Engelbrecht elardus.engelbre...@sita.co.za
To: IBM-MAIN IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Sent: Mon, Dec 8, 2014 5:30 am
Subject: Re: Ancient IEFUSI
Mitch wrote:
This is all fine a good, but why check when a job is submitted? Why not check
efore and eliminate the problem (and potential delay in batch)?
Simply
On Tue, 9 Dec 2014 03:47:49 -0500, Mitch mitc...@aol.com wrote:
The initial question was about the TIME= Parameter on the JOB card. I am
trying to understand why you mentioned the REGION= parameter?
Original post in this thread by Andrew Metcalfe contains this I am finally
getting around to
11:15
Subject:Re: Ancient IEFUSI
Sent by:IBM Mainframe Discussion List IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
On Tue, 9 Dec 2014 03:47:49 -0500, Mitch mitc...@aol.com wrote:
The initial question was about the TIME= Parameter on the JOB card. I am
trying to understand why you mentioned
Folks
Just to clarify what my requirement is to save any off-track debate
The ancient IEFUSI exit in addition to policing region size, (rightly or
wrongly) uses the undocumented R10 LCT pointer to thread through to the SCTX
which identifies whether there is a TIME=parameter on the EXEC
] On Behalf
Of Mitch
Sent: 09 December, 2014 9:48
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Ancient IEFUSI
snip
And, if a site has a standard that TIME is not allowed on a JOB card, then the
solution is to remove it and/or flag it and then remove it with a JCL
management tool such as J-Man. This can
Metcalfe
Sent: 09 December 2014 11:24
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Ancient IEFUSI
Folks
Just to clarify what my requirement is to save any off-track debate
The ancient IEFUSI exit in addition to policing region size, (rightly or
wrongly) uses the undocumented R10 LCT pointer
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Shane Ginnane
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2014 6:54 PM
On Mon, 8 Dec 2014 06:03:50 -0500, Mitch wrote:
... but why check when a job is submitted? Why not check before ...
Wheww - tuff requirements.
I've done
Rob Scott wrote:
... and set your bit the user comm area for IEFUTL.
CEPAUCOM in CEPA ('common exit parameter area')?
Another alternative is to use IEFUJV to scan the JCL card images in the clear.
Good idea, and this is what I see in SYS1.SAMPLIB(SMFEXITS):
User communication field.
, CP (ITOPT1) - KLM
Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2014 3:24 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Ancient IEFUSI
If a site wants to enforce a rule for TIME= or REGION= for all jobs, the
only way is an exit. Production JCL usually is well controlled, individual
users' JCL is not (at least not here
Because tools cost money?
Kees.
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Norman.Hollander
Sent: 10 December, 2014 2:20
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Ancient IEFUSI
Why not get rid of most exits, and use a tool
List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Andrew Metcalfe
Sent: 07 December 2014 15:07
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Ancient IEFUSI
One of the reasons our IEFUSI examines the SCTX is to determine whether the
step time (SCTXSTL) differs from the JES2 JOBCLASS setting. If so
Message-
From: Rob Scott rsc...@rocketsoftware.com
To: IBM-MAIN IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Sent: Mon, Dec 8, 2014 8:33 pm
Subject: Re: Ancient IEFUSI
In the past I have used JES2 exit 6 to fail jobs that specify the TIME keyword
-
there is a supplied and supported routine XINTKEY that you can $CALL
At 09:32 + on 12/08/2014, Rob Scott wrote about Re: Ancient IEFUSI:
In the past I have used JES2 exit 6 to fail jobs that specify the
TIME keyword - there is a supplied and supported routine XINTKEY
that you can $CALL to extract specific JCL parameters.
Other methods include using JES2
...@panix.com
To: IBM-MAIN IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Sent: Mon, Dec 8, 2014 9:51 pm
Subject: Re: Ancient IEFUSI
At 09:32 + on 12/08/2014, Rob Scott wrote about Re: Ancient IEFUSI:
In the past I have used JES2 exit 6 to fail jobs that specify the
TIME keyword - there is a supplied and supported
Mitch wrote:
This is all fine a good, but why check when a job is submitted? Why not check
before and eliminate the problem (and potential delay in batch)?
Simply - USI is used to check memory and enforce limits at every job step(s)
despite stated REGION=value.
IEFUSI exit routines receive
On Mon, 8 Dec 2014 06:03:50 -0500, Mitch wrote:
... but why check when a job is submitted? Why not check before ...
Wheww - tuff requirements.
I've done some exits in my time, but none that get inside users head(s) - not
real sure I want to go there.
Shane ...
One of the reasons our IEFUSI examines the SCTX is to determine whether the
step time (SCTXSTL) differs from the JES2 JOBCLASS setting. If so the assertion
is that the user has coded TIME= on the EXEC card. IEFUSI sets a bit in the
CEPUCOM area which is interrogated by IEFUTL when deciding
To the best of my knowledge, whether rightly or wrongly, neither the LCT
nor the SCTX has ever been considered a programming interface.
GUPI and PSPI are no longer differentiated (although they're still valid
and you'll see them in many macros); PI is the new term.
DMTI has morphed into NOTPI.
In
ofdab2603e.ec1e6e90-on85257da6.0052641c-85257da6.0052c...@us.ibm.com,
on 12/06/2014
at 10:03 AM, Peter Relson rel...@us.ibm.com said:
To the best of my knowledge, whether rightly or wrongly, neither the
LCT nor the SCTX has ever been considered a programming interface.
That matches my
In 5763756791911978.wa.andrew.metcalfebarclays@listserv.ua.edu,
on 12/05/2014
at 10:35 AM, Andrew Metcalfe andrew.metca...@barclays.com said:
The first of these is the alarming comment:
* ON ENTRY R10 POINTS TO THE LCT.
While that could certainly change without notice, it's been
Folks
I am finally getting around to modifying our IEFUSI exit to do something
sensible with MEMLIMIT as more tasks exploit 64-bit storage. This exit has lain
untouched for many many years, although it still functions correctly for the
things it is supposed to do with region size.
However,
Just a thought. Is there a sample of this exit in your sys1.sample dataset?
It might have more current info.
Lizette
-Original Message-
From: Andrew Metcalfe andrew.metca...@barclays.com
Sent: Dec 5, 2014 9:35 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Ancient IEFUSI
Folks
I am
Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Andrew Metcalfe
Sent: 05 December 2014 16:36
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Ancient IEFUSI
Folks
I am finally getting around to modifying our IEFUSI exit to do something
sensible with MEMLIMIT
Rob
Setting the SCTX step time in IEFUSI has been used here historically to
*prevent* IEFUTL being taken for certain categories of job/stc. I am trying to
avoid my MEMLIMIT changes driving changes to the other SMF exits!!
Thanks
Andrew
This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and
...@sce.com
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Andrew Metcalfe
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 8:36 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Ancient IEFUSI
Folks
I am finally getting around to modifying our IEFUSI exit to do
I am finally getting around to modifying our IEFUSI exit to do
something sensible with MEMLIMIT as more tasks exploit 64-bit
storage. This exit has lain untouched for many many years, although
it still functions correctly for the things it is supposed to do
with region size.
However,
On 5 December 2014 at 16:34, Jim Mulder d10j...@us.ibm.com wrote:
I remember what happened in 1991 in SP4.2.0 when a
code change and recompile of IEFSMFIE resulted in R10 no longer
containing the address of the LCT when IEFUSE was invoked.
[...]
SO, the module
was changed to set Reg 10 to the
27 matches
Mail list logo
