Re: RLS for catalogs

2017-04-10 Thread Mark Zelden
On Sat, 8 Apr 2017 00:56:15 +, Jesse 1 Robinson wrote: >I love getting affirmation after all these years, but I'm still a bit queasy. >All I did was > change from GRS ring to star. No RNL changes. Is the 'QNAME=SYSZVVDS > RNAME=volser' > conversion still explained? > > Note that, despite

Re: RLS for catalogs

2017-04-10 Thread Vernooij, Kees (ITOPT1) - KLM
t; To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: Re: RLS for catalogs > > Hi everyone, thanks for replys. > > We use MIM historically. I know we can convert to GRS STAR, which is > quite a big change and needs to be done carefully. It would probably > need an all systems IPL. In terms

Re: RLS for catalogs

2017-04-10 Thread Joe Owens
Hi everyone, thanks for replys. We use MIM historically. I know we can convert to GRS STAR, which is quite a big change and needs to be done carefully. It would probably need an all systems IPL. In terms of cost, we have several CA products bundled, and dropping one generally does not save mone

Re: RLS for catalogs

2017-04-07 Thread Jesse 1 Robinson
543-6132 Office ⇐=== NEW robin...@sce.com -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Mark Zelden Sent: Friday, April 07, 2017 2:04 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: (External):Re: RLS for catalogs On Thu, 6 Apr 2017 11:35

Re: RLS for catalogs

2017-04-07 Thread Mark Zelden
On Thu, 6 Apr 2017 11:35:47 -0500, Mark Zelden wrote: >On Thu, 6 Apr 2017 15:56:29 +, Jesse 1 Robinson >wrote: > >>This goes back several years when CF and memory resources were more expensive >>and less flexible than today. Think standalone CF where a memory >upgrade was >>a huge PITA. W

Re: RLS for catalogs

2017-04-07 Thread Mark Zelden
On Fri, 7 Apr 2017 06:16:30 +, Vernooij, Kees (ITOPT1) - KLM wrote: >The reason for the difference in runtimes must be simple: the system that > has the GRS Lock structure in its local CPC has much faster access to it. >We see the same with the CA-DISK IXMAINT function that als does massive

Re: RLS for catalogs

2017-04-06 Thread Vernooij, Kees (ITOPT1) - KLM
m: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On > Behalf Of Jesse 1 Robinson > Sent: 06 April, 2017 17:56 > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: Re: RLS for catalogs > > This goes back several years when CF and memory resources were more > expensive and less

Re: RLS for catalogs

2017-04-06 Thread Jesse 1 Robinson
Program Co-Manager 323-715-0595 Mobile 626-543-6132 Office ⇐=== NEW robin...@sce.com -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Mark Zelden Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2017 9:36 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: (External):R

Re: RLS for catalogs

2017-04-06 Thread Mark Zelden
On Thu, 6 Apr 2017 15:56:29 +, Jesse 1 Robinson wrote: >This goes back several years when CF and memory resources were more expensive >and less flexible than today. Think standalone CF where a memory >upgrade was >a huge PITA. We had one single-system parallel sysplex that I had refrained

Re: RLS for catalogs

2017-04-06 Thread Jesse 1 Robinson
NEW robin...@sce.com -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Mark Zelden Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2017 7:52 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: (External):Re: RLS for catalogs On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 18:23:29 +, Jesse

Re: RLS for catalogs

2017-04-06 Thread Mark Zelden
On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 18:23:29 +, Jesse 1 Robinson wrote: >I’m curious about using CA MIM Resource Sharing within a sysplex. Historically >I used > it in the days before sysplex, before PDS/E, before other newfangled > contraptions > that depend on XCF for serialization. We still use MIA for

Re: RLS for catalogs

2017-04-06 Thread Vernooij, Kees (ITOPT1) - KLM
> -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On > Behalf Of R.S. > Sent: 06 April, 2017 10:04 > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: Re: RLS for catalogs > > W dniu 2017-04-05 o 20:23, Jesse 1 Robinson pisze: >

Re: RLS for catalogs

2017-04-06 Thread R.S.
W dniu 2017-04-05 o 20:23, Jesse 1 Robinson pisze: I’m curious about using CA MIM Resource Sharing within a sysplex. Historically I used it in the days before sysplex, before PDS/E, before other newfangled contraptions that depend on XCF for serialization. We still use MIA for tape allocation

Re: RLS for catalogs

2017-04-05 Thread Mark Zelden
On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 14:16:26 -0700, Lizette Koehler wrote: >Have you reviewed the RNL requirements for GRS and CATALOG > >https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/en/SSLTBW_2.1.0/com.ibm.zos.v2r1.ieag400/catgrs.htm > >Catalogs are VSAM data sets, but VSAM recognizes, catalogs, and manages acce

Re: RLS for catalogs

2017-04-05 Thread Lizette Koehler
RESERVE conversion RNL. Lizette -Original Message- >From: Allan Staller >Sent: Apr 5, 2017 10:33 AM >To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU >Subject: Re: RLS for catalogs > >GRS ring or GRS star? > >-Original Message- >From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:I

Re: RLS for catalogs

2017-04-05 Thread Mark Zelden
On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 11:43:30 -0500, Joe Owens wrote: >We are experiencing general issues with catalog contention, seeing a lot of >SYSIGGV2 enqueue waits. We have shared DASD between multiple LPARS in a sysplex > >I was wondering if anyone had experience of using RLS for

Re: RLS for catalogs

2017-04-05 Thread Jesse 1 Robinson
Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Allan Staller Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2017 10:33 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: (External):Re: RLS for catalogs GRS ring or GRS star? -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN

Re: RLS for catalogs

2017-04-05 Thread Allan Staller
Standing by for CA flames! IMO they only benefit of MIM/MIA is the ability to cross sysplex boundaries GRS is the logical equivalent of CA/MIM but cannot cross sysplex boundaries. Autoswitch/ATS STAR is the logical equivalent of CA/MIA but cannot cross sysplex boundaries. So, if you don't cros

Re: RLS for catalogs

2017-04-05 Thread Jesse 1 Robinson
-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Joe Owens Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2017 9:44 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: (External):RLS for catalogs We are experiencing general issues with catalog contention, seeing a lot of SYSIGGV2 enqueue waits. We have shared DASD between multiple LPARS in a

Re: RLS for catalogs

2017-04-05 Thread Carmen Vitullo
1:43:30 AM Subject: RLS for catalogs We are experiencing general issues with catalog contention, seeing a lot of SYSIGGV2 enqueue waits. We have shared DASD between multiple LPARS in a sysplex I was wondering if anyone had experience of using RLS for catalogs, as introduced with with Z/OS

Re: RLS for catalogs

2017-04-05 Thread Allan Staller
GRS ring or GRS star? -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Joe Owens Sent: Wednesday, April 5, 2017 11:44 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: RLS for catalogs We are experiencing general issues with catalog contention

Re: RLS for catalogs

2017-04-05 Thread Lizette Koehler
2017 9:44 AM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: RLS for catalogs > > We are experiencing general issues with catalog contention, seeing a lot of > SYSIGGV2 enqueue waits. We have shared DASD between multiple LPARS in a > sysplex > > I was wondering if anyone had expe

RLS for catalogs

2017-04-05 Thread Joe Owens
We are experiencing general issues with catalog contention, seeing a lot of SYSIGGV2 enqueue waits. We have shared DASD between multiple LPARS in a sysplex I was wondering if anyone had experience of using RLS for catalogs, as introduced with with Z/OS 2.1? In particular, anyone using this