Re: SMF for cataloged procedures and INCLUDEs. WAS Re: "Trapping" messages written to JESYSMSG?
Here is how I handled this at one time:
I put this CLIST in **sysproc dsn**:
PROC 2 TYPE DSN
CONTROL END(ENDO)
ERROR DO
GOTO OUT
ENDO
IF ('SYS1.IWASUSED') NE OK THEN GOTO OUT
ALLOC FI(IWASUSED) DA('SYS1.IWASUSED') MOD
IF > 0 THEN GOTO OUT
IF = FORE THEN SET PROC =
ELSE SET PROC = BATCH
IF = FORE THEN SET JOBN =
ELSE SET JOBN = (JOBNAME)
OPENFILE IWASUSED OUTPUT
SET IWASUSED = ( )
PUTFILE IWASUSED
CLOSFILE IWASUSED
FREE FI(IWASUSED)
OUT: +
SET MAXCC = 0
SET LASTCC = 0
EXIT CODE(0)
I set up RACF with UACC (Update) for SYS1.IWASUSED
Then I added these 4 lines as the first step in any Proc that I wanted to track:
//IWASUSED EXEC PGM=IKJEFT01,COND=EVEN,
// PARM='IWASUSED PROC *the dsn and member I am editing goes here*'
//SYSPROC DD DISP=SHR,DSN=**sysproc dsn**
//SYSTSPRT DD DUMMY
//SYSTSIN DD DUMMY
I also sometimes added the ISPF stats as a comment in the step, so I could
remember the last time the member was updated before me.
Check SYS1.IWASUSED at least once a week - just in case something does get used
a lot.
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: SMF for cataloged procedures and INCLUDEs. WAS Re: "Trapping" messages written to JESYSMSG?
I don't check this list regularly but I think you slightly misunderstood. I'm not looking for who is using what procedure _library_. I'm looking for the use of individual members. RACF doesn't (unless it happened in a recent release and I missed it) allow us to audit individual members of a library. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: SMF for cataloged procedures and INCLUDEs. WAS Re: "Trapping" messages written to JESYSMSG?
The might be some issues w/volume of the type 80's collected. Otherwise it works fine. -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Elardus Engelbrecht Sent: Thursday, July 4, 2019 4:13 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: SMF for cataloged procedures and INCLUDEs. WAS Re: "Trapping" messages written to JESYSMSG? Tim Hare wrote: >As mentioned before, I've created a SHARE requirement and an RFE to have the >system record the information from the IFC001I (cataloged procedure was >expanded from... msg) and IFC002I (INCLUDE was expanded from... msg) message >in an SMF record.If this would be important or useful to your shop, you >should vote this up. I know we've wanted to find a way for years to determine >what cataloged procedures are in use, and eliminate the ones no one uses from >the non-IBM libraries. This will also help determine if someone is using >JCLLIB to run their own version of a procedure. While you're waiting for that RFE to be accepted (?), please consider RACF command altdsd audit(all(READ)) for ALL your dataset profiles except the catalogs where you can perhaps use audit(all(ALTER)) for them. This will ensure that all and every type of access attempts are logged. Of course, you will have to weed out the non proc dsn from your RACF reports to see what you want. You wrote in that RFE: "Organizations of long standing often have thousands of cataloged procedures. Often a large percentage of these are obsolete or never used (FORTRAN Code-and-Go procedures, anyone?) " Thousands? Wow! That is four-letter word bad. Just migrate them and see when they're recalled by HSM upon usage. Put them in WARNING or (better) clear out the access list in RACF and see who holws at you at 03:00. You can use CSI to search for anciend and unused procs, but I agree in all, a nice SMF record would be handy dandy. Of course JCLLIB is very tricky to check and track. Perhaps a JES2 exit can help you to eliminate all JCLLIB statement, but ... >Here's the RFE link: >https://apc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ib >m.com%2Fdeveloperworks%2Frfe%2Fexecute%3Fuse_case%3DviewRfe%26CR_ID%3D1 >33491data=02%7C01%7Callan.staller%40HCL.COM%7C3aded8c2237f43b6ae8d >08d7005ff0c2%7C189de737c93a4f5a8b686f4ca9941912%7C0%7C0%7C6369782844054 >09021sdata=%2FQESDUJDgkLPuOErv9m6YAkdGQFQtZDOiPSorYhSAOk%3Dre >served=0 I have Voted for that cool RFE under grave danger... ;-D Groete / Greetings Elardus Engelbrecht -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ::DISCLAIMER:: -- The contents of this e-mail and any attachment(s) are confidential and intended for the named recipient(s) only. E-mail transmission is not guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or may contain viruses in transmission. The e mail and its contents (with or without referred errors) shall therefore not attach any liability on the originator or HCL or its affiliates. Views or opinions, if any, presented in this email are solely those of the author and may not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of HCL or its affiliates. Any form of reproduction, dissemination, copying, disclosure, modification, distribution and / or publication of this message without the prior written consent of authorized representative of HCL is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error please delete it and notify the sender immediately. Before opening any email and/or attachments, please check them for viruses and other defects. -- -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: SMF for cataloged procedures and INCLUDEs. WAS Re: "Trapping" messages written to JESYSMSG?
Tim Hare wrote: >As mentioned before, I've created a SHARE requirement and an RFE to have the >system record the information from the IFC001I (cataloged procedure was >expanded from... msg) and IFC002I (INCLUDE was expanded from... msg) message >in an SMF record.If this would be important or useful to your shop, you >should vote this up. I know we've wanted to find a way for years to determine >what cataloged procedures are in use, and eliminate the ones no one uses from >the non-IBM libraries. This will also help determine if someone is using >JCLLIB to run their own version of a procedure. While you're waiting for that RFE to be accepted (?), please consider RACF command altdsd audit(all(READ)) for ALL your dataset profiles except the catalogs where you can perhaps use audit(all(ALTER)) for them. This will ensure that all and every type of access attempts are logged. Of course, you will have to weed out the non proc dsn from your RACF reports to see what you want. You wrote in that RFE: "Organizations of long standing often have thousands of cataloged procedures. Often a large percentage of these are obsolete or never used (FORTRAN Code-and-Go procedures, anyone?) " Thousands? Wow! That is four-letter word bad. Just migrate them and see when they're recalled by HSM upon usage. Put them in WARNING or (better) clear out the access list in RACF and see who holws at you at 03:00. You can use CSI to search for anciend and unused procs, but I agree in all, a nice SMF record would be handy dandy. Of course JCLLIB is very tricky to check and track. Perhaps a JES2 exit can help you to eliminate all JCLLIB statement, but ... >Here's the RFE link: >http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/rfe/execute?use_case=viewRfe_ID=133491 I have Voted for that cool RFE under grave danger... ;-D Groete / Greetings Elardus Engelbrecht -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
SMF for cataloged procedures and INCLUDEs. WAS Re: "Trapping" messages written to JESYSMSG?
As mentioned before, I've created a SHARE requirement and an RFE to have the system record the information from the IFC001I (cataloged procedure was expanded from... msg) and IFC002I (INCLUDE was expanded from... msg) message in an SMF record.If this would be important or useful to your shop, you should vote this up. I know we've wanted to find a way for years to determine what cataloged procedures are in use, and eliminate the ones no one uses from the non-IBM libraries. This will also help determine if someone is using JCLLIB to run their own version of a procedure. Here's the RFE link: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/rfe/execute?use_case=viewRfe_ID=133491 Here's a link to the SHARE discussion page but please not it might move. I put it in JES in the RFE system and the SHARE requirements system, and IBM moved it to BCP in the RFE system. https://www.share.org/p/is/vi/=173=21 -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: "Trapping" messages written to JESYSMSG?
I have created a SHARE requirement for this (which I think was submitted to RFE) _and_ an RFE ( 133491 ) to write IEFC001I and IEFC002I information to SMF. If voting is still open and this information is important to your shop, please vote. My suggested solution was to make any solution available to all JES systems that are currently GA. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: "Trapping" messages written to JESYSMSG?
Compuware's ThruPut Manager also has the ability to detect which procs are being used and where they came from. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: "Trapping" messages written to JESYSMSG?
Is there an exit that can "see" these messages? Maybe an MPF exit? If so, you could always write an exit to echo the messages to some routing code that doesn't go to the console, process it with automation, and hopefully prevent it from going to your operlog or syslog. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: "Trapping" messages written to JESYSMSG?
Our SyzMPF/z also allows it, so I don't see why CA can't handle it as well, after all they cost more than 10 times more. Brian -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: "Trapping" messages written to JESYSMSG?
I second that. We use SA's ProcOps functionality, and I was curious if OPS/MVS had an equivalent. I found OPSHMC does indeed provide similar functionality. Maybe OPS/MVS also has similar functionality for Job Log Monitoring (which I have not yet leveraged in our SA environment). On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 1:22 PM Mark Jacobs < 0224d287a4b1-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > Maybe check with CA then. Ya never know. > > Mark Jacobs > > > Sent from ProtonMail, Swiss-based encrypted email. > > GPG Public Key - > https://api.protonmail.ch/pks/lookup?op=get=markjac...@protonmail.com > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > On Tuesday, May 21, 2019 1:11 PM, John McKown < > john.archie.mck...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 12:02 PM Cieri, Anthony aci...@seic.com wrote: > > > > > This won't help unless you are running IBM System Automation > (SA). > > > > > > > > > I believe that IBM SA can be configured to "trap" messages written to > > > JESSYSMSG. > > > > Thanks. We don't run that. We run CA-OPS/MVS. We are heavy into CA > products. > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] > On > > > Behalf Of John McKown > > > Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2019 9:24 AM > > > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > > > Subject: "Trapping" messages written to JESYSMSG? > > > This question was sparked by the thread on tracking PROC usage. I > don't see > > > any way to "trap" messages written to JESYSMSG. I know that I can > process > > > them using the SAPI, > > > > https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/en/SSLTBW_2.1.0/com.ibm.zos.v2r1.ieaf200/sapi.htm > > > , > > > or the SDSF API or a number of other methods. But they are more "after > the > > > fact" rather than "in line" (as the messages are issued). > > > Any ideas how this might be done? I wish that there were a JES exit for > > > this. But I don't see one. > > > > -- > > > > This is clearly another case of too many mad scientists, and not enough > > hunchbacks. > > > > Maranatha! <>< > > > > John McKown > > > > > > > > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > > -- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: "Trapping" messages written to JESYSMSG?
Maybe check with CA then. Ya never know. Mark Jacobs Sent from ProtonMail, Swiss-based encrypted email. GPG Public Key - https://api.protonmail.ch/pks/lookup?op=get=markjac...@protonmail.com ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Tuesday, May 21, 2019 1:11 PM, John McKown wrote: > On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 12:02 PM Cieri, Anthony aci...@seic.com wrote: > > > This won't help unless you are running IBM System Automation (SA). > > > > > > I believe that IBM SA can be configured to "trap" messages written to > > JESSYSMSG. > > Thanks. We don't run that. We run CA-OPS/MVS. We are heavy into CA products. > > > -Original Message- > > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On > > Behalf Of John McKown > > Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2019 9:24 AM > > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > > Subject: "Trapping" messages written to JESYSMSG? > > This question was sparked by the thread on tracking PROC usage. I don't see > > any way to "trap" messages written to JESYSMSG. I know that I can process > > them using the SAPI, > > https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/en/SSLTBW_2.1.0/com.ibm.zos.v2r1.ieaf200/sapi.htm > > , > > or the SDSF API or a number of other methods. But they are more "after the > > fact" rather than "in line" (as the messages are issued). > > Any ideas how this might be done? I wish that there were a JES exit for > > this. But I don't see one. > > -- > > This is clearly another case of too many mad scientists, and not enough > hunchbacks. > > Maranatha! <>< > > John McKown > > > > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: "Trapping" messages written to JESYSMSG?
On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 12:02 PM Cieri, Anthony wrote: > > This won't help unless you are running IBM System Automation (SA). > I believe that IBM SA can be configured to "trap" messages written to > JESSYSMSG. > Thanks. We don't run that. We run CA-OPS/MVS. We are heavy into CA products. > > -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On > Behalf Of John McKown > Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2019 9:24 AM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: "Trapping" messages written to JESYSMSG? > > This question was sparked by the thread on tracking PROC usage. I don't see > any way to "trap" messages written to JESYSMSG. I know that I can process > them using the SAPI, > > https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/en/SSLTBW_2.1.0/com.ibm.zos.v2r1.ieaf200/sapi.htm > , > or the SDSF API or a number of other methods. But they are more "after the > fact" rather than "in line" (as the messages are issued). > > Any ideas how this might be done? I wish that there were a JES exit for > this. But I don't see one. > -- This is clearly another case of too many mad scientists, and not enough hunchbacks. Maranatha! <>< John McKown -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: "Trapping" messages written to JESYSMSG?
This won't help unless you are running IBM System Automation (SA). I believe that IBM SA can be configured to "trap" messages written to JESSYSMSG. -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of John McKown Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2019 9:24 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: "Trapping" messages written to JESYSMSG? [[ SEI WARNING *** This email was sent from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown or suspicious senders. *** ]] This question was sparked by the thread on tracking PROC usage. I don't see any way to "trap" messages written to JESYSMSG. I know that I can process them using the SAPI, https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/en/SSLTBW_2.1.0/com.ibm.zos.v2r1.ieaf200/sapi.htm, or the SDSF API or a number of other methods. But they are more "after the fact" rather than "in line" (as the messages are issued). Any ideas how this might be done? I wish that there were a JES exit for this. But I don't see one. -- This is clearly another case of too many mad scientists, and not enough hunchbacks. Maranatha! <>< John McKown -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
"Trapping" messages written to JESYSMSG?
This question was sparked by the thread on tracking PROC usage. I don't see any way to "trap" messages written to JESYSMSG. I know that I can process them using the SAPI, https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/en/SSLTBW_2.1.0/com.ibm.zos.v2r1.ieaf200/sapi.htm, or the SDSF API or a number of other methods. But they are more "after the fact" rather than "in line" (as the messages are issued). Any ideas how this might be done? I wish that there were a JES exit for this. But I don't see one. -- This is clearly another case of too many mad scientists, and not enough hunchbacks. Maranatha! <>< John McKown -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
