manipulating system symbols

My suggestion for using the SHARE code as prefix goes back to the 1980s when IBM made a similar recommendation for the (then new) mainframe networking function (MSNF?) that provided for world-wide peer-to-peer connections. The idea was to establish a naming convention that, if everyone followed it,

Re: Query: Will modern z/OS and z/VM classes suffice for MVS and VM/370

I worked for a company in 1983-85 that had dual 4341's running MVS SP 1.3. The 4341 was attached to 3350 DASD. --- jo.skip.robin...@att.net wrote: From: Skip Robinson To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Query: Will modern z/OS and z/VM classes suffice for MVS and VM/370

Re: Enterprise COBOL 6.1 announced

Baby steps, I guess. Personally I am not convinced that the COBOL language is the proper place for either JSON or XML processing. But I've never been able to come up with good enough requirements for an API that would be both simply and powerful for use within COBOL applications. Oh well...

Re: Enterprise COBOL 6.1 announced

One of our sysprogs just read this and he is starting then plans for z/OS 2.2. So Yay! > Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 10:08:34 -0700 > From: frank.swarbr...@outlook.com > Subject: Re: Enterprise COBOL 6.1 announced > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > > Yay for the VSAMOPENFS(SUCC). I submitted the RFE

Re: Enterprise COBOL 6.1 announced

What "bothers" me is the lack of JSON PARSE to go with the JSON GENERATE. That greatly decreases the utility of using COBOL for an AJAX application. On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 11:08 AM, Frank Swarbrick < frank.swarbr...@outlook.com> wrote: > Yay for the VSAMOPENFS(SUCC). I submitted the RFE for thi

Re: Query: Will modern z/OS and z/VM classes suffice for MVS and VM/370

For the record, I was once zookeeper for a 4341. West Coast technology subsidiary of a major East Coast bank. It ran native 'commercial' MVS (no VM) in the early 80s. It may have been an oddball for having been delivered with CKD DASD, but the goal was to simulate the bank's much larger boxes in

Re: Enterprise COBOL 6.1 announced

Yay for the VSAMOPENFS(SUCC). I submitted the RFE for this. (Probably others did as well.) I am curious what opinions other might have for this being a compile option rather than a runtime option. I spoke with COBOL development and they were insistent that having it as a compile option was t

Re: › Default overrides for binder?

Thanks. It looks like this behaves a bit differently than the others, in that it is a CSECT directly linked in to IEWBLINK, rather than being separate modules. I was hoping I could place a module in its own STEPLIB and have it picked up (this is how I'm doing ASMADOPT and IGYCDOPT), but looks

Re: CSVFETCH exit

Hello again list! I apologize if the question is silly, but I am wondering if for a performance sensitive exit like this one I should use STM/LM instead of BAKR/PR. I believe it's "cheaper" to do STM/LM, bur "cleaner" to do BAKR, right? Thanks, Leo -Original Message- From: IBM Mainf

Re: z14 Drops Support for ESA/390 Mode (Was: Re: zEC12)

On 02/10/2016 04:09 PM, Tony Harminc wrote: > On 10 February 2016 at 15:50, Joel C. Ewing wrote: >>> Why do you think that SIE would not continue to provide virtual >>> ESA/390 support? Today, when z/VM is running in zArch mode on the >>> metal on e.g. a z12, it can surely have an ESA/390 mode gue

Re: IBM z13s article.

Did you see this other announcement today?: IBM Multi-Factor Authentication for z/OS works with RACF Security Server infrastructure to create a layered defense IBM United States Software Announcement 216-069 On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 15:17:54 +, Bigendian Smalls wrote: >Two factor auth in the

Re: IBM z13s article.

Two factor auth in the OS is a big (and long overdue) deal. Has anyone heard of this in a general flavor of z/os or know what version / add-on might contain such a thing for the rest of us? > On Feb 16, 2016, at 9:10 AM, Dana Mitchell wrote: > > I found support for SSL on OSA ICC interestin

Re: IBM z13s article.

I found support for SSL on OSA ICC interesting. That would eventually allow us to move consoles off a dedicated network. Dana -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua

Re: zEC12

EC12 being withdrawn from marketing. http://www-01.ibm.com/common/ssi/cgi-bin/ssialias?subtype=ca&infotype=an&appname=iSource&supplier=897&letternum=ENUS916-037 Thank You Dan Blake - TL dbl...@fdic.gov FDIC ISC-3 O&M Service Delivery | Room B4072 O: (703) 516-5497 | BB: (703) 314-0501 | M:

Enterprise COBOL 6.1 announced

Announcement http://www-01.ibm.com/common/ssi/cgi-bin/ssialias?subtype=ca&infotype=an&appname=iSource&supplier=897&letternum=ENUS216-059 trial version http://www-01.ibm.com/common/ssi/cgi-bin/ssialias?subtype=ca&infotype=an&appname=iSource&supplier=897&letternum=ENUS216-060 One Time Charge versio

Re: Manipulating system symbols

As with a huge number of things, the best thing for any "owner" is to use a 3-character prefix that they own. This is necessary for avoiding conflicts, whether in part names, messages, name/token names, data space names, ENQ qnames/rnames, etc. I'm not sure how a customer's Share installation c

Re: IBM z13s article.

Machine type 2965. Charles -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Mike Schwab Sent: Monday, February 15, 2016 11:38 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: IBM z13s article. http://www.pcworld.com/article/3033464/ibm-unveil

Re: Concatenation order in LPALST

Your security product, whatever it is, may have a requirement for a library to be in the LPA concatenation, I believe. Bill J. On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 8:19 AM, John McKown wrote: On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 6:51 AM, Nathan Astle wrote: > Hi, > > Apology for asking dummy question.

Re: Concatenation order in LPALST

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 6:51 AM, Nathan Astle wrote: > Hi, > > Apology for asking dummy question. > > Is there a reason on why we need to place Security product LPALIB after the > System LPALIB in LPALST00 ? > ​Because the vendor said to? [grin]. I would guess that it would be for the same reas

Re: Concatenation order in LPALST

Sys1.lpalib is alwaya first forced by mvs if u dont specify it. The only exception is if you use the syslib statement to override ir's name. ITschak בתאריך 16 בפבר 2016 15:13,‏ "Mark Jacobs - Listserv" < mark.jac...@custserv.com> כתב: > It's not required but a good practice to have SYS1.LPALIB fi

Re: Concatenation order in LPALST

It's not required but a good practice to have SYS1.LPALIB first in the LPALST unless you know what you're doing. Mark Jacobs Nathan Astle February 16, 2016 at 7:51 AM Hi, Apology for asking dummy question. Is there a reason on why we need to place Security produ

Concatenation order in LPALST

Hi, Apology for asking dummy question. Is there a reason on why we need to place Security product LPALIB after the System LPALIB in LPALST00 ? Nathan -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email

› Default overrides for binder?

Something like this? http://www-01.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/SSLTBW_1.13.0/com.ibm.zos.r13.ieab200/bnddef.htm%23bnddef On Monday, 15 February 2016 23:45:25 UTC, Frank Swarbrick wrote: > The assembler has the ASMAOPT macro to build the ASMADOPT CSECT containing > the shop defaults for HLAS