Re: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer
Here's Tom Ross: https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/community/forums/html/topic?id=6d98d469-5088-41ec-8926-34e945443891=25 -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer
Well, if so leaky, let's hear a few. ABO does not know about PICtures. One of the limits to the optimisations available to it. Strictly, it could intuit some things, but it can't, because of REDEFINES large or small. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer
Great. Now we've got PL/I and Assembler in the mix. I do absolutely agree with Prino on "same everything throughout", at least after program testing. There are assorted (and growing) compiler options which should only live up to program testing (although there is not universal agreement). Proving that grass is green, doesn't mean that all grass is all green, or even green. We are, or were, talking about a particular grass, ABO, and in the particular, although highly complex in its task, it may not be entirely green. It may be variegated, and it may be black. If purple, get someone to say so. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer
On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 15:32:05 -0500, Bill Woodger wrote: > >My interpretation is this: "If the program is written in such a way that it >complies with what is explicitly documented for the version of Enterprise >COBOL that the program was last compiled with, that documentation being the >appropriate Language Reference, Programming Guide and Migration Guide, and >that all the data referenced by the given program "complies with its PICture", >then that will work in an identical manner with Enterprise COBOL V5+." > That specification is as leaky as a sieve. There's only slight protection in that ABO is probably unaware of what the PICtures were. Unless at OPT(0) the generated code verifies compliance with the PICtures, etc. http://trevorjim.com/postels-law-is-not-for-you/ -- gil -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer
"As to re-testing after recompile, if the resulting OBJ is the same, sure, no need. When can you expect that? Probably rarely, but that's only because there are often dates present in the output. So ignoring changes due to compile-date, changes in macros could affect things, so assume none of them. That brings you to something like application of a PTF. So are you compiling with the same PTF level of the compiler as before?" In this discussion, it arose from this: "Any program change requires full regression testing, including "just a recompile"." I'm not sure what you mean by "changes to macros" in this context, so I'll assume "copybooks". By "just a recompile" I assumed "with no changes to anything". The reason I assumed that is because there are sites where, if program A CALLs program B, when program B is changed, you have to recompile program A. Seriously. If you change a data-name in a copybook, and recompile the program, the source is different but the object is expected to be the same. If it is expected to be the same, and can be proven to be the same, why do a regression test? I don't think anyone would count a PTF which actually affected a program to count as "just a recompile", it is not the process, it is the expectation that the object is identical. For thousands of different Mainframe sites there are tens (at least) of ways that things are done. Not all of them are good (which is subjective), (as) effective (as they could be), or efficient. You can be sure there will be various rules, old wive's tales, rumour, cant and "it's the way we've always done it" which underpin these things. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer
On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 22:50:11 +, Robert Prins wrote: > >Programs compiled with different optimization levels (and sometimes even other >compiler options) are not the same program! Period. Full stop. End of story! > Many possibilities. A race condition might be won by the wrong path when optimized; the desired path when not optimized. But beware of processor upgrades. I once had a program in a little-known langage from a vendor other than IBM which program checked when optimized; at the debug levei it operated as I had intended. Reported. Vendor replied (correctly) that I had (unwittingly) used a construct clearly documented as undefined; unpredictable; NAPWAD. (Not timing-dependent nor resource constrained.) I seethed that the object of debugging mode is to report as many or more errors, not fewer. Vendor remained adamant. it had been: STHRemoved ... LH ... when optmized. SLA ..,3 Fixed point overflow when optimized -- gil -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer
"I believe COBOL V5 stated that recompile would work for correct programs. I don't know if that statement is true or not, or what exactly is definitively meant by "correct", but I think that ABO's more conservative approach is expected to work even for programs that do not work upon recompile with COBOL V5. Of course once one error has been found in an implementation, most bets are off. " My interpretation is this: "If the program is written in such a way that it complies with what is explicitly documented for the version of Enterprise COBOL that the program was last compiled with, that documentation being the appropriate Language Reference, Programming Guide and Migration Guide, and that all the data referenced by the given program "complies with its PICture", then that will work in an identical manner with Enterprise COBOL V5+." -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer
On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 10:44:06 -0400, Peter Relson wrote: > >I believe COBOL V5 stated that recompile would work for correct programs. >I don't know if that statement is true or not, or what exactly is >definitively meant by "correct", but I think that ABO's more conservative >approach is expected to work even for programs that do not work upon >recompile with COBOL V5. Of course once one error has been found in an >implementation, most bets are off. > When HLASM was introduced its documentation asserted that any program that Assembler H assembled with no errors or warnings would assemble identicallly with HLASM. The refutation was trivial; take any code with a construct undefined in H that HLASM assembled differently. That could even be leveraged into a Serious error in HLASM. IBM rapidly retracted the assertion. I even have an ironic example where a program that HLASM assembles differently with COMPAT(MACROCASE) but the same as H with COMPAT(NOMACROCASE). >... ignoring changes due to compile-date, ... > >If by "certified" you basically mean "proved to be correct", how many >realistic programs are ever provably correct (many non-realistic programs >could be)? Surely a lot *are* correct, but could you prove it? I suspect >that most software companies "warrant" (if an error is reported, it may be >fixed) rather than "certify". > There are claims of general techniques for proving program correctness. I disagree. If the preprocessor is Turing-complete, correctness is undecidable. If one hedges by introducing a limit on program complexity, that too may be undecidable even as Kolmogorov complexity is uncomputable. -- gil -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer
On 2016-10-15 14:44, Peter Relson wrote: So, if someone compiles their COBOL program without optimization and tests it, then compiles it with optimization before putting it into production, does it need to be tested again? Well, it's an excellent question Tom, but needs to be directed to people at sites that do that :-) Pushed for an answer, I'd say "no". But, if you have and it ends up being the same asnwer as for ABO, which is why you've posed the question. I on the other hand, when pushed for an answer would say "yes". Even if the optimizer in the compiler is 100% correct (not always the case), better optimization may make assumptions that the code in question does not happen to satisfy. At some time in the 1990'ies, using OS PL/I V2.3.0, my then employer had one large program (at 10+K pure LOC it was their largest program) that had to be compiled OPT(0). It would not run (S0C1 or S0C4, don't remember) if it was compiled OPT(2). Likewise, I've got a PL/I program that runs OK when compiled OPT(0) with the PL/I for Windows compiler, yet fails miserably when it's compiled OPT(3). I've always been a very strong proponent of only testing programs that are compiled with exactly the same options as the one used for production compiles. Programs compiled with different optimization levels (and sometimes even other compiler options) are not the same program! Period. Full stop. End of story! Robert -- Robert AH Prins robert(a)prino(d)org No programming (yet) @ http://prino.neocities.org/ -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer
Splitting up the replies. "If by "certified" you basically mean "proved to be correct", how many realistic programs are ever provably correct (many non-realistic programs could be)? Surely a lot *are* correct, but could you prove it? I suspect that most software companies "warrant" (if an error is reported, it may be fixed) rather than "certify". " No, that is not what I meant. It goes back to this: "[ABO] ... produces a functionally equivalent executable program", which is a claim somewhere within the ABO site. OK, I can see a search-box at the top of my screen (sorry, "page"). It is in the User's Guide for ABO. That is either some snake-oil marketing-speak, or something underlies it. I assumed the latter, and that now seems to be borne out by further research. To me it amounts to "we can show that the program we produce, works in the same way as the program we started with, it just does it differently". This is a very different thing from the mythical program which can test any given program. If IBM were to approach one or more organisations which represent companies/organisations who provide Audit Rules for large computer systems, and were able to get some definitive statement on the techniques used by ABO that underpin the above statement, then it may allow an easier take-up and implementation of ABO for large organisations, who have to operate under any number of compliance/audit/legal requirements, plus rules from parent companies, for instance. The idea is "damaged" by that bug. I can guess where the loophole was, (only a guess) and hope that it can either be included within the verification, or, if not, that that type of optimization dropped altogether. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: HMCS consoles
>> CONSOLE DEVNUM(HMCS) NAME(HMCS) AUTH(MASTER) ROUTCODE(ALL) >> INTIDS(Y) LEVEL(ALL) UNKNIDS(Y) > >I've noticed SHARE and IBM Tech-U presentations full of the same silly >example that can't possibly work. They recommend exactly what you have: >CONSOLE DEVNUM(HMCS) NAME(HMCS) etc. which is a single system definition... > >What you need is something like: CONSOLE DEVNUM(HMCS) >NAME(HMCS) etc. Ah, now I know why "IBM" gave me that example! And it works great for a monoplex (which we had at that the time I first used it, so I ignored the niggle of doubt that had noticed that the console name is HMCS and that there can be only one console of that name in any given plex). It came to me in a flash of blinding insight while preparing dinner tonight that I need to change the name to HMCS We use 4 character system names, and then it will probably work as advertised. The example from the IEA shows HMCS as name, and since isn't used anywhere in my current installation, I kept wondering how that would distinguish the consoles. Silly me. Now, since I deleted the console definition for SMCS, I wonder if the next IPL with the corrected definition will allow me to activate an HMCS on every system in the sysplex, even on the system where it was activated once and deleted from, or if I'll need a sysplex-wide IPL. I guess I'll test that on Monday morning in the sandplex. Thanks for being a sounding board... :-) and have a great rest of the weekend! Barbara -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: HMCS consoles
On 10/15/2016 8:13 AM, Tom Conley wrote: More silly examples from IBM I thought was SMF id, but I just found out that apparently there's not a system symbol for SMF id?? Haha! That's funny. Even their "corrected" example isn't right! SMH> Our z/OS sysnames are five characters long with the unique clone characters in positions 4-5, so we specify the following in IEASYMxx: SYMDEF(='(1:2).(4:2)') and this in SMFPRM00: SID() -- Edward E Jaffe Phoenix Software International, Inc 831 Parkview Drive North El Segundo, CA 90245 http://www.phoenixsoftware.com/ -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: HMCS consoles
On 10/15/2016 10:56 AM, Ed Jaffe wrote: On 10/15/2016 7:36 AM, Tom Conley wrote: For example, you could define the HMCS similar to: CONSOLE DEVNUM(HMCS) NAME() I think if you add the SYSNAME to the HMCS name, you should be OK. Except that SYSNAME is a 1-8 character name. Better to use as a general rule. More silly examples from IBM I thought was SMF id, but I just found out that apparently there's not a system symbol for SMF id?? -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: HMCS consoles
On 10/15/2016 7:36 AM, Tom Conley wrote: For example, you could define the HMCS similar to: CONSOLE DEVNUM(HMCS) NAME() I think if you add the SYSNAME to the HMCS name, you should be OK. Except that SYSNAME is a 1-8 character name. Better to use as a general rule. -- Edward E Jaffe Phoenix Software International, Inc 831 Parkview Drive North El Segundo, CA 90245 http://www.phoenixsoftware.com/ -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: HMCS consoles
On 10/15/2016 7:22 AM, Barbara Nitz wrote: I have this in my (shared) CONSOLxx: CONSOLE DEVNUM(HMCS) NAME(HMCS) AUTH(MASTER) ROUTCODE(ALL) INTIDS(Y) LEVEL(ALL) UNKNIDS(Y) I've noticed SHARE and IBM Tech-U presentations full of the same silly example that can't possibly work. They recommend exactly what you have: CONSOLE DEVNUM(HMCS) NAME(HMCS) etc. which is a single system definition... What you need is something like: CONSOLE DEVNUM(HMCS) NAME(HMCS) etc. -- Edward E Jaffe Phoenix Software International, Inc 831 Parkview Drive North El Segundo, CA 90245 http://www.phoenixsoftware.com/ -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: ABO Automatic Binary Optimizer
So, if someone compiles their COBOL program without optimization and tests it, then compiles it with optimization before putting it into production, does it need to be tested again? Well, it's an excellent question Tom, but needs to be directed to people at sites that do that :-) Pushed for an answer, I'd say "no". But, if you have and it ends up being the same asnwer as for ABO, which is why you've posed the question. I on the other hand, when pushed for an answer would say "yes". Even if the optimizer in the compiler is 100% correct (not always the case), better optimization may make assumptions that the code in question does not happen to satisfy. That is similar to the following: As with ABO, it's not OPT I'm afraid of, it is the potential of bad programs. I believe COBOL V5 stated that recompile would work for correct programs. I don't know if that statement is true or not, or what exactly is definitively meant by "correct", but I think that ABO's more conservative approach is expected to work even for programs that do not work upon recompile with COBOL V5. Of course once one error has been found in an implementation, most bets are off. As to re-testing after recompile, if the resulting OBJ is the same, sure, no need. When can you expect that? Probably rarely, but that's only because there are often dates present in the output. So ignoring changes due to compile-date, changes in macros could affect things, so assume none of them. That brings you to something like application of a PTF. So are you compiling with the same PTF level of the compiler as before? ouldn't it be great if the American Institute of Auditors (I've invented the name, but I'm sure there is at least one such organisation) and IBM got together and certified ABO. If by "certified" you basically mean "proved to be correct", how many realistic programs are ever provably correct (many non-realistic programs could be)? Surely a lot *are* correct, but could you prove it? I suspect that most software companies "warrant" (if an error is reported, it may be fixed) rather than "certify". Peter Relson z/OS Core Technology Design -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: HMCS consoles
On 10/15/2016 10:22 AM, Barbara Nitz wrote: Hi Tom, I found this forum post, which says you can have one HMCS console per z/OS image (WTW). I have this in my (shared) CONSOLxx: CONSOLE DEVNUM(HMCS) NAME(HMCS) AUTH(MASTER) ROUTCODE(ALL) INTIDS(Y) LEVEL(ALL) UNKNIDS(Y) I had assumed that this definition would give me one HMCS per system in the 4-way sysplex, but that does not seem to be the case: D C,F,CN=HMCS CNZ4100I 16.02.52 CONSOLE DISPLAY 102 CONSOLES MATCHING COMMAND: D C,F,CN=HMCS MSG:CURR=0LIM=2000 RPLY:CURR=15 LIM=99SYS=KFW2 PFK=00 HMCS TYPE=HMCS STATUS=STDBY-xxx4 DEFINED=(xxx4) MATCHED=(xxx4) ATTRIBUTES ON xxx4 AUTH=(MASTER)CMDSYS=*NBUF=0SUPSBY=Y DEV=NONE LOGON=OPTIONAL USERID=N/A MFORM=(M)AREA=(Z,A) PFKTAB=*DEFAULT USE=FC DEL=RD RTME=2RNUM=5SEG=19CON=N LEVEL=(ALL) MONITOR=(NONE) INTIDS=Y UNKNIDS=Y ROUT=(ALL) MSCOPE=(*ALL) In a 3 or 4-way sysplex, I see no way to tell z/OS to use *one* HMCS per *system*, much less how to specify which system should have which HMCS console assigned if I were to specify a different name (which I am not sure that I can, hence my question). This was the first system to be IPL'd on the z13, and I am unable to open a second HMCS in that sysplex. No attention generating thing I can think of gets me the HMCS to the other system. (And it would work on a z196 with z/OS 2.1, so it is not the old hardware.) In the other sysplex there was one system that was IPL'd on the z13 using the HMCS, but we had to go back to the old hardware. This time around we moved a different system from that sysplex to the z13, so that console named HMCS was still defined to the other system. While the HMCS worked fine during NIP for the second system, it stopped working once NIP was over. I am able to delete that HMCS console definition, but now no HMCS console works. I did not see a way to get *the* HMCS attached to a different 'owning' system. So FWIW, I very much doubt that one HMCS per z/OS image can be activated. It seems to me (from what I remember when I did console support, admittedly before console restructure) that we are talking about one HMCS console per sysplex. That's why I am asking here. Best regards, Barbara Barbara, I think the NAME is messing you up. It needs to be unique in the SYSPLEX. Here is the example from that first document I sent you. For example, you could define the HMCS similar to: CONSOLE DEVNUM(HMCS) NAME() I think if you add the SYSNAME to the HMCS name, you should be OK. Regards, Tom Conley -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: HMCS consoles
Hi Tom, >I found this forum post, which says you can have one HMCS console per >z/OS image (WTW). I have this in my (shared) CONSOLxx: CONSOLE DEVNUM(HMCS) NAME(HMCS) AUTH(MASTER) ROUTCODE(ALL) INTIDS(Y) LEVEL(ALL) UNKNIDS(Y) I had assumed that this definition would give me one HMCS per system in the 4-way sysplex, but that does not seem to be the case: D C,F,CN=HMCS CNZ4100I 16.02.52 CONSOLE DISPLAY 102 CONSOLES MATCHING COMMAND: D C,F,CN=HMCS MSG:CURR=0LIM=2000 RPLY:CURR=15 LIM=99SYS=KFW2 PFK=00 HMCS TYPE=HMCS STATUS=STDBY-xxx4 DEFINED=(xxx4) MATCHED=(xxx4) ATTRIBUTES ON xxx4 AUTH=(MASTER)CMDSYS=*NBUF=0SUPSBY=Y DEV=NONE LOGON=OPTIONAL USERID=N/A MFORM=(M)AREA=(Z,A) PFKTAB=*DEFAULT USE=FC DEL=RD RTME=2RNUM=5SEG=19CON=N LEVEL=(ALL) MONITOR=(NONE) INTIDS=Y UNKNIDS=Y ROUT=(ALL) MSCOPE=(*ALL) In a 3 or 4-way sysplex, I see no way to tell z/OS to use *one* HMCS per *system*, much less how to specify which system should have which HMCS console assigned if I were to specify a different name (which I am not sure that I can, hence my question). This was the first system to be IPL'd on the z13, and I am unable to open a second HMCS in that sysplex. No attention generating thing I can think of gets me the HMCS to the other system. (And it would work on a z196 with z/OS 2.1, so it is not the old hardware.) In the other sysplex there was one system that was IPL'd on the z13 using the HMCS, but we had to go back to the old hardware. This time around we moved a different system from that sysplex to the z13, so that console named HMCS was still defined to the other system. While the HMCS worked fine during NIP for the second system, it stopped working once NIP was over. I am able to delete that HMCS console definition, but now no HMCS console works. I did not see a way to get *the* HMCS attached to a different 'owning' system. So FWIW, I very much doubt that one HMCS per z/OS image can be activated. It seems to me (from what I remember when I did console support, admittedly before console restructure) that we are talking about one HMCS console per sysplex. That's why I am asking here. Best regards, Barbara -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: HMCS consoles
On 10/15/2016 7:56 AM, Barbara Nitz wrote: When we started working with our z13, IBM recommended to use the integrated console(s) that are defined as HMCS to z/OS. So we put in the definition and managed to IPL the first system in each sysplex with the HMCS console instead of Operating System Messages console, which is hard to handle. Today I had a rude awakening when I attempted to IPL a second system using the HMCS console. The console would not activate or stopped working after NIP messages were through. Fortunately this was a sysplex, so I could do the rest of the startup from my SDSF console. Then I went reading about HMCS. Can someone please confirm that my current understanding of HMCSs is correct? 1. One and only one HMCS can be specified in each sysplex. (If not, how do I assign a name to it?) 2. I can vary that console offline, and I can delete the console definition as a whole. 3. Once an HMCS was active in the sysplex, it will stay assigned to that system it was first activated on. 4. There is no way to 'move' the HMCS to a different system. (If not, how do I do it?) Thanks in advance, Barbara Barbara, Found this as well: http://www.redbooks.ibm.com/iea/pdf/zOS_V2R1_BCP_Consoles_HMCS_-_Integrated_320_Console.pdf Regards, Tom Conley -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: HMCS consoles
On 10/15/2016 7:56 AM, Barbara Nitz wrote: When we started working with our z13, IBM recommended to use the integrated console(s) that are defined as HMCS to z/OS. So we put in the definition and managed to IPL the first system in each sysplex with the HMCS console instead of Operating System Messages console, which is hard to handle. Today I had a rude awakening when I attempted to IPL a second system using the HMCS console. The console would not activate or stopped working after NIP messages were through. Fortunately this was a sysplex, so I could do the rest of the startup from my SDSF console. Then I went reading about HMCS. Can someone please confirm that my current understanding of HMCSs is correct? 1. One and only one HMCS can be specified in each sysplex. (If not, how do I assign a name to it?) 2. I can vary that console offline, and I can delete the console definition as a whole. 3. Once an HMCS was active in the sysplex, it will stay assigned to that system it was first activated on. 4. There is no way to 'move' the HMCS to a different system. (If not, how do I do it?) Thanks in advance, Barbara Guten tag Barbara, I found this forum post, which says you can have one HMCS console per z/OS image (WTW). https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/community/blogs/IBMRedbooksSystemz/entry/z_os_v2r1_technical_updates_hmc_integrated_3270_console_hmcs?lang=en Check out these lines: No CONSOLxx definitions are needed for the NIP usage Once NIP is over, the HMCS console can no longer be used if there are no CONSOLxx definitions for it Do you have the CONSOLxx on the failing system? Regards, Tom Conley -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
HMCS consoles
When we started working with our z13, IBM recommended to use the integrated console(s) that are defined as HMCS to z/OS. So we put in the definition and managed to IPL the first system in each sysplex with the HMCS console instead of Operating System Messages console, which is hard to handle. Today I had a rude awakening when I attempted to IPL a second system using the HMCS console. The console would not activate or stopped working after NIP messages were through. Fortunately this was a sysplex, so I could do the rest of the startup from my SDSF console. Then I went reading about HMCS. Can someone please confirm that my current understanding of HMCSs is correct? 1. One and only one HMCS can be specified in each sysplex. (If not, how do I assign a name to it?) 2. I can vary that console offline, and I can delete the console definition as a whole. 3. Once an HMCS was active in the sysplex, it will stay assigned to that system it was first activated on. 4. There is no way to 'move' the HMCS to a different system. (If not, how do I do it?) Thanks in advance, Barbara -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
