Re: [EXTERNAL]Re: SMF type 89 records reporting RMF usage
Yeah if you have MXG there's ANAL30DD PROC that will point out pgms and EXCPs. With slight modification could only look for ERB* modules. In a message dated 7/14/2016 4:33:43 P.M. Central Daylight Time, vicky.toble...@americannational.com writes: Well - now we have RMF disabled in IFAPRD00. We have deleted all start up PROCS and are working to identify TSO panels and batch jobs as well as any remaining RMF load modules. Yes we are using SDSF. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: [EXTERNAL]Re: SMF type 89 records reporting RMF usage
Well - now we have RMF disabled in IFAPRD00. We have deleted all start up PROCS and are working to identify TSO panels and batch jobs as well as any remaining RMF load modules. Yes we are using SDSF. -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of patrickfalcone7 Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2016 3:33 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL]Re: SMF type 89 records reporting RMF usage Are all references to RMF libraries also removed...are you using SDSF? Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone American National has changed its email addresses to firstname.lastn...@americannational.com. Please update my email address in your contact list, if applicable, at your earliest convenience. Confidentiality: This transmission, including any attachments, is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). This transmission may contain information that is confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. The use or disclosure of the information contained in this transmission, including any attachments, for any purpose other than that intended by its transmittal is strictly prohibited. Unauthorized interception of this email is a violation of federal criminal law. If you are not an intended recipient of this transmission, please immediately destroy all copies received and notify the sender. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: [EXTERNAL]Re: SMF type 89 records reporting RMF usage
[Default] On 14 Jul 2016 12:45:43 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main vicky.toble...@americannational.com (Tobleman, Vicky) wrote: >The issue was in an IBM software audit ... in addition to the SCRT reports, >which did not report on RMF, the audit required us to run Usage Reports. @ >the time we had 3 separate environments - two of them had RMF enabled in >IFAPRD00, the 3rd plex did not. > >There was usage listed on one of the plex's - almost every day for months, >even though we can find no record of RMF tasks being started (we run CMF). >The other plex that had RMF enabled only had one day in 3 months were it >showed RMF usage. We also used a CMF utility to look for RMF records mixed in >with CMF records (all type 70's) but did not find any - so we are fairly >confident that the main RMF tasks were not running anywhere. > >So I'm thinking that "enabled" is not the only thing causing the usage >reporting. We did get a message from IBM support center that talks about >generating RMF usage if you initiate the monitor tasks from TSO or batch - >neither of which would cut RMF records but would cause RMF usage of modules. >Perhaps we had a batch job that was scheduled on that plex that ran one of the >RMF monitors and we didn't realize. We'll explore that avenue - unless anyone >has something else to suggest. Check the step completion type 30 records for any of the program names used by RMF. Clark Morris > >vicky.tobleman > >-Original Message- >From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On >Behalf Of Cheryl Watson >Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2016 7:57 AM >To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU >Subject: [EXTERNAL]Re: SMF type 89 records reporting RMF usage > >Hi Peter, > >I think it still goes back to the original contract that has you entitled to >RMF, so I would check that first. > >Best regards, >Cheryl > >-Original Message- >From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On >Behalf Of Peter Ten Eyck >Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2016 8:56 AM >To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU >Subject: Re: SMF type 89 records reporting RMF usage > >After some research... I am starting to think this might be the case. It >appears we had RMF enabled in IFAPRD00, but were not running it. We are >running CMF. > >Can a SMF type 89 record indicating RMF use be cut under these circumstances? > >-- >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 > > > >American National has changed its email addresses to >firstname.lastn...@americannational.com. Please update my email address in >your contact list, if applicable, at your earliest convenience. > >Confidentiality: This transmission, including any attachments, is solely for >the use of the intended recipient(s). This transmission may contain >information that is confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. The >use or disclosure of the information contained in this transmission, including >any attachments, for any purpose other than that intended by its transmittal >is strictly prohibited. Unauthorized interception of this email is a violation >of federal criminal law. If you are not an intended recipient of this >transmission, please immediately destroy all copies received and notify the >sender. > >-- >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: [EXTERNAL]Re: SMF type 89 records reporting RMF usage
Are all references to RMF libraries also removed...are you using SDSF? Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone Original message From: "Tobleman, Vicky" <vicky.toble...@americannational.com> Date: 07/14/2016 3:35 PM (GMT-05:00) To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL]Re: SMF type 89 records reporting RMF usage The issue was in an IBM software audit ... in addition to the SCRT reports, which did not report on RMF, the audit required us to run Usage Reports. @ the time we had 3 separate environments - two of them had RMF enabled in IFAPRD00, the 3rd plex did not. There was usage listed on one of the plex's - almost every day for months, even though we can find no record of RMF tasks being started (we run CMF). The other plex that had RMF enabled only had one day in 3 months were it showed RMF usage. We also used a CMF utility to look for RMF records mixed in with CMF records (all type 70's) but did not find any - so we are fairly confident that the main RMF tasks were not running anywhere. So I'm thinking that "enabled" is not the only thing causing the usage reporting. We did get a message from IBM support center that talks about generating RMF usage if you initiate the monitor tasks from TSO or batch - neither of which would cut RMF records but would cause RMF usage of modules. Perhaps we had a batch job that was scheduled on that plex that ran one of the RMF monitors and we didn't realize. We'll explore that avenue - unless anyone has something else to suggest. vicky.tobleman -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Cheryl Watson Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2016 7:57 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: [EXTERNAL]Re: SMF type 89 records reporting RMF usage Hi Peter, I think it still goes back to the original contract that has you entitled to RMF, so I would check that first. Best regards, Cheryl -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Peter Ten Eyck Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2016 8:56 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: SMF type 89 records reporting RMF usage After some research... I am starting to think this might be the case. It appears we had RMF enabled in IFAPRD00, but were not running it. We are running CMF. Can a SMF type 89 record indicating RMF use be cut under these circumstances? -- 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 American National has changed its email addresses to firstname.lastn...@americannational.com. Please update my email address in your contact list, if applicable, at your earliest convenience. Confidentiality: This transmission, including any attachments, is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). This transmission may contain information that is confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. The use or disclosure of the information contained in this transmission, including any attachments, for any purpose other than that intended by its transmittal is strictly prohibited. Unauthorized interception of this email is a violation of federal criminal law. If you are not an intended recipient of this transmission, please immediately destroy all copies received and notify the sender. -- 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: [EXTERNAL]Re: SMF type 89 records reporting RMF usage
The issue was in an IBM software audit ... in addition to the SCRT reports, which did not report on RMF, the audit required us to run Usage Reports. @ the time we had 3 separate environments - two of them had RMF enabled in IFAPRD00, the 3rd plex did not. There was usage listed on one of the plex's - almost every day for months, even though we can find no record of RMF tasks being started (we run CMF). The other plex that had RMF enabled only had one day in 3 months were it showed RMF usage. We also used a CMF utility to look for RMF records mixed in with CMF records (all type 70's) but did not find any - so we are fairly confident that the main RMF tasks were not running anywhere. So I'm thinking that "enabled" is not the only thing causing the usage reporting. We did get a message from IBM support center that talks about generating RMF usage if you initiate the monitor tasks from TSO or batch - neither of which would cut RMF records but would cause RMF usage of modules. Perhaps we had a batch job that was scheduled on that plex that ran one of the RMF monitors and we didn't realize. We'll explore that avenue - unless anyone has something else to suggest. vicky.tobleman -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Cheryl Watson Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2016 7:57 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: [EXTERNAL]Re: SMF type 89 records reporting RMF usage Hi Peter, I think it still goes back to the original contract that has you entitled to RMF, so I would check that first. Best regards, Cheryl -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Peter Ten Eyck Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2016 8:56 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: SMF type 89 records reporting RMF usage After some research... I am starting to think this might be the case. It appears we had RMF enabled in IFAPRD00, but were not running it. We are running CMF. Can a SMF type 89 record indicating RMF use be cut under these circumstances? -- 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 American National has changed its email addresses to firstname.lastn...@americannational.com. Please update my email address in your contact list, if applicable, at your earliest convenience. Confidentiality: This transmission, including any attachments, is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). This transmission may contain information that is confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. The use or disclosure of the information contained in this transmission, including any attachments, for any purpose other than that intended by its transmittal is strictly prohibited. Unauthorized interception of this email is a violation of federal criminal law. If you are not an intended recipient of this transmission, please immediately destroy all copies received and notify the sender. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: SMF type 89 records reporting RMF usage
I suspect you mean MULC and not SCRT. We had a similar issue. Once we disabled RMF in IFA it stopped reporting in the MULC Software Summary Report section... I don't remember this being about usage but it showing up in Summary Report ... this back in 2010... Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone Original message From: Peter Ten Eyck <peter_tene...@farmfamily.com> Date: 07/14/2016 8:55 AM (GMT-05:00) To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: SMF type 89 records reporting RMF usage After some research... I am starting to think this might be the case. It appears we had RMF enabled in IFAPRD00, but were not running it. We are running CMF. Can a SMF type 89 record indicating RMF use be cut under these circumstances? -- 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: SMF type 89 records reporting RMF usage
RMF will be in the PRODFEAT fields of TYPE89-2 (PDB.TYPE892 in MXG) but SCRT does not read that field and SCRT does not report that fields. In the same records, the PRODREGS should be zero if you are not using RMF. Al Sherkow, I/S Management Strategies, Ltd. Consulting Expertise on IBM Workload License Charges (WLC), LPARs and LCS Software Seminars on IBM Mainframe Software Pricing +1 414 332-3062 -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: SMF type 89 records reporting RMF usage
Hi Peter, I think it still goes back to the original contract that has you entitled to RMF, so I would check that first. Best regards, Cheryl -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Peter Ten Eyck Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2016 8:56 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: SMF type 89 records reporting RMF usage After some research... I am starting to think this might be the case. It appears we had RMF enabled in IFAPRD00, but were not running it. We are running CMF. Can a SMF type 89 record indicating RMF use be cut under these circumstances? -- 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: SMF type 89 records reporting RMF usage
After some research... I am starting to think this might be the case. It appears we had RMF enabled in IFAPRD00, but were not running it. We are running CMF. Can a SMF type 89 record indicating RMF use be cut under these circumstances? -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: SMF type 89 records reporting RMF usage
Somehow we got dinged on this, maybe it was MULC. We had recently done a CMF conversion and it kept showing up in one of the usage reports but the task(s) were not active. I'm fairly certain that we had RMF enabled in IFA and had CMF also running but no RMF tasks active. From: Al Sherkow <a...@sherkow.com> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 9:40 PM Subject: Re: SMF type 89 records reporting RMF usage SCRT only reports on products. It does not report features of products. AND SCRT only reports on products it knows to be IBM Sub-Capacity products. So SCRT does not report on RMF, just as SCRT does not report on IMS TM or IMS DB. It only reports IMS as a product. As Cheryl wrote if you invoice shows RMF, then IBM's license data needs to be corrected. Al Sherkow, I/S Management Strategies, Ltd. Consulting Expertise on IBM Workload License Charges (WLC), LPARs and LCS Software Seminars on IBM Mainframe Software Pricing +1 414 332-3062 www.sherkow.com -- 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: SMF type 89 records reporting RMF usage
SCRT only reports on products. It does not report features of products. AND SCRT only reports on products it knows to be IBM Sub-Capacity products. So SCRT does not report on RMF, just as SCRT does not report on IMS TM or IMS DB. It only reports IMS as a product. As Cheryl wrote if you invoice shows RMF, then IBM's license data needs to be corrected. Al Sherkow, I/S Management Strategies, Ltd. Consulting Expertise on IBM Workload License Charges (WLC), LPARs and LCS Software Seminars on IBM Mainframe Software Pricing +1 414 332-3062 www.sherkow.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: SMF type 89 records reporting RMF usage
Sorry... didn't see Peters original ... check ifa member in parmlib to ensure you don't have the rmf enabled Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone Original message From: Cheryl Watson <che...@watsonwalker.com> Date: 07/12/2016 4:20 PM (GMT-05:00) To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: SMF type 89 records reporting RMF usage Hi Peter, Usually, RMF does NOT show up on the SCRT report that you create to send IBM. It will show up, however, on their bill coming back (also in Excel format). Where are you seeing it? If it's on the bill, then here is what is happening: 1. When you sign a license for z/OS, you also indicate which other entitlements come with that, such as RMF, DFSORT, and similar tools. If you have alternative products, such as CMF or SYNCSORT, then you would remove those entitlements during the license signing. 2. IBM keeps that information in their license database. 3. You run an SRCT report that shows all of the LPARs where z/OS runs. IBM bills you for every entitlement in every LPAR where z/OS runs, whether you run the component or not. Therefore, if RMF is an entitlement in your license, then RMF will show up in every LPAR. So EITHER you should have removed RMF as an entitlement once you installed CMF, OR you are running RMF in at least one LPAR and you're getting charged for all LPARs (but there's nothing you can do about that - it's the way it works). Is this the situation in your case? Best regards, Cheryl Cheryl Watson Watson & Walker, Inc. 100 Central Ave, Suite 1013 Sarasota, FL 34236 P-941-924-6565, F-941-924-4892 www.watsonwalker.com -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Peter Ten Eyck Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 9:06 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: SMF type 89 records reporting RMF usage Our SCRT reporting for IBM showed type 89 records that indicted that RMF was used. We do not run RMF, we run CMF. I am looking back at syslogs and SMF data; I am trying to determine what caused that (RMF usage) type 89 record to get cut. It does not appear that the RMF STC was started… wondering what else could be the cause. -- 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: SMF type 89 records reporting RMF usage
Hi Peter, Usually, RMF does NOT show up on the SCRT report that you create to send IBM. It will show up, however, on their bill coming back (also in Excel format). Where are you seeing it? If it's on the bill, then here is what is happening: 1. When you sign a license for z/OS, you also indicate which other entitlements come with that, such as RMF, DFSORT, and similar tools. If you have alternative products, such as CMF or SYNCSORT, then you would remove those entitlements during the license signing. 2. IBM keeps that information in their license database. 3. You run an SRCT report that shows all of the LPARs where z/OS runs. IBM bills you for every entitlement in every LPAR where z/OS runs, whether you run the component or not. Therefore, if RMF is an entitlement in your license, then RMF will show up in every LPAR. So EITHER you should have removed RMF as an entitlement once you installed CMF, OR you are running RMF in at least one LPAR and you're getting charged for all LPARs (but there's nothing you can do about that - it's the way it works). Is this the situation in your case? Best regards, Cheryl Cheryl Watson Watson & Walker, Inc. 100 Central Ave, Suite 1013 Sarasota, FL 34236 P-941-924-6565, F-941-924-4892 www.watsonwalker.com -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Peter Ten Eyck Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 9:06 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: SMF type 89 records reporting RMF usage Our SCRT reporting for IBM showed type 89 records that indicted that RMF was used. We do not run RMF, we run CMF. I am looking back at syslogs and SMF data; I am trying to determine what caused that (RMF usage) type 89 record to get cut. It does not appear that the RMF STC was started… wondering what else could be the cause. -- 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: SMF type 89 records reporting RMF usage
Our SCRT reporting for IBM showed type 89 records that indicted that RMF was used. We do not run RMF, we run CMF. I am looking back at syslogs and SMF data; I am trying to determine what caused that (RMF usage) type 89 record to get cut. It does not appear that the RMF STC was started… wondering what else could be the cause. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: SMF type 89 records reporting RMF usage
RMF is NOT involved in the cutting of SMF 89, just like it isn't in the 30s. (I mention 30s only because they're another source of Usage information.) Cheers, Martin Sent from my iPad > On 11 Jul 2016, at 21:53, Roach, Dennis <dennis.ro...@aig.com> wrote: > > What makes you think it is part of RMF? > Did you look at the SMF manual? > > It is product usage for capacity level billing. > > > Dennis Roach, CISSP, PMP > AIG > IAM Access Administration – Consumer | Identy & Access Management > > 2929 Allen Parkway, America Building, 3rd Floor | Houston, TX 77019 > Phone: 713-831-8799 > > dennis.ro...@aig.com | www.aig.com > > All opinions expressed by me are mine and may not agree with my employer or > any person, company, or thing, living or dead, on or near this or any other > planet, moon, asteroid, or other spatial object, natural or manufactured, > since the beginning of time. > > > -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On > Behalf Of Peter Ten Eyck > Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 3:15 PM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: SMF type 89 records reporting RMF usage > > Can anyone think of how a SMF type 89 record reporting RMF usage would be > generated without running the RMF STC? > > -- > 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 Unless stated otherwise above: IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: SMF type 89 records reporting RMF usage
Have you checked your IFAPRDxx Parmlib member to see whether RMF is ENABLED? Or issue the 'D PROD,STATE,ALL' command and that should also show you the state of the various product entries. It may have been ENABLED and someone started/stopped RMF? Just my 0.02 worth Roger -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: SMF type 89 records reporting RMF usage
What makes you think it is part of RMF? Did you look at the SMF manual? It is product usage for capacity level billing. Dennis Roach, CISSP, PMP AIG IAM Access Administration – Consumer | Identy & Access Management 2929 Allen Parkway, America Building, 3rd Floor | Houston, TX 77019 Phone: 713-831-8799 dennis.ro...@aig.com | www.aig.com All opinions expressed by me are mine and may not agree with my employer or any person, company, or thing, living or dead, on or near this or any other planet, moon, asteroid, or other spatial object, natural or manufactured, since the beginning of time. -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Peter Ten Eyck Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 3:15 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: SMF type 89 records reporting RMF usage Can anyone think of how a SMF type 89 record reporting RMF usage would be generated without running the RMF STC? -- 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
SMF type 89 records reporting RMF usage
Can anyone think of how a SMF type 89 record reporting RMF usage would be generated without running the RMF STC? -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
