On 9/25/2013 5:12 AM, Richard Pinion wrote:
Posts from AbsKerneels reminds me of the movie title One fly over the cuckoos
nest.
LOL! That's because AbsKerneels is none other than Anton Britz!
He changed his identity because so many people blocked his previous
email address(es). :D
--
On 9/26/2013 2:51 AM, Manfred Lotz wrote:
Hi all,
I've got a very old assembler program which still has a
SPLEVEL SET=2
statement at the beginning.
I think that these days this is obsolete and should be removed.
FWIW, we use this:
SPLEVEL SET=6 Specify OS/390 R2
On 9/27/2013 1:21 AM, Manfred Lotz wrote:
The change is this:
[snip]
There is nothing to worry about. The two expansions make the identical
service call (as seen by the operating system), but the technique used
by the updated expansion is usable by programs that use the relative
immediate
On 9/30/2013 5:17 PM, Gerhard Postpischil wrote:
the early versions of PL/I were atrocious; e.g., changing a bit flag
resulted in a subroutine call rather than one or two instructions in-line.
Later PL/I versions did a great job optimizing and formed the basis for
today's ultra-smart IBM
On 10/2/2013 10:28 AM, Lizette Koehler wrote:
Has anyone noticed lately that IBMLINK seems to be missing?
It's been up and down like a yo-yo.
--
Edward E Jaffe
Phoenix Software International, Inc
831 Parkview Drive North
El Segundo, CA 90245
http://www.phoenixsoftware.com/
On 10/2/2013 5:48 PM, Clark Morris wrote:
Are there any SHARE requirements for IBMLINK availability?
Yes.
--
Edward E Jaffe
Phoenix Software International, Inc
831 Parkview Drive North
El Segundo, CA 90245
http://www.phoenixsoftware.com/
On 10/5/2013 2:53 PM, baby eklavya wrote:
Am curious how that can happen . Is there a way an XCFAS ENQ can be
eliminated while having those datasets in the linklist .We are on Z/os 1.11
running 4 lpars sharing the same LNKLST set for all the LPARS . Please
share your thoughts on this
SETPROG
On 10/8/2013 4:53 AM, Peter Relson wrote:
Some of the posts seem to imply a difference between ** and SYSR1.
Their values are the same. And the latter is supported in more places than
the former (and in general is more functional).
Is there truly still a place where ** works but SYSR1
On 10/8/2013 8:35 AM, Mark Zelden wrote:
SYSR1 is a special case and is available to resolve the VOLSER, even
in LOADxx.
Did not know that. It might not have been true the last time I tried it
(which was a long, long time ago)...
--
Edward E Jaffe
Phoenix Software International, Inc
831
On 10/9/2013 3:47 AM, Scott Chapman wrote:
Who can say what IBM's unannounced plans are? However, I think if you go back
and look at the status of the prior machines you'll find that withdrawing MES
upgrades happens around 5 years after introduction.
Such estimates are not valid for BC
On 10/12/2013 5:42 AM, John Gilmore wrote:
A PDSE member containing a program object has a very different, and
very sketchily documented, mixed internal structure. Moreover, the
loading of some of its text elements may be deferred until they are
required|requested.
This is one of the big
On 10/12/2013 3:04 PM, R.S. wrote:
Special does not mean new or innovative. PDSE is 20+ yo, but still
under construction, and still undocumented (I mean free documentation).
My whisky is also 20+ yo, but *it works*. ;-)))
We have used PDSE almost exclusively since the mid-1990s. If a PDS is
On 10/18/2013 10:15 PM, saurabh khandelwal wrote:
But while loading LPAR from HMC, I get success message on load screen but I
don't see anything in operating system message screen . When I tried
checking Hardware message, I have got below PSW code
there 000280009064.
I am
On 10/20/2013 1:29 PM, Rob Schramm wrote:
Just making a separate non-plxed LPAR always seems simpler .. is my
answer.. but it never is.
Yup. It's been my experience that, once a sysplex is created, it's
actually far easier to spin up a new member than to create a stand-alone
image. We share
On 10/21/2013 11:37 PM, Jon Perryman wrote:
The point was that the error was so severe that it caused a wait state and
required a standalone dump for analysis. Typically, IPL should proceed at least
to activate the console and place the message on the console. IBM tries to make
the system at
On 10/22/2013 11:06 PM, nitz-...@gmx.net wrote:
This kind of error rarely gets mentioned on IBM-MAIN because SAD of
early IPL failure is super fast and IPCS takes only seconds to init such
a dump. The problems are usually fixed immediately and folks move on to
more challenging issues.
I agree
On 10/23/2013 10:46 AM, John McDowell wrote:
In z/OS 2.1 support was added for the Integrated 3270 (i.e. a 3278-4 window on the HMC), it is supported
both during NIP and as a normal system console. The Integrated 3270 must be activated on an
LPAR by LPAR basis, if the activation is performed
On 10/23/2013 3:19 PM, Thomas Conley wrote:
On 10/23/2013 3:47 PM, John McKown wrote:
Curiosity question: Why do you need multiple remote I3270C sessions per
LPAR? If we ever go to z/OS 2.1 (iffy), we would only use it for
IPLing. We
use SMCS consoles via TN3270 for other consoles, beyond the
On 10/30/2013 5:37 AM, Shane Ginnane wrote:
Anyone ever figured out why IBM (still) doesn't allow all of the
eligible workload to be dispatched on the zIIP ?
$$
--
Edward E Jaffe
Phoenix Software International, Inc
831 Parkview Drive North
El Segundo, CA 90245
On 10/30/2013 6:55 PM, Al Sherkow wrote:
Yes, I too have heard of one vendor that checks to see if a zIIP is available
and if not does not setup for the zIIP. So for this vendor and their software
that would use a zIIP they are not included in the eligible time and hence not
in any analysis
On 10/31/2013 5:53 AM, Martin Packer wrote:
Ed, do you do some kind of simple cost to start up vs saving swag when
deciding whether to do this?
Yes. We are measuring to determine the break even points that work best
for us and hope they extrapolate to our customers. During ESP, we might
ask
On 10/31/2013 7:42 AM, Mike Schwab wrote:
I think IFLs run about 10% of a full speed CP processor. So it
doesn't take too much to make them cost effective.
Specialty engines always run at full speed. THAT's what makes them cost
effective...
--
Edward E Jaffe
Phoenix Software International,
On 10/31/2013 10:31 PM, Ed Jaffe wrote:
On 10/31/2013 7:42 AM, Mike Schwab wrote:
I think IFLs run about 10% of a full speed CP processor. So it
doesn't take too much to make them cost effective.
Specialty engines always run at full speed. THAT's what makes them
cost effective...
Oops
On 11/2/2013 7:34 PM, Peter Relson wrote:
SRBs are the same level of security exposure that APF-authorized tasks
are. So if an application is already APF-authorized, switching to
enclave SRBs is not intrinsically more of a security exposure than
already existed. It is true that SRBs are more
On 11/3/2013 10:25 AM, Itschak Mugzach wrote:
THe SRBs scheduled on the zIIP (using IBM's supplied interfaces) are
running in the same address space, so it minimize the risk.
Not always.
SRB mode is
also disabled for IO, so you can't infect other libraries / files like a
virus.
Not sure
On 11/4/2013 2:06 AM, Vernooij, CP - SPLXM wrote:
OSLEVEL : The 6 character operating system level.
A new symbol was added in z/OS 2.1: SYSOSLVL. = Z1020100
--
Edward E Jaffe
Phoenix Software International, Inc
831 Parkview Drive North
El Segundo, CA 90245
http://www.phoenixsoftware.com/
On 11/4/2013 5:01 AM, Binyamin Dissen wrote:
SRB's certainly can do I/O - they just need to do it at the metal level.
I'm not sure I would call the venerable STARTIO interface the metal
level. It probably seems that way to most developers since it's so
poorly documented...
--
Edward E
On 11/4/2013 9:23 AM, Russ Teubner wrote:
I don't think customers mind using (and paying for) high-value MIPS for high-value apps.
However, everything else (e.g., integration and plumbing) should be run on
specialty engines (within the bounds of IBM's rules).
Agreed. For example, it would be
On 11/4/2013 4:00 PM, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
On Mon, 4 Nov 2013 15:46:47 -0800, Ed Jaffe wrote:
I'm not sure I would call the venerable STARTIO interface the metal
level. It probably seems that way to most developers since it's so
poorly documented...
Is it GUPI? I understand that IBM had
On 11/10/2013 1:19 PM, Mark Zelden wrote:
I've not been paying that close of attention, but I'm more curious
about what people did for these situations prior to PLO.
ENQ/DEQ or Latch
--
Edward E Jaffe
Phoenix Software International, Inc
831 Parkview Drive North
El Segundo, CA 90245
On 12/10/2013 10:03 PM, Pinnacle wrote:
I fat fingered a VARY OFFLINE command and took out half our DASD
farm. I thought z/OS had a switch or a throttle to limit the damage,
but darned if I can find it. Any help gets you a beer at SCIDS.
I suspect you are thinking of Command Flooding and
On 12/1/2013 2:20 PM, esst...@juno.com wrote:
I recently had a dispute with Management reagrding the uses of sceduling COBOL
BATCH under an SRB.
Thats Right a Batch COBOL Prpogram runing Under an SRB, moreover under CICS
Transaction Server. A Software Vendor
believes they can solve a program
On 12/10/2013 11:29 AM, John Eells wrote:
1. You are using SMP/E RECEIVE ORDER *and* downloading IBM software
products over the Internet from ShopzSeries directly to z/OS.
Direct download to z/OS is the only way to fly! As a matter of
principle, I refuse to let z/OS products or service touch
On 12/9/2013 10:14 PM, Ed Gould wrote:
I have never worked on a ACDC system.
Neither have I, but the band is awesome! ;-)
--
Edward E Jaffe
Phoenix Software International, Inc
831 Parkview Drive North
El Segundo, CA 90245
http://www.phoenixsoftware.com/
On 12/14/2013 7:59 AM, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
On Sat, 14 Dec 2013 06:37:56 -0800, Ed Jaffe wrote:
Direct download to z/OS is the only way to fly! As a matter of
principle, I refuse to let z/OS products or service touch any other
platform or media.
An interesting contrast to reports of other
On 12/17/2013 6:30 AM, Miklos Szigetvari wrote:
How would you deinstall (if it is the proper expression) software,
for example
BDT (Bulk Data Transfer) ?
Like all optional, priced-features of z/OS, BDT never needs to be
uninstalled. It should simply be disabled through IFAPRDxx. For
On 12/17/2013 1:38 PM, Jon Perryman wrote:
Never manually delete a product without going thru SMP/E. I'm not familiar with
BDT so lets say you wanted to delete C/C++.
To uninstall C/C++ under z/OS you would change the following in IFAPRDxx:
PRODUCT OWNER('IBM CORP')
NAME(Z/OS)
On 12/18/2013 7:39 AM, Clark Morris wrote:
Is BDT still needed for JES3 SNA NJE? Is it needed for JES3 TCP/IP if
there is such a thing?
No BDT features are used for NJE over TCP/IP. It is a common,
JES-agnostic component (IAZ prefix).
--
Edward E Jaffe
Phoenix Software International, Inc
On 12/18/2013 10:10 AM, Mark Regan wrote:
While it is needed to give JES3 NJE over SNA, it is not needed for NJE over
TCPIP. Since my site has both flavors of JES, we were able to get rid of BDT by
routing all of our external business partner SNA/NJE connections through one of
our JES2
On 12/18/2013 5:12 PM, Clark Morris wrote:
I wish I had thought of that back in the mid 1980s. The BDT
requirement was the final straw pushing my shop from JES3 to JES2
(single CPU shop). My division was sold by a company that was
predominantly JES3 to one that was predominantly JES2.
In
On 12/18/2013 10:42 PM, David Crayford wrote:
The new IBM knowledge center, which will replace Information Center,
is available for beta http://www-01.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/.
Obviously, it's not yet been populated with z/OS content. I did a simple
search for IEA101A. It came up with
On 12/20/2013 6:28 AM, Lizette Koehler wrote:
I was always told STEPLIB then JOBLIB without any qualifications.
This was discussed in another thread just last month. TCBJLB contains
zero or points to an open DCB for either JOBLIB or STEPLIB -- not both.
--
Edward E Jaffe
Phoenix Software
On 12/20/2013 7:22 AM, Peter Relson wrote:
Does it matter, for the purpose of this discussion, that if the module
exists both in (unauthorized) joblib/steplib and the lnklst, the fetch
will succeed? For LNKAUTH=LNKLST, the only time you get the 306 is
when the module exists only in an
On 12/20/2013 8:00 AM, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
On Fri, 20 Dec 2013 07:51:12 -0800, Ed Jaffe wrote:
I used to erroneously believe CSV would abend306 immediately when it
found an unauthorized (spoofed?) copy, and years later discovered (the
hard way - surely my fault for not reading the book
I assume by now everyone has seen Flash 131220 describing the
not-yet-fixed bug with Absolute Capping and LPAR deactivation.
I'm somewhat embarrassed to admit that I had not heard of Absolute
Capping before now, even though this feature is on our machine. :-[
After reading about it, I really
On 12/23/2013 2:39 PM, Gibney, Dave wrote:
I have been using //SLEEP EXEC PGM=BPXBATCH,PARM='SH sleep SECONDSs' as a
delay step in some of my STCs to wait for things like TCPIP to get up first. I know
there are other options.
It appears with my new z/OS 1.13 system, that prior to OMVS being
On 12/27/2013 3:31 PM, zMan wrote:
Is there a simpler way to see whether we were called in key 8 (not that
this is that complicated):
EPSW R14,R0Extract PSW
SLL R14,8 Get key bits in left-most nibble
SRL R14,28Now isolate in bottom
On 12/30/2013 2:15 PM, Micheal Butz wrote:
Is there any way of knowing what cdentry represents the program job step
RBCDE, in the oldest PRB under the TCB pointed to by TCBJSTCB, contains
that address.
--
Edward E Jaffe
Phoenix Software International, Inc
831 Parkview Drive North
El
On 12/31/2013 9:14 AM, Skip Robinson wrote:
Digging down further, we observed that several DB2 subsystems had
ballooned from 35,000 fixed frames under V9 to 100,000 under V10. The
system essentially could not function. After beefing up the LPAR to more
than 32 GB of storage, it would still not
On 1/5/2014 6:39 PM, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
*And* I believe SDSF stays in its split. *And* I believe it allows
SWAP to another split. But that's not fair; SDSF is somehow
ISPF-savvy, not just a plain ol' TSO fullscreen application. SDSF
recognizes and satisfies a special requirement in order to
On 1/6/2014 3:22 PM, Lizette Koehler wrote:
IBM updated the old IBMLINK (VM) to a web based environment. And we are
still complaining about performance, service, downtime of the application.
We did not complain when it was the VM system.
And they have spent and continue to spend $ millions to
On 1/6/2014 5:31 PM, Sanya Off wrote:
Tnx folks. I did my homework before spilling my mail here. So i am aware of
multiple approaches. I am still lokking for thr personal experiences.
And. This is a 30 y.o. app
At UK GSE in November, one of the opening presenters was Tomas Kadlec,
from Tesco
On 1/6/2014 12:25 PM, Walt Farrell wrote:
While that's true for unauthorized programs, SDSF needs to runs
authorized, and there's actually a fair amount of special stuff
going on under the covers. Your more typical authorized program cannot
interact with the user via ISPF services as SDSF
On 1/10/2014 1:17 PM, John Gilmore wrote:
I use the broken-bracket convention, viz., nul, when I need to
display a nul, x'00' in both ASCII and EBCDIC.
We use this convention in our documentation when describing any keyboard
key.
Example: Type your password into the appropriate field and
On 1/10/2014 2:19 PM, Skip Robinson wrote:
To evaluate the existence of an EBCDIC tab character, let's take the total
number of instances in which any member of this list has ever in their
career had occasion to code X'05'in a z/OS file for any functional purpose
whatever. (For me, that's +0).
On 1/10/2014 2:09 PM, Tony Harminc wrote:
It is also quite normal for a program that is not linked with AC(1) to
quite legitimately find itself running APF authorized.
Good point. I would suggest that the *vast* majority of programs
intended to run in privileged mode are not themselves linked
On 1/11/2014 11:11 PM, MichealButz wrote:
Authorized command 'SPSWT'. Return code = 20. Reason code = 56.
ISPD250 Invocation error - System error encountered invoking authorized
command 'SPSWT'.
Does it work when invoked from READY?
--
Edward E Jaffe
Phoenix Software International, Inc
831
On 1/21/2014 12:49 AM, Ed Finnell wrote:
_BBC News - Lenovo shares rise on reports of IBM deal_
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25822557)
They dropped this bid. Apparently, IBM wanted too much money.
--
Edward E Jaffe
Phoenix Software International, Inc
831 Parkview Drive North
El
On 1/24/2014 9:56 AM, John Abell wrote:
According to something that I just read, the deal actually happened
yesterday.
You're right. The article I was reading was an old one. :-[
--
Edward E Jaffe
Phoenix Software International, Inc
831 Parkview Drive North
El Segundo, CA 90245
On 1/21/2014 10:39 AM, John McKown wrote:
This is a curiosity question. I am wondering how resistant shops are to
even having the Java JDK installed on their system. Not in being resistant
to writing application code in Java, but just to having it available. In
particular, are there many shops
On 1/21/2014 5:24 PM, Jim Mulder wrote:
From a hardware design engineer:
quote
All hardware instructions perform at the same speed in 64-bit mode or
31-bit mode. I assume the AMODE(31) and AMODE(64) he is referring to
only affects the addressing mode, but the exact same instruction
sequences
On 1/24/2014 4:20 PM, John McKown wrote:
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 4:58 PM, Ed Jaffe edja...@phoenixsoftware.comwrote:
Perhaps JG's assertion is actually about grande instructions vs normal
instructions. Our benchmarks show grande instructions are ever-so-slightly
(2%) slower than their non
On 1/24/2014 9:40 PM, David Crayford wrote:
I can speak from personal experience that our emerging Java-based
mainframe offerings have been well received by our customer base.
http://phoenixsoftware.com/ejes/ejes_future.htm
Nice to see a product use a browser UI and not a dreaded Eclipse
On 1/24/2014 9:40 PM, David Crayford wrote:
I heard that a resource intensive Java program was run on both a z/OS
zIIP and zLinux IFL. zLinux was x10 faster. The conclusion was that
the z/OS software stack was the bottle neck.
I'm highly skeptical of this claim. On our zBC12 we run 64-bit
On 1/25/2014 6:43 PM, David Crayford wrote:
On 26/01/2014 1:38 AM, Ed Jaffe wrote:
We love Eclipse! So do many of our customers and some have already
requested a full-featured Eclipse plug-in for (E)JES. We hope to be
able to provide them with that during phase II of the roll-out. We
want
On 1/26/2014 4:42 PM, Timothy Sipples wrote:
You wouldn't want to inadvertently wipe out much of the market for
your scripts, would you?
Couldn't care less. Those Ant scripts are for our internal use only.
--
Edward E Jaffe
Phoenix Software International, Inc
831 Parkview Drive North
El
On 1/29/2014 1:28 PM, David Cole wrote:
At 1/29/2014 11:35 AM, Ted MacNEIL wrote:
I truly believe that one ID per person with the ability to sign on
once per LPAR (and share the same ISPPROF) is simpler to implement.
Perhaps... I wouldn't know. I have only one LPAR here and little to no
On 1/29/2014 7:42 AM, Mark Zelden wrote:
Ed Jaffe (or anyone doing this in a JES3 environment), - I have to ask
every OS release (if I remember) - is the JES3 source update to
IATGRJS still required?
No longer required.
--
Edward E Jaffe
Phoenix Software International, Inc
831 Parkview Drive
On 1/29/2014 10:35 PM, nitz-...@gmx.net wrote:
Who says TSO does not allow one userid with several logins within a single apar?
JOBNAME StepName ProcStep JobIDOwnerC Pos DP Real PagingSIO CPU%
ASID ASIDX
BARBARA CEAPROCF TSU07563 BARBARAOUT FF 2105 0.00 0.00
On 1/30/2014 1:41 PM, John McKown wrote:
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 3:33 PM, Frank Swarbrick
frank.swarbr...@yahoo.comwrote:
What is CEA?
Real name: z/OSMF, or z/OS System Management Facility . Ref:
http://publibz.boulder.ibm.com/cgi-bin/bookmgr_OS390/Shelves/izuzsh21
I'm pretty sure the
On 1/30/2014 2:17 PM, John McKown wrote:
But I am fairly sure that, IN THIS CONTEXT, the CEA which was being
mentioned in the thread was not Common Event Adapter, which has _nothing_
to do with multiple TSO logons that I can see, but was referred to z/OSMF
and its ability to allow multiple TSO
On 1/30/2014 9:30 PM, Ron Thomas wrote:
Hello. I have a program that i am executing 2 times the number of records that
is processed is same in both the time, but i am seeing CPU execution times are
different. Can someone throw some light on why this is comming as different?
This is a very
On 1/31/2014 9:52 AM, Charles Mills wrote:
I don't really know, but my conclusion is that either getting interrupted consumes a
fair amount of CPU time, or else that if the program is busy continuously it tends to
own the instruction and data caches, which saves a lot of CPU time.
Both.
On 1/31/2014 4:33 PM, Charles Mills wrote:
My mental model now is instructions take almost no time at all;
storage references take a very long time.
Exactly. It's the reason there are so many more instructions with
immediate operands than there used to be. A good ROT for hand-coded
assembler
On 1/31/2014 9:01 PM, Anne Lynn Wheeler wrote:
and could even be as low as 40% ... really old email discussing capture
ratio http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006v.html#email800717
Ah, yes. The olden days before System z hardware implemented the
Extract-CPU-Time Facility.
--
Edward E Jaffe
On 2/1/2014 6:45 AM, Anne Lynn Wheeler wrote:
MVS (and vm370) gets total cpu busy by clocking in and out of wait state
and subtracting it from elapsed. however vm370 does that also for every
other thing it does also ... so all the accounted for time plus wait
state time should come up to
On 2/1/2014 8:27 AM, Anne Lynn Wheeler wrote:
thats what I would have thot ... but I checked the ibm references for
capture ratio ... and the references cited in the original post still
goes into discussion about capture ratio (up through zos r12)
Naturally, the laws of physics dictate the
On 2/3/2014 9:38 AM, Ted MacNEIL wrote:
Hopefully, they are not counting time spent resolving page faults and such that _validly_
belong in uncaptured time today.
I was taught by IBM that was in *MASTEr* SRB time.
What about time spent inside the interrupt handlers themselves when a
page
On 2/4/2014 6:18 AM, Ron Thomas wrote:
Hello.
I am new to assembler, so not sure i am pharsing the query correctly.
FYI. The best (and most appropriate) place for assembler-related
questions is assembler-l...@listserv.uga.edu.
--
Edward E Jaffe
Phoenix Software International, Inc
831
On 2/4/2014 6:22 AM, John Gilmore wrote:
Any complete implementation that assigns more of it to functionally
meaningful categories is to be strongly encouraged. Misattribution,
inclusion in the wrong category, would, on the other hand, be a step
backward. I strongly suspect that this is
On 2/8/2014 6:31 AM, Jake anderson wrote:
Could someone throw light on the best practices or some efficient process
followed at your shops.
My advice is to use multiple DASD data sets to get as much parallel I/O
as possible. Also, human interaction is responsible for tremendous
delays.
On 2/1/2014 8:12 AM, Ed Jaffe wrote:
Modern operating systems use the System z Extract-CPU-Time Facility,
which accumulates accurate execution time, in cooperation with PR/SM,
without any slop.
OK. I mixed up the use cases for the Extract-CPU-Time-Facility. It's
useful when a unit of work
On 2/10/2014 9:01 PM, mf db wrote:
Is there a possibility of recovering a particular Purged STC back to spool ?
If you purged only a subset of output files from the STC, it is often
possible to recover them with the right tools. If you purged the entire
job, no recovery is possible...
--
On 2/11/2014 8:38 AM, John McKown wrote:
But, even in these cases, you cannot restore it back into the SPOOL as it
was before it was deleted. You may, at most, be able to retrieve the data
which was in it and place it in a different SPOOL data set or a DISK data
set or . But you can't make
On 2/16/2014 1:10 AM, Binyamin Dissen wrote:
Say I have two words,
CURRENT DS F
SUM DS F
I want to add CURRENT to SUM, but most of the time CURRENT will be zero.
CURRENT and SUM are not adjacent (different data lines)
If only a single unit of work and
On 2/12/2014 3:30 AM, mf db wrote:
IEE026I SYSLOG NOT SUPPORTED - After V SYSLOG,HARDCPY
Hopefully, you can get IBM to open a DOC APAR given that 'SYSLOG' is not
a documented value for this message.
--
Edward E Jaffe
Phoenix Software International, Inc
831 Parkview Drive North
El Segundo,
On 2/13/2014 7:19 AM, zman wrote:
Is there any way (macro function or control block) to get the Capacity Group
the Lpar is belonging to and the Capacity limit for that group?
SYSEVENT REQLPDAT
--
Edward E Jaffe
Phoenix Software International, Inc
831 Parkview Drive North
El Segundo, CA 90245
On 2014-02-17, at 10:36, Ted MacNEIL wrote:
I have to ask: Why they big concern over a few instructions?
Optimisation of a few is not worth the effort
these days.
LOL. If Binyamin's question wasn't worth asking, then IBM would never
have recently introduced
On 2/17/2014 1:42 PM, Charles Mills wrote:
It would be an interesting exercise to try to figure out an estimated dollar
cost for a million instructions executed per day, using an assumed typical
installation and an assumed typical mix of IBM and non-IBM software
Sub-capacity pricing for IBM
On 2/18/2014 12:06 AM, Timothy Sipples wrote:
I also agree with the opinions expressed about optimizing where it makes
the most sense (or dollars, euro, yen) and only there, in some priority
order. Though I'd mostly disagree about that additional peak MSU.
Of course, Fugget about it is
On 2/18/2014 8:16 AM, Clark Morris wrote:
If the code generated by the COBOL compiler at your installation
stinks, review the compile options.
IIRC, the COBOL V5 compiler leap frogs over C/C++ and PL/I to now use
the same, ultra-smart, optimizing compiler back-end used by Java. It
should be
On 2/18/2014 3:26 AM, Elardus Engelbrecht wrote:
Ed Jaffe wrote:
To put into perspective, it took 13 cycles to access a doubleword operand on a
S/360 Model 91. That same memory access on a zEC12 can now be up to 75 TIMES
slower (relatively speaking).
Interesting. Did you measured
On 2/18/2014 1:59 PM, John Gilmore wrote:
... The cache
and other such programmer-inaccessible machinery are devices for
optimizing and in particular speeding up the code that programmers
write or translators generate.
Their characteristics, mostly but not entirely undocumented, must be
On 2/19/2014 9:29 AM, Tony Harminc wrote:
In my circles the term core survived for quite a long time after the
introduction of the first 370 models with non magnetic-core storage
(the 158 and 168, followed closely by the lower end 138, 148 and so
on). And amusingly the UNIX people still use core
On 4/30/2013 8:25 PM, Robert A. Rosenberg wrote:
If you can live with JOB1 and JOB2 having the same jobname and you use
JES2, that will handle the wait since JES2 will not allow JOB2 to be
initiated so long as JOB1 is executing.
This is true only with JOBDEF DUPL_JOB=DELAY. More and more JES2
On 4/30/2013 10:40 PM, Anthony Rudd wrote:
The latter - an unauthorised program.
I would have thought (hoped) that there is a short sequence of control blocks
accessible from an unauthorised program that can be processed to determine
whether a known job is running (is know to the system, if
On 4/30/2013 11:37 PM, Anthony Rudd wrote:
The UPT instruction would appear to be ideal for implementing search.
Unfortunately, although I found a mention to such a possible implementation in
a SHARE presentation, it was only very theoretical and because the UPT example
in the Principle of
On 5/1/2013 7:41 AM, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
Ah! We need UPTG. And the corresponding search function. And
we need it to be serialized against concurrent updates (is it?)
UPT is a modal instruction. Thus, no grande form is needed. In 24- and
31-bit mode, nodes are eight bytes in length and
On 5/1/2013 8:24 AM, Ed Gould wrote:
I am somewhat surprised that you indicate that duplicate jobnames are
to be allowed. I have worked in a few shops that job naming stand is
frozen and it would wreek havoc if a duplicate jobname were to be
allowed running at the same time.
Not sure what to
On 5/2/2013 7:18 AM, Mark Zelden wrote:
Obviously there is an underlying CPU usage improvement, but I'm not
sure where it would show up in (*master*)?
Better TLB coverage means fewer DAT translations thus faster execution.
The CPU savings should show up directly in the TCB/SRB time of
1 - 100 of 1269 matches
Mail list logo
