Re: SMP/E Feature?

> On May 10, 2016, at 10:15 AM, Mark Zelden wrote: > > I never responded / commented on Andrew's post, but since you brought the > subject up > again I will. > > I always use DDDEFs unless some products install / maintenance procedures > don't include > adding DDDEFs and

Re: ACF2 SMF Record Question

ACFRPTPW - A report that can be run against the SMF data. This will show many different reasons as to why a logon wasn't any good. ie - password not matched, invalid syntax, password expired. There is a pre-processor utility as generally ACF2 logs to a SMF record ( we're 230 ) and the

ACF2 SMF Record Question

I am sure this is not the correct place to ask this question but I hope someone can help me (or at least direct me to the correct place to ask this question). Note: We are supporting a client with ACF2... We do not have an ACF2 license at our shop. We are assisting a customer in trying to

Re: Dynamic CPU ADD to a z/OS lpar

On 5/12/2016 10:17 AM, Mark Zelden wrote: On Thu, 12 May 2016 07:30:03 -0400, Richards, Robert B. wrote: I do have a follow-up question Is anyone aware of a downside to over specifying reserved CPs? LCCA/PCCA storage. But the default CBLOC has been VIRTUAL31

Re: Dynamic CPU ADD to a z/OS lpar

On 5/12/2016 10:17 AM, Mark Zelden wrote: LCCA/PCCA storage. But the default CBLOC has been VIRTUAL31 since z/OS 1.12. Even if you are still overriding it to below the line it shouldn't be a problem unless you are reserving a large number (FSVO large) and have 24-bit issues already in your

Re: Dynamic CPU ADD to a z/OS lpar

On Thu, 12 May 2016 07:30:03 -0400, Richards, Robert B. wrote: >I do have a follow-up question Is anyone aware of a downside to over >specifying reserved CPs? LCCA/PCCA storage. But the default CBLOC has been VIRTUAL31 since z/OS 1.12. Even if you are still

Re: Dynamic CPU ADD to a z/OS lpar

This and the post it replies to suggests we might be getting muddied in our terminology. I think the original post was about DEFINING engines, rather than parking them or varying them on and offline. Cheers, Martin Martin Packer, zChampion, Principal Systems Investigator, Worldwide Cloud &

Re: Dynamic CPU ADD to a z/OS lpar

I’m not sure what the problem is with removing active CPs. At the start of a CBU window, extra CPs are made available in the hardware. If a system is newly IPLed at that point, it will see all available CPs defined in the Image profile. If a system is already running when CBU is activated,

Re: Dynamic CPU ADD to a z/OS lpar

Although this is not an HMC task I find I can either add or take away a CP on an individual LPAR with the following MVS command. CF CPU(1),OFFLINE< Puts one CP offline in this case CP #1 CF CPU(2),ONLINE< Puts one CP online in this case CP #2 -Original Message- From:

Re: Dynamic CPU ADD to a z/OS lpar

You can add CPs or memory to an active LPAR, but you can't take either away without stopping the LPAR. You don't want more CPs assigned than you (or PR/SM) can use...it's just overhead. In fact, unused CPs will be "parked" on newer CECs when underutilized.

Re: Dynamic CPU ADD to a z/OS lpar

Decrement would be more complicated, especially if there were work running on the supernumary ones. I learnt "decrement is harder than increment" with PAGEDEL being later than PAGEADD. Also with DB2 Buffer Pool Dynamic sizing. I believe the slightly less than polite term is "evacuation". :-)

Re: Dynamic CPU ADD to a z/OS lpar

Bob, the last refuge of a scoundrel / ignoramous is "control blocks". :-) I'd be concerned only if they were below the line. "PCCA" comes to mind but I might've just made that up. :-) Cheers, Martin Martin Packer, zChampion, Principal Systems Investigator, Worldwide Cloud & Systems

Re: Dynamic CPU ADD to a z/OS lpar

I can assure all that it works to ADD with reserved = 0 and without Activate/Deactivate. Once you add with "change running system", you issue a CONFIG CPU command and "Voila!", instant capacity increase. Don't forget that I am currently running a CBU test and had the extra physical processors

Re: Dynamic CPU ADD to a z/OS lpar

Yes, I meet the requirements. :-) I found the logical processor add and proved it works as advertised. The only surprise was the lack of ability to decrement processors without a deactivate. Thanks for responding. Bob -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List

Re: Dynamic CPU ADD to a z/OS lpar

On 05/12/2016 08:33 AM, Vernooij, CP (ITOPT1) - KLM wrote: > I am quite sure, at least for the z196, that you can online config CPs > online, if they have been defined as Reserved. To do so, you must change the > LPAR profile and de/reactivate the LPAR. So dynamically, in a running z/OS: > no.

Re: RFE for new SMPP support in zOS

Yes, e-mail-to-SMS/MMS is fairly common in the United States among other places, but it's not common everywhere. For example, it's not available with Singapore's mobile carriers as far as I know. It's not terribly common in Europe either. The RESTful interfaces to SMS/MMS message centers are a

Re: Dynamic CPU ADD to a z/OS lpar

I am quite sure, at least for the z196, that you can online config CPs online, if they have been defined as Reserved. To do so, you must change the LPAR profile and de/reactivate the LPAR. So dynamically, in a running z/OS: no. Kees. -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion