6). The same hermaphroditic connector
> used for B&T channels, though with different pinouts, of course, is
> used for the Direct I/O feature.
re:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013o.html#56 Early !BM multiprocessors (renamed
from Curiosity: TCB mapping macro name - why IKJTCB?)
370 princ-o
On 22 December 2013 15:11, DASDBILL2 wrote:
> I seem to remember working with some S/360 Model 55 MPs at an FAA Air Route
> Traffic Control Center in 1978. They must have had smaller maximum real
> memories and run slower than model 65MPs, but had the same RPQ extra
> instructions to enable mu
In <20131225020725.60c1924...@panix5.panix.com>, on 12/24/2013
at 09:07 PM, Randy Hudson said:
>No JES then; HASP might have been available, but it mostly worked
>by emulating devices and hooking into standard exits (IEFUJV,
>IEFUJI) to massage the JCL to point to its (pseudo-) devices.
HAS
In <017401cefffc$510bc390$f3234ab0$@mcn.org>, on 12/23/2013
at 11:30 AM, Charles Mills said:
>http://bitsavers.trailing-edge.com/pdf/ibm/360/os/R19_Jun70/GC28-6628-5_System_Control_Blocks_Rel_19_Jun70.pdf
>gives the layout of the TCB and the field names all begin with TCB.
>Page 282 and follow
In <1689901514.1458087.1387743082672.javamail.r...@comcast.net>, on
12/22/2013
at 08:11 PM, DASDBILL2 said:
>I seem to remember working with some S/360 Model 55 MPs at an FAA Air
>Route Traffic Control Center in 1978.
ITYM 9020, which used modified S/360 processors as compute and I/O
element
In <0871825165316453.wa.paulgboulderaim@listserv.ua.edu>, on
12/22/2013
at 10:56 AM, Paul Gilmartin said:
>ATTACH/DETACH appeared contemporaneously with TSO!?
IBM Operating System/360 Concepts and Facilities, C28-6535-0, is ©1965
and mentions ATTACH. Even ATTACH for MFT is older than TSO
In <5000331903687025.wa.afg0510videotron...@listserv.ua.edu>, on
12/22/2013
at 10:01 AM, "Andreas F. Geissbuehler" said:
>In the early '70 IBM released a new and improved CRJE called TSO,
CRJE was a new and improved CRBE, but TSO was something new.
>I believe it was part of IBM's "worst-ever
In article <0871825165316453.wa.paulgboulderaim@listserv.ua.edu> Gil wrote:
> ATTACH/DETACH appeared contemporaneously with TSO!? I'm astonished!
> I'd have guessed they were much older, perhaps even aboriginal OS/360.
> Was there no multiprocessing mechanism older than TSO? RYO, I suppose.
@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Tom Marchant
Sent: Monday, December 23, 2013 9:46 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Curiosity: TCB mapping macro name - why IKJTCB?
On Sun, 22 Dec 2013 10:01:33 -0600, Andreas F. Geissbuehler wrote:
>TSO brought us Sub-Tasking and related macros ATTACH
On Sun, 22 Dec 2013 10:01:33 -0600, Andreas F. Geissbuehler wrote:
>TSO brought us Sub-Tasking and related macros ATTACH and DETACH
No, it didn't. ATTACH and DETACH were both described in IBM Operating
System/360 Concepts and Facilities, publication C28-6535-0, published in 1965.
http://bitsave
dskw...@mindspring.com (Daniel Skwire) writes:
> I thought the FAA had special hybrid 6 computer systems, 3 x 2 way MPs?
re:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013o.html#54 Curiosity: TCB mapping macro name -
why IKJTCB?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013o.html#55 Curiosity: TCB mapping macro n
userid - ssdrso
Ray Overby
Key Resources, Inc
Ensuring System Integrity for z/Series
(312) 574-0007
On 12/22/2013 4:56 PM, Daniel Skwire wrote:
I thought the FAA had special hybrid 6 computer systems, 3 x 2 way MPs?
Interesting!
Dan
Sent from my iPad
On Dec 22, 2013, at 3:11 PM, DASDBILL2
I thought the FAA had special hybrid 6 computer systems, 3 x 2 way MPs?
Interesting!
Dan
Sent from my iPad
> On Dec 22, 2013, at 3:11 PM, DASDBILL2 wrote:
>
> I seem to remember working with some S/360 Model 55 MPs at an FAA Air Route
> Traffic Control Center in 1978. They must have had sma
I seem to remember working with some S/360 Model 55 MPs at an FAA Air Route
Traffic Control Center in 1978. They must have had smaller maximum real
memories and run slower than model 65MPs, but had the same RPQ extra
instructions to enable multi-processing.
Bill Fairchild
- Original Mess
p://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013o.html#54 Curiosity: TCB mapping macro name -
why IKJTCB?
lots of problems with 360/65 mp which did have shared memory ... but no
shared i/o ... dedicated processor channels simulated multiprocessor i/o
by connecting processor-specific channels to different "tails&qu
Multiprocessing support earlier than TSO?
It was before my time, but I read and heard plenty about "MVT/MP65", which
predates TSO's rollout by a couple years, I think.
MP65 had challenges: 'sympathy sickness" where a CPU problem took down both
CPUs in the complex, kinda sorta anti-redundancy, i
paulgboul...@aim.com (Paul Gilmartin) writes:
> ATTACH/DETACH appeared contemporaneously with TSO!? I'm astonished!
> I'd have guessed they were much older, perhaps even aboriginal OS/360.
> Was there no multiprocessing mechanism older than TSO? RYO, I suppose.
> That's what I understand JES and
On 12/22/2013 9:56 AM, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
On Sun, 22 Dec 2013 10:01:33 -0600, Andreas F. Geissbuehler wrote:
Straight from a slowly fading memory...
In the early '70 IBM released a new and improved CRJE called TSO, a TCAM application
program. I believe it was part of IBM's "worst-ever" rele
On Sun, 22 Dec 2013 10:01:33 -0600, Andreas F. Geissbuehler wrote:
>Straight from a slowly fading memory...
>In the early '70 IBM released a new and improved CRJE called TSO, a TCAM
>application program. I believe it was part of IBM's "worst-ever" release,
>OS/MVT Release 19. TSO brought us Sub-
Straight from a slowly fading memory...
In the early '70 IBM released a new and improved CRJE called TSO, a TCAM
application program. I believe it was part of IBM's "worst-ever" release,
OS/MVT Release 19. TSO brought us Sub-Tasking and related macros ATTACH and
DETACH using a newly expanded con
In <1891265032.6001250.1386631293335.javamail.r...@comcast.net>, on
12/09/2013
at 11:21 PM, DASDBILL2 said:
>In general, hardware-oriented control blocks' mapping macros begin
>with IHA,
That came later. IHA was originally Supervisor.
>I must assume its mapping DSECT macro was named IKJTCB b
At 16:37 -0500 on 12/10/2013, Peter Relson wrote about Re: Curiosity:
TCB mapping macro name - why IKJTCB?:
I don't really know, but someone (I can't remember who) mentioned to me
something about this fairly recently.
By the way, IHARB is mentioned. It's in maclib. But the
I don't really know, but someone (I can't remember who) mentioned to me
something about this fairly recently.
By the way, IHARB is mentioned. It's in maclib. But there's also IKJRB.
That's in modgen. Some fields are in one, some in the other.
It is possible that the IKJxxx mappings were created
http://www.cbttape.org/os360.htm
Order the CD-ROM here. But I think it is the last version of OS/360.
On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 7:50 PM, Tony Harminc wrote:
> What we need is some source code from an
> OS/360 version before 20.x, which is when TSO became available. But of
> course some core of TSO
> - The first word of the TCB proper, ie. +0 is TCBRBP, but this
> offset is "fixed by architecture"!
>
> Back in the early '70s, when I first noticed the IKJTCB macro, I
> speculated that TSO was the first component to "macroize" the DSECT,
> and hence gave it the IKJ prefix. I never found o
On 9 December 2013 19:14, J R wrote:
> - The first word of the TCB proper, ie. +0 is TCBRBP, but this offset is
> "fixed by architecture"!
I think a number of these comments on doubtful sounding fields came
about only because of the microcoded assists that arrived in the days
of MVS/SE. More re
On 12/9/2013 5:43 PM, Charles Mills wrote:
I -- and John I am sure -- remember when it came along. A radical concept. A
"time sharing option" for OS/360. Ooh. Not sure about this. And it gave new
meaning to the word slow.
I'm not so sure about the "radical", as time-sharing was available
earli
xed by architecture were hard-coded rather than named.
.
.
> Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2013 15:48:03 -0600
> From: john.archie.mck...@gmail.com
> Subject: Curiosity: TCB mapping macro name - why IKJTCB?
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
>
> Normally, I associate the prefix IKJ with TSO. Do
970s) after the S/360 was announced? The
mystery deepens.
Bill Fairchild
Franklin, TN
- Original Message -
From: "John McKown"
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Sent: Monday, December 9, 2013 3:48:03 PM
Subject: Curiosity: TCB mapping macro name - why IKJTCB?
Normally, I
rame Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
Behalf Of John Gilmore
Sent: Monday, December 09, 2013 2:34 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Curiosity: TCB mapping macro name - why IKJTCB?
TSO was not an original element of [any early flavor of] OS for the
System/360. Its IKJ pre
TSO was not an original element of [any early flavor of] OS for the
System/360. Its IKJ prefix came a lot later. TSO was initially a
literal, dispensable option; it was not integrated into the operating
system as it now is.
John Gilmore, Ashland, MA 01721 - USA
bject: Curiosity: TCB mapping macro name - why IKJTCB?
Normally, I associate the prefix IKJ with TSO. Does anybody out there know
why the TCB mapping macro is named IKJTCB instead of IHATCB. The PSA mapping
macro is IHAPSA. The RB map name is IHARB. The ASCB map is IHASCB.
Just curious.
--
This is cl
Maybe all the early mappings a had IKJ
Sent from my iPhone
> On Dec 9, 2013, at 4:48 PM, John McKown wrote:
>
> Normally, I associate the prefix IKJ with TSO. Does anybody out there know
> why the TCB mapping macro is named IKJTCB instead of IHATCB. The PSA
> mapping macro is IHAPSA. The RB m
Normally, I associate the prefix IKJ with TSO. Does anybody out there know
why the TCB mapping macro is named IKJTCB instead of IHATCB. The PSA
mapping macro is IHAPSA. The RB map name is IHARB. The ASCB map is IHASCB.
Just curious.
--
This is clearly another case of too many mad scientists, and
34 matches
Mail list logo
