Re: Release code paramter of IEAVRLS2

On 6/2/2016 9:43 PM, michelbutz wrote: So it is the same parm as the one in the pause Yes. . IEAVPSE/IEAVPSE2/IEA4PSE/IEA4PSE2 release_code . IEAVXFR/IEAVXFR2/IEA4XFR/IEA4XFR2 current_du_release_code will be set to the value specified by one of the following- .

Re: Release code paramter of IEAVRLS2

So it is the same parm as the one in the pause Sent from my iPhone > On Jun 3, 2016, at 12:00 AM, Greg Dyck wrote: > >> On 6/2/2016 7:08 PM, michealbutz wrote: >> I have a question about the 3rd paramter of IEAVRLS2 target_du_release_code >> it is specfied as 4 bytes. Is

Re: Release code paramter of IEAVRLS2

On 6/2/2016 7:08 PM, michealbutz wrote: I have a question about the 3rd paramter of IEAVRLS2 target_du_release_code it is specfied as 4 bytes. Is this the same as the 4th paramter of the Pause service release code this is specfied as being 3 bytes Sigh... I checked the code and the description

Re: z/OS 2.2 JES2 ABEND S878-10 during startup

Does IBM have a fixing PTF? What size was the ESQA (Trying to understand LARGE reference) Any other details that could be helpful? Lizette > -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On > Behalf Of Bruce Hewson > Sent: Thursday, June 02,

z/OS 2.2 JES2 ABEND S878-10 during startup

Hello all, Just a heads-up for JES2 users going to z/OS 2.2. Triggered by a large ESQA parm setting, JES2 failed to start. An unconditional GETMAIN failed S878-10 in Extended Private due to increases in CHECKPOINT space usage. Regards Bruce Hewson

Release code paramter of IEAVRLS2

Hi I have a question about the 3rd paramter of IEAVRLS2 target_du_release_code it is specfied as 4 bytes. Is this the same as the 4th paramter of the Pause service release code this is specfied as being 3 bytes Thanks

Re: New and Updated tools

Looking much better! Thanks so much. And I will indeed check out your suggestions. On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 3:07 PM, Lionel Dyck wrote: > I'm sorry for the problem - it appears that I trusted Microsoft > Expressions Web to have copied the files but it appears that it didn't.

Re: New and Updated tools

I'm sorry for the problem - it appears that I trusted Microsoft Expressions Web to have copied the files but it appears that it didn't. The problem has been resolved. Here are direct links: http://lbdsoftware.com/txt2csv_v06.zip and http://lbdsoftware.com/xmitip_v16.04.zip be sure to try out

Re: New and Updated tools

Lionel, The XMIT 16.04 version .zip file is not there, http://www.lbdsoftware.com/xmitip_v16.04.zip Mark T. Regan, K8MTR CTO1, USNR-Retired 1969-1991 On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 12:50 PM, Lionel B Dyck wrote: > Thanks to a friend who provided access to a z/OS system I've a few

Re: New and Updated tools

Lionel, First let me say thank you very much for providing these tools. My site (Municipality of Anchorage) has made extensive use of this software over the years, particularly XMITIP, FTPB, and TXT2PDF. Unfortunately I am unable to download the latest/greatest XMITIP or TXT2CSV. Everything

Re: MTL question

I am not clear on your configuration. So, could you tell us 1) What hardware vendor and hardware type you will be using? For example IBM TS7740? 2) How many tape drives do you currently have defined? 3) How many tape drives do you need for now and future growth? 4) Will you be replicating or

Re: IEAIPS parmlib member

For those of us who did many many Goal Mode Migrations, z/OS 1.3 required Goal Mode. No Compat Mode. You can find my WLM presentations (and others) from 2000 on at www.share.org. zNorman -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On

Re: IEAIPS parmlib member

And by coincidence I just read a field description in the SMF manual that said the field (Performance Group Number) was invalid from z/OS 1.3 onwards. (Literally in the last half hour, while looking for something else.) Cheers, Martin Sent from my iPad > On 2 Jun 2016, at 21:48, John Eells

Re: IEAIPS parmlib member

John Eells wrote: Lopez, Sharon wrote: Does anyone remember when IEAIPSxx member went away? In 2001, whatever release that was... Sorry, it was 2002, in z/OS V1.3. (We created the IWMINSTL sample for installing a starter policy a year before V1.3 to ease the migration slightly and I

Re: IEAIPS parmlib member

Lower: 1.3 or 1.4, IRC. Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Bell network.   Original Message   From: Steve Beaver Sent: Thursday, June 2, 2016 15:19 To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Reply To: IBM Mainframe Discussion List Subject: Re: IEAIPS parmlib member About OS390 1.6 or so

Re: Delaying response to a message

>We had jobs with an outstanding WTOR that would last for 2 or so weeks. Never >an issue. > >Ed Did you allow them to stack up on the console? or did you K E,? them? and if so how did you keep track of which reply numbers were outstanding hidden off the console?

MTL question

We are in the process of life cycling our current tape environment. Currently we are not SMS managed tape and also not defined as an MTL. Our new environment will be MTLs but there is some confusion on setting up the MTL. I was under the impression that the 512 device limit was based on

Re: IEAIPS parmlib member

Lopez, Sharon wrote: Does anyone remember when IEAIPSxx member went away? In 2001, whatever release that was... -- John Eells IBM Poughkeepsie ee...@us.ibm.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access

Re: SUSPEND/RESUME is slower than WAIT/POST. PAUSE/RELEASE is slower than both.

On 6/2/2016 8:42 AM, Jerry Callen wrote: Yes, that's clear. What always gets my knickers twisted is when you can RESET the ECB and be sure you don't lose an event. If you always reset the ECB immediately after waking up, and before you start checking your work queues, you should never have

Re: SUSPEND/RESUME is slower than WAIT/POST. PAUSE/RELEASE is slower than both.

I think the concern was over a FAST POST, which can be safely done using a simple CS instruction. This can be done because the system WAIT process uses a CS to set the WAIT indicator bit and RB address in the ECB. Either your code sets the POST bit or their code sets the WAIT bit depending on

Re: IEAIPS parmlib member

I believe it was z/OS 1.4 is when compatibility mode was eliminated from Workload Manager. -From: "Lopez, Sharon" To: Cc: Sent: Thu, 2 Jun 2016 15:01:27 + Subject: IEAIPS parmlib member Does anyone remember when IEAIPSxx member went away?

Re: SUSPEND/RESUME is slower than WAIT/POST. PAUSE/RELEASE is slower than both.

Edward Jaffe wrote: > Stated as simply as I can: If the POST bit is already on, why call the > WAIT service in the first place? All it's gonna do is immediately return. Yes, that's clear. What always gets my knickers twisted is when you can RESET the ECB and be sure you don't lose an event. I

Re: SUSPEND/RESUME is slower than WAIT/POST. PAUSE/RELEASE is slower than both.

I *think* TMMYECB,X'40' JONOWAIT WAIT MYECB NOWAIT EQU * is foolproof, with no need for any sort of "interlock." Charles -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Jerry Callen Sent:

Re: IEAIPS parmlib member

On 6/2/2016 8:01 AM, Lopez, Sharon wrote: Does anyone remember when IEAIPSxx member went away? WLM compatibility mode was removed beginning in z/OS 1.3. -- Edward E Jaffe Phoenix Software International, Inc 831 Parkview Drive North El Segundo, CA 90245 http://www.phoenixsoftware.com/

Re: SUSPEND/RESUME is slower than WAIT/POST. PAUSE/RELEASE is slower than both.

On 6/2/2016 6:54 AM, Jerry Callen wrote: I understand the "quick POST" trick w/CS, but bypassing WAIT? I can see how that would work for something like waiting on I/O completion, but for trading control back and forth, I think it requires (for example) an auxiliary counter (and CDS to update

Re: IEAIPS parmlib member

About OS390 1.6 or so -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Lopez, Sharon Sent: Thursday, June 2, 2016 10:01 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: IEAIPS parmlib member Does anyone remember when IEAIPSxx member went away?

IEAIPS parmlib member

Does anyone remember when IEAIPSxx member went away? Thanks. Email correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties by an authorized state official.

Re: SUSPEND/RESUME is slower than WAIT/POST. PAUSE/RELEASE is slower than both.

Edward Jaffe wrote: > And, in the absence of contention, WAIT/POST in professionally-developed > software becomes orders of magnitude faster since everyone knows to skip > the WAIT if the post bit is on and to attempt a "quick" POST of the ECB > (using CS) if the wait bit is off. I understand

RFE's to consider a vote for

I'd like to encourage everyone who hasn't voted to consider voting for these requirements to nudge IBM into doing something positive for the TSO/ISPF community: Full ISPF Support for PDSE V2 Generations (currently at 40 votes)

Re: SUSPEND/RESUME is slower than WAIT/POST. PAUSE/RELEASE is slower than both.

...and here we go. The results differ somewhat from the previously posted results; I just ran these, and the machine is somewhat quieter than before. Clearly the "fast POST" trick is worthwhile - though it didn't make as much difference as I expected. Relative performance: total CPU ECB

Re: SUSPEND/RESUME is slower than WAIT/POST. PAUSE/RELEASE is slower than both.

Peter Relson wrote: >>I agree the reference materials _imply_ that WAIT/POST are deprecated >>and that Pause/Release/Transfer should be used when possible. >If you have a concrete reference, please provide it. WAIT/POST is in no >way deprecated. I wouldn't call it "deprecated", but this does

Re: SUSPEND/RESUME is slower than WAIT/POST. PAUSE/RELEASE is slower than both.

> And, in the absence of contention, WAIT/POST in professionally-developed > software becomes orders of magnitude faster since everyone knows to skip the > WAIT if the post bit is on and to attempt a "quick" POST of the ECB (using > CS) if the wait bit is off. And my timing code did just

z/OS XL C/C++ Requirement

https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/SSLTBW_2.2.0/com.ibm.zos.v2r2.e0zb100/pgmreqs.htm IBM document above states IP Services has following requirements: - For user-written programs in C that interface to an X Window System client, Remote Procedure Call, TCP or UDP protocol boundary, DPI,

Re: TCPIP Help

Mike Schwab wrote: >You can run $INDFILE with the bottom half on ISPF 6 (Command input). O yes, it was a long time ago I used that option 6... (must practise that again when I'm idle...;-D ) Or if it is one dataset, just a simple XMIT (node.id) DA(/) against a dataset in TSO/ISPF option =3.4

Re: Migration to Enterprise COBOL V5.2

- Yes, ARCH(11) for z13 - We found a program (only one) that needed 1.7GB to compile. And a lot of them requiring up to 600MB. So we use REGION=0M & IEFUSI. - CANCEL sentence when mixing 4.2 & 5.2 do not free used memory under certain circumstances. We opened some PMR about this, but still