Re: Paper tape (was Re: Hidden Figures)

In article <0ef78383-f053-5127-1c69-daf5709a5...@acm.org> Joel Ewing wrote: > On 01/13/2017 02:21 PM, Tom Marchant wrote: >> On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 13:56:57 -0600, Mike Schwab wrote: >> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punched_tape >>> About 1974-75, I lived with my dad, manager of a Kroger store.

Re: Paper tape (was Re: Hidden Figures)

On 01/13/2017 02:21 PM, Tom Marchant wrote: > On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 13:56:57 -0600, Mike Schwab wrote: > >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punched_tape >> About 1974-75, I lived with my dad, manager of a Kroger store. At >> night he would insert various strips of punch film into a reader to >>

Re: Hidden Figures

On 01/14/2017 05:49 AM, Linda wrote: > Awesome! I saw the movie yesterday. It was very good. Thanks to all who > helped and provided the historical accuracy. > > I was in elementary school in Florida during that time. We were given the day > off school to watch the launch on TV. Of course we

System Symbols (SYSSYM)

Hi, Can anyone see a reason for not enabling System Symbols for all job classes (i.e SYSSYM=ALLOW ) ? thanks Grant Williams -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to

Re: Case Question

Walt, To check authorization we use a RACROUTE call.. To pass commands r_radmin... Both are in the same code.. Sorry for the confusion. Regards, Scott On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 7:36 PM Walt Farrell wrote: > On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 15:16:14 -0500, scott Ford

Re: Case Question

On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 15:16:14 -0500, scott Ford wrote: >Charles: > >My friend, perfect. My issue is we are passing Security Sub System commands >( RACF, etc. ) thru r_radmin service call >and we just started supporting mixed-case passwords, etc. The other thing >that hit me

Re: The best practice of IODF in big system

In our environment we have four CECs. 1 - CF only 3 - running z/OS & z/VM - three different sysplexs We have one parallel sysplex that crosses all three CECs, the other two base sysplex each one a different CEC. We have several DASD volumes that are setup for limited sharing across all three

Re: Case Question

Charles: My friend, perfect. My issue is we are passing Security Sub System commands ( RACF, etc. ) thru r_radmin service call and we just started supporting mixed-case passwords, etc. The other thing that hit me was what 'setropts' was set to and how I have to query it...but i will get there..

Re: New free / open source z/OS tools from Dovetailed Technologies

Sorry hit the reply to fast... 1. Clone Git Resp. 2. Make changes on Cobol/Assembler 3. Upload to z/OS Sounds like this Ant/XML might do it ??? Scott On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 3:10 PM, scott Ford wrote: > Frank, All: > > I am in the same boat, I am trying to do: > > 1. >

Re: New free / open source z/OS tools from Dovetailed Technologies

Frank, All: I am in the same boat, I am trying to do: 1. On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 11:32 AM, Paul Gilmartin < 000433f07816-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 01:52:25 +, Frank Swarbrick wrote: > > > >Seems to me the only think that Make would be of use for in our

Re: Case Question

I don't believe COBOL inherently does any conversion whatsoever of PIC X data. If you read in a record with PIC X data, it will remain as-is unless you explicitly modify it in the COBOL. You may pass in the LINKAGE SECTION PIC X data and it will not inherently be inspected or altered. It is not

Case Question

All: I have a TCPIP inbound message that can contain mixed-cased letters. This request is pass onto to an Assembler module calling RACROUTES to perform authentication. My question is this the Cobol fields in the caller are PIC X(xxx) and i want to guarantee mixed case preservation. The called

Re: Friday SDB puzzle

> -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On > Behalf Of Paul Gilmartin > Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2017 9:41 AM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: Re: Friday SDB puzzle > Pondering this, it occurs to me that given 3390 track

Re: Friday SDB puzzle

On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 08:12:53 -0500, Bill Ashton wrote: >For fun I created some files. It seems that files with LRECL=7000 through >10796 create a SDB BLKSZ equal to the LRECL, rather than half track >blocking. ... > You missed at least one: Organization . . . : PS Current

Re: Current work unit

> Jim Mulder said the Current work unit is in the Web I said nothing about what is in the WEB. This is exactly what I said: "LCCACWEB (which is classified as not a programming interface) contains the address of the currently dispatched WEB." > I looked at that and saw a field WEBUPTR

Re: Current work unit

Jim Mulder said the Current work unit is in the Web I looked at that and saw a field WEBUPTR however the documentation says it not always valid If an SRB is suspended another SRB could be next to run not necessarily a TCB I just downloaded the latest RD seems like you guys (IBM) included

Re: Friday SDB puzzle

With an LRECL of 7000 and a max BLKSZ of 32760, there are only four possible FB block sizes to choose from: 28000 permits one block per track for a total of 4 records. 21000 permits two blocks per track for a total of 6 records. 14000 permits three blocks per track for a

Re: Current work unit

>If PSATOLD is zero > Would the current workunit >Be PSAAOLD->ASXBFSRB first SRB of the home address space ? No it would not be. There is not necessarily any control block representing that SRB. For example, for an SRB scheduled with the SCHEDULE macro, once dispatched, the control block is the

Re: Friday SDB puzzle

For fun I created some files. It seems that files with LRECL=7000 through 10796 create a SDB BLKSZ equal to the LRECL, rather than half track blocking. There are many other LRECLs that also create SDB BLKSZ that seems less than optimal. Does anyone know why this might be? For instance LRECL 3681

Re: The best practice of IODF in big system

Dear Alan, PROD CEC 1: Two LPARs one Z/OS, and one ICF. PROD CEC 2 : Two LPARs Z/OS CF CEC any z/OS lpars? No TEST CEC:  Three LPARs, one ICF, two Z/OS DR CEC how many lpars? Two ICF one TEST, one PROD- Three Z/OS one TEST and two PROD. Do the lpars share DASD?  Yes all of them sharing two DASD

Re: The best practice of IODF in big system

Mohamed, more questions: PROD CEC 1 how many lpars PROD CEC 2 how many lpars CF CEC any z/OS lpars? TEST CEC how many lpars DR CEC how many lpars? Do the lpars share DASD? Are the lpars in a SYSPLEX? How do you update the DR DASD? Do you have real time replication? Alan -Original

Re: The best practice of IODF in big system

By the way, we are running two different sysplex, one for PROD and one for TEST. Each Sysplex has members in the main data Centre and also DR site including Control systems for GDPS and System automation. Mohamed Gomaa From: Mohamed Juma <00cefc9a9b79-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu>

Re: Paper tape (was Re: Hidden Figures)

"Holey" ones! :-) Al Nims Systems Admin/Programmer 3 UFIT University of Florida (352) 273-1298 -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Phil Smith Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2017 10:28 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject:

The best practice of IODF in big system

Hi, We have 3 CECs in PROD System (two Z/OS and one External CF), one TEST and one more CEC in DR site, I combined them in one IODF.I want to know the best practice to copy the IODF to each CEC, and also the IOCDs without suffering from H/W and S/W mismatch. Mohamed Gomaa

Re: Paper tape (was Re: Hidden Figures)

I guess, Konrad Zuse in the 1930s used movie film for controlling his machines, too. The instructions were on the (movie film) tape, and by stepping the tape, the machine executed the instructions on the tape. There were no control instructions, no conditional branches (of course); only an