Not between 2.1 and 2.4. The incompatibilities are between JES level sets.
Those kinds of problems (when things are actively shared through the sysplex)
are where being a sysplex can make a difference, the solution in those cases is
that you end up with two sysplexes for the duration of your
You are mixing a problem that can happen from adding a single APAR at any time.
It's not really applicable to the length of the (long or short) JUMP. A stand
alone LPAR (which this OP has) is not going to be incompatible in a way that
makes installing an intermediate level make any sense.
On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 at 12:50, Charles Mills wrote:
>
> > If an elligible SRB process is established will that automatically run on
> > zIIP or do we have to do something else?
>
> Others have beaten this general topic pretty well to death but let me address
> just that one question. The answer
It went from 2M to 3M. So 50%. We got a message at IPL time that said
RMDATA had to be at least 3M if I remember right.
On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 4:24 PM Juergen Kehr wrote:
> Do you remember the percentage RRS RMDATA increases?
>
> Kind regards
> Juergen
>
>
Do you remember the percentage RRS RMDATA increases?
Kind regards
Juergen
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
It's not recent, but there have been changes in, e.g., catalog, SPOOL, that had
toleration issues. In some cases, e.g., SPOOL, the new formats were not used
until the installation explicitly activated them.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
Hi, this is basically just a PSA...
If you happen to use zlib on z/os, or bundle it with a z/OS product, you may
want to consider applying APAR OA57154 which addresses a known but rare zlib
decompression bug.
The bug exists in the IBM customized version of zlib shipped with z/OS 2.1, 2.2
Does it need saying that you ought to have your own recovery and take your
own SVC Dump to meet your own diagnostic needs?
>From what was presented, we know the following:
Page fault occurred (Program check 11, resulting in 0C4-11) at 1ECDE102
At a time when the difference between register C
Absolutely, and I think some of the responders covered that point. The
restriction against SVCs is a killer all by itself.
Charles
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Farley, Peter x23353
Sent: Friday, September 6, 2019
The structure that increased for us was the RRS RMDATA structure. We went
from a zBC12 to a ZR1 so CFLEVEL 18 or so to level 22.
On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 11:39 AM Michael Babcock
wrote:
> We updated a year or so ago. The only size increase strictly necessary
> was one of the RRS structures.
I seriously doubt it, and I seriously doubt that modifying the CCW chain would
have a noticeable impact on cache performance.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of
Crawford, Robert
RENT will (sometimes) catch violations of refreshability; it does not catch
violation of reentrancy other than (some) self modifying code. The OP's problem
is a reentrancy violation[1] that the assembler does not and cannot catch.
[1] Well, technically the two exits are different routines, but
There was a lot of discussion at the last Share about how store in instruction
stream (SIIS) can be a drag on performance. An MXG report revealed we have a
high SIIS percentage in our zIIP's but the only thing running of note at the
time was Virtual Tape for Mainframe (VTFM).
Someone told me
Well, to make up for that it does flag some things that are not reentrancy
violations. Nobody's prefect.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of
Charles Mills
Sent: Thursday,
> the PRIME DIRECTIVE is "Nothing shall ever change",
In some alternate universe, perhaps. Some of the disruptive changes are even
documented.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of
You don't have to worry about IBM suing you because you'll ABEND as soon as the
compiled code or a library routine issues an SVC.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of
Gerry Anstey
Isn't the more critical question whether any of the LE subroutines used to
implement so many COBOL statements even callable running in an SRB since SVC's
other than ABEND are prohibited in an SRB? How would COBOL code even be able
to load and call the LE subroutines that are dynamically
Putting it another way, if it were that easy everyone would be doing it, IBM's
revenue would plummet, and Ginny's job would be in danger.
Charles
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Gerry Anstey
Sent: Friday, September
> If an elligible SRB process is established will that automatically run on
> zIIP or do we have to do something else?
Others have beaten this general topic pretty well to death but let me address
just that one question. The answer is No. You can only mark something
"zIIP-eligible." It will
We updated a year or so ago. The only size increase strictly necessary
was one of the RRS structures. Don’t remember which one off the top of my
head. I can check and post back.
On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 7:49 AM Vernooij, Kees (ITOP NM) - KLM <
kees.verno...@klm.com> wrote:
> What is the source
FYI, Not sure when it last worked for you, but in 2018 IBM did change the CA
cert requirements -
http://www-03.ibm.com/support/techdocs/atsmastr.nsf/5cb5ed706d254a8186256c71006d2e0a/bdee3c698260c970852582170066c99f/$FILE/New%20Certificate%20Authority.pdf
On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 14:35:34 +, Allan Staller wrote:
>Pay-me-now or pay-me-later.
>
>The APAR is there. I would expect IBM to reverse it sometime in the future.
>
>My $0.02 USD worth,
>
Maybe, maybe not. But my point is that for what is still left of non-ISV use of
user key common is
Rob,
Do you have these keys on your keyring besides your Shopz one? Pretty sure
both the DIGIcert Global Root CA and the GeoTrust are needed.
KEYRING LABEL = SMPE_USER_KEYRING
KEYRING HAS THE FOLLOWING CERTIFICATES CONNECTED:
As others have mentioned, running application code on a ZIIP is a violation of
your license.
Aside from that, SRBs run in Supervisor state, introducing potential integrity
exposures.
And an SRB cannot issue any SVC, except for ABEND.
--
Tom Marchant
Bill,
I read that also.
I assume that when I listen for event 48, I am listening across the
entire LPAR.
The exit can be driven for events that are not related to my log stream.
They can be events for other log streams or events specific to the
logger only.
I have
https://www-01.ibm.com/software/support/lifecycleapp/PLCDetail.wss?q45=Z497063S01245B61~B227540X25949K69~Z966844T77753Y85
z/OS 2.2 Available Sep 30 2015, End of Marketing Jan 29 2018 End of
Service Sep 30 2020.
z/OS 2.1 was 2 years earlier.
z/OS 2.3 was / should be 2 years later.
z/OS 2.4 should
Kurt,
Many many times. It is always the same. I have been trying setting up my
own shopz cert after the prior cert expired. I just assumed it was my
setup.
I am thinking about running a gsksrvr trace because the message is so
unhelpful.
Rob Schramm
On Fri, Sep 6, 2019, 08:00 Kurt
None. I used 10% (and a 20%) as an example to show the difference
between multiplying percent increases and simply adding the percents
together.
On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 12:49 PM Vernooij, Kees (ITOP NM) - KLM
wrote:
>
> What is the source of these figures? In my experience many CF level upgrades
Thanks, Dave -
I IPLed with a new LOADxx member yesterday. I didn't think any of these
LOADxx members have been changed in years, and yet, The problem was exactly
what you posted. The LOADxx member had the wrong HLQ for the VOLCAT.
On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 11:57 AM Allan Staller wrote:
>
Actually, it probably does not need to be repaired, and IMO is almost certainly
NOT your problem.
However, if you want to fix this:
Dump all logical datasets on volume.
Reinit volume
Restore all logical datasets.
Probably more work that it is worth.
There is /was a program available from IBM.
Doing a DIAG of the VOLCAT -
DIAGNOSE VVDS INDATASET(SYS1.VVDS.VSHRVOL)
IDC11367I THE FOLLOWING VVDS REFERENCED CATALOGS WERE NOT ENCOUNTERED:
CATALOG.ZOS113.MASTER
IDC0001I FUNCTION COMPLETED, HIGHEST CONDITION CODE WAS 4
That catalog has not exist for quite some time. Now i need to find a
Don’t really have an answer, other than a google search on " IDC3009i RC 30 RSN
62 IGG0CLF8". Not sure if this helps or not.
Question & Answer
Question
Catalog Access Error when attempting to define 3494. After defining the tape
library using the ISMF panels, when trying to EXIT using PF3, a
Ran an EXAMINE and that looks okay.
IDC01700I INDEXTEST BEGINS
IDC11773I 14 KEYS PROCESSED ON INDEX LEVEL 1, AVERAGE KEY
LENGTH: 2.0
IDC11774I CURRENT INDEX CISIZE IS 1024, RECOMMENDED MINIMUM INDEX CISIZE
IS 1024
IDC01724I INDEXTEST COMPLETE - NO ERRORS DETECTED
IDC01701I
I have some problem with my SYS1.VOLCAT.VGENERAL and appears I need to
recreate it.
IDC3014I CATALOG ERROR
IDC3009I ** VSAM CATALOG RETURN CODE IS 30 - REASON CODE IS IGG0CLF8-62
IDC1566I ** SUPPRESSED ENTRY NOT LISTED
Is there a procedure recreating a VOLCAT?
--
The postings on this site are
Simple response .….. check out the 'Writing an ENF event 48 listen exit'
section in the 'z/OS MVS Programming: Authorized Assembler Services Guide'
(see: Using system logger services / Setting up the system logger configuration)
Also ….. the description of the fields in the IXGENF macro in
Ok thanks all.
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Carmen,
It does not show an End of Marketing date for z/OS 2.3 nor an end of support.
Bob
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Carmen Vitullo
Sent: Friday, September 06, 2019 10:39 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
I believe this link is still valid
https://www.ibm.com/support/home/pages/lifecycle/?from=index_a
Carmen Vitullo
- Original Message -
From: "Dana Mitchell"
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Sent: Friday, September 6, 2019 9:27:55 AM
Subject: Re: z/OS 2.1 to 2.4 [EXTERNAL]
I have not checked, but that is consistent with prior IBM practices.
If you want z/OS 2.3 order immediately!
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of
Dana Mitchell
Sent: Friday, September 6, 2019 9:28 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: z/OS 2.1 to
Probably somewhere around then. If you need it, just order it. Even if you
never use it.
_
Dave Jousma
AVP | Manager, Systems Engineering
Fifth Third Bank | 1830 East Paris Ave, SE | MD
Pay-me-now or pay-me-later.
The APAR is there. I would expect IBM to reverse it sometime in the future.
My $0.02 USD worth,
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of
Mark Zelden
Sent: Friday, September 6, 2019 9:04 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject:
Does anyone know for sure how long V2R3 will remain orderable? My guess would
be end of September 2019 when 2.4 goes GA?
Sorry, my question was sort of buried underneath a previous reply.
Dana
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe
My client has a sysplex with CVTUSER and key 8 CSA in use still for a home
grown function. We are working on retiring or changing that function for z/OS
2.4.
Then when I applied z/OS 2.3 RSU1806 maintenance yesterday I came across this
APAR that looks like could have allowed us to migrate to
Playing LPs backwards, revealed many things, a.o. "Paul is dead".
Kees
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
> Behalf Of Chris Hoelscher
> Sent: 06 September, 2019 15:31
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: Using COBOL on
If you play this email backwards you will hear:
Burn Neon, dead man ... Burn Neon, dead man
Thank You,
Chris Hoelscher| Lead Database Administrator | IBM Global Technical Services| T
502.476.2538 or 502.407.7266
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of
Check the story of IBM vs Neon Software.
Kees.
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
> Behalf Of Steve Smith
> Sent: 06 September, 2019 14:52
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: Using COBOL on ZIIP via SRB etc
>
>
You may want to review what happened to zPrime.
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
I thought as much, thanks.
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Well, if you can get your COBOL to run in an SRB successfully, you've
established that it could run on a zIIP. But it's not at all "automatic",
and you have to know the secrets to make that happen. Which IBM only
reveals under cover of an NDA, so they're the only legitimate source. But
first
What is the source of these figures? In my experience many CF level upgrades
did not require a structure increment and others had specific requirements.
E.g. add nn MBs i.s.o. increment by nn %.
75% is a guess and in my opinion too much.
We are at level 21 now. If my docs are reliable, the last
You did not indicate if you are using an ICF or not.
I would run the sizer for the CF22 level. Update your current policies to
match, and add the new CF to the policies. The major difference between CF17
and CF22 is the size of the structures.
Options:
1) Add (I guestimate) 20% To your current
The code is not self-modifying, and the S0C4 information given plainly
shows that's not the problem. You cannot get a PIC of 11 by
self-modification.
sas
On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 11:37 PM Leonardo Vaz wrote:
> Specifying RSECT instead of CSECT will make the section read-only, might
> help
I would multiply. Example 1.1 * 1.2 * 1.1 * 1.1 * 1.1 = 1.75692
instead of 1.6 by addition.
On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 12:17 PM Vernooij, Kees (ITOP NM) - KLM
wrote:
>
> You can ask IBM for the information about CF levels 18 - 22. If structure
> sizes need to be increased during a CF level
You can ask IBM for the information about CF levels 18 - 22. If structure sizes
need to be increased during a CF level upgrade, this is documented with the CF
level. Add up the increments and you have a good estimate of the Level 22 sizes.
Kees.
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM
I strongly suspect that these will work with ACF2, since they use standard
IBM C Library functions that interface to SAF.
But to get a real answer - you should ask CA (Broadcom).
On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 7:10 AM Michael Knigge wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> can someone confirm that the Java classes in
Hi all,
can someone confirm that the Java classes in com.ibm.os390.security (z/OS SAF
Interfaces) will also work with ACF2? In one of our applications we use the
methods
PlatformUser.changePassword
PlatformUser.authenticate
PlatformAccessControl.checkPermission
Brian, So I get the fervor, but might be a little harsh?
By "dataset", not sure he was talking about dataset structure, but maybe the
contents of any dataset. For example, and this happened to me, and this all
happened within the same z/OS release, but would just as easily occur on a z/OS
On 9/5/2019 4:33 PM, Rob Schramm wrote:
GIM69207S ** RECEIVE PROCESSING HAS FAILED BECAUSE THE CONNECTION WITH
THE SERVER
FAILED. javax.net.ssl.SSLHandshakeException:
com.ibm.jsse2.util.h: PKIX path building failed:
java.security.cert.CertPathBuilderException:
PKIXCertPathBuilderImpl could
Two DASD incompatibilities I know of from OS/390. Dropping ISAM and
adding EAVs DSCBs to the VTOC. PDSE V2 I'm not sure of. Possibly the
various extended attributes. Drop the ISAM first and don't use the
new facilities until you are certain you don't need to go back.
On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at
Hello,
we’re planning a migration from our z114 to a z14ZR1, therefore we have to
bring our CF policy from one which supports CFLEVEL=17 to one for CFLEVEL=22.
Because of hardware dependencies there is no way to have a z/OS system which
has one CF with the old CFLEVEL and one with the new
On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 8:27 PM Jon Perryman wrote:
>
>
> On Thursday, September 5, 2019, 06:06:41 AM PDT, John McKown <
> john.archie.mck...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I completely agree. Unfortunately, we have a number of batch jobs which
> are
>
> > submitted by CICS transactions run by users.
Yes, I thought as much but the method does seem to be there to code so I was a
little puzzled as to how the restrictions are enforced.
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to
Gerry, I think you are SOL if you want to do that! Running code on a
zIIP has to be under license from IBM and is only available to IBM
business partners.
On 2019-09-06 6:07 PM, Gerry Anstey wrote:
Hi, has anyone had any success in setting up and SRB to run a COBOL program on
ZIIP?
I have
Hi, has anyone had any success in setting up and SRB to run a COBOL program on
ZIIP?
I have been doing some research and I'm aware of the restrictions in running
under SRB etc but for now I just want to establish if the concept is viable.
Does anyone have some sample code to load a COBOL
Possible, but still this must run serialized, so both exits cannot run together
and modify each other's view of the message.
Kees.
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
> Behalf Of Sebastian Welton
> Sent: 06 September, 2019
For some reason, the message being trapped was also defined in EDGRMM with the
MNTMSG command which if I understand the manual correctly, updates the message
so presumably it must be intercepting the message at some point to make the
changes.
Seb.
Yes, and as s consequence, if he does not receive an 0C4, he will probably be
clearing someone else's storage.
however the relation with 'the other subsystem' is also interesting.
Kees.
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
>
Interesting twist in the problem.
Good to know how you eliminated the problem, but as a real sysprog I am curious
what the cause of the problem was. How could the other subsystem interfere with
the MPF exit? How does it 'trap' the message? It looks like it is not
serialized with the MPF exit,
Actually, you are incorrect.
The code is modifying storage beyond its area. Depending on how storage is set
up, it is possible that the area will be on a page that is resolvable or not.
On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 04:08:37 -0500 Sebastian Welton
wrote:
:>Thanks to everyone who responded and although he
Thanks to everyone who responded and although he tried out all the options
provided, nothing actually worked however it looks like it is working now. The
first step was to implement the original it was based upon from the Redbook and
that worked fine out of the box. I then looked at what
Hi
A lot of our customers have implemented MFA for their Windows logon but have
not thought about or not implemented MFA on their z/OS applications for various
reasons. However due to compliance regulations we are seeing a sea change and
customers are now engaging with us for best practice etc.
Well, you know what they say about assumptions. That definitely applies to
your assumptions here. How did you get into ACM, did you buy a membership or
something?:)
I really don't mean to sound flippant or like I'm trying to degrade your
abilities or anything, but you don't seriously believe
72 matches
Mail list logo
