Do you have MXG? Or have you joined Dr. Merrill's List? www.mxg.com
That would be a good place to report an issue with SMF Data
Or see if Cheryl Watson has seen this issue.
Lizette
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of
Colin Paice
Sent: Monday, May
Charles,
I'm very familiar with SMF records ... I have a program which formats many
of them (including SMF 92's) the 14th section has a partly blank name, and
other value are all hex 00's
I am planning on blogging about ZFS, concepts and how to look at the
performance data; and documenting it
Everyone,
I want to thank all for the ideas / suggestions / references on catching up on
ZOS - I am now finding out the mainframe environment is very heavy CA/Broadcom
vendor product centric (Top Secret, CA7, CA1, OpsMVS, MIM, etc) and am pretty
green in that world (I predominantly worked in
Good luck!
I share your pain on PMRs. The same is true for Dallas "Innovation Center"
customers.
On your specific issues I would *guess*
1. Is it perhaps a misunderstanding on your part? Do they perhaps mean "there
are 14 possible sections; look at each relevant triplet to see if section X is
I've been looking into the SMF records produced by zFS and have found a
couple of problems. Who can I report them to? I cannot raise a PMR as I
only have a zPDT license.
Example problems
1. The SMF 92-59 records say there are 14 sections - but there is data
for only 13 sections. The
Never mind. I printed the SMF 30 expansion and somehow
the line with SMF30TF2 flag byte got deleted.
PF.
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message:
Thanks to all.
The equates from SMF30_TIME_ON_ZIIP_F to SMF30_DEPENC_TIME_SUP_ON_CP_F are
failure flags.
What flag byte are they associated with ?
It can't be SMF30TF2 not SMF30T33 as they have their own bit definitions.
Regards, Pierre.
On Fri, 30 Apr 2021 07:17:29 +0800, David Crayford wrote:
>On 30/04/2021 4:30 am, Charles Mills wrote:
>> Hmmm. I shared David's impression but
>> http://publibfp.dhe.ibm.com/epubs/pdf/i1357010.pdf lists LE as a "Target
>> System Mandatory Operational Requisite."
>
>The xlclang++ compiler is
"SUP" was the during-development term for "zIIP" (as "IFA" was the
during-development term for "zAAP").
The SUP vs zIIP fields have not been "redefined". They have just had
more-suitably-named alternatives provided.
Use either name.
No SMF 30 records are currently written with bit SMF30_zCBP
Right. Go with IIP and IFA. SUP will do fine for IIP. Ignore ZCBP. The
fields haven't changed. (I haven't seen a zAAP in a long time, though.)
Cheers, Martin
Martin Packer
WW z/OS Performance, Capacity and Architecture, IBM Technology Sales
+44-7802-245-584
email: martin_pac...@uk.ibm.com
10 matches
Mail list logo
