On Thu, 3 May 2012 20:46:29 -0500, W. Kevin Kelley <[email protected]> wrote:
>In z/OS R13, DFSMS changed approximately 400 of their rather cryptic IEC error >messages to include additional lines of explanation. Feedback from R13 ESP >customers indicated that the additional lines of explanation were appreciated >for end-users but were not wanted in the SYSLOG/OPERLOG or on consoles. A >suggestion was made that the additional lines of explanation be written only >to the JOBLOG and not to other places that the message might go. > >z/OS OA37957 and DFSMS OA37505 provide the suggested support: the additional >lines of explanation -- now referred to as "verbose message lines" -- are >written only to the JOBLOG; they are not included with the message if it is >written to the SYSLOG/OPERLOG or queued to a console. A new .MSGOPTION >statement has been added to MPFLSTxx to allow you to enable or disable verbose >message support at a system level: if the support is disabled (the default), >the DFSMS error messages will not include additional lines of explanation; if >the support is enabled, the DFSMS error messages will include the additional >lines of explanation, but the verbose message lines will be written only to >the JOBLOG. The DISPLAY MPF command response now displays the MSGOPTION >enablement state. > >If verbose message support is enabled, the additional message lines are >visible in MPF exits and are visible on the Subsystem Interface (SSI). The >following control blocks have been modified to provide an indication if a >verbose message line is present: WPL, WQE, CTXT and MDB. We have been in >contact with the various automation venders and they are all aware of how to >recognize verbose message lines. We expect that most venders will choose to >ignore the verbose message lines. > >Any comments/criticisms/suggestions? > >W. Kevin Kelley -- IBM POK Lab -- z/OS Core Technical Development > This sort of surprises me. Were the people giving feedback worried about the few extra bytes in the syslog/operlog when these messages were written? Obviously they agree the messages are useful for the end user or operations if they still wanted them in the joblog. If the new MPFLSTxx option has it disabled by default or enables the verbose messages, what purpose does the OCE_ABEND_DESCRIP=YES serve in DEVSUPxx? What if you want the original behavior? I ask, because I like it. Typically as a sysprog, I look at the syslog or operlog to get a better picture of what was happening at the time of an error (as opposed to an end user or programmer who may not have syslog access). Also,sometimes it's just easier to look at the syslog if the joblog has been sent of to some sysout archival product. My client has mixture of different products that do this in different sysplexes / monoplexes and some are more cumbersome to use than others. I'm also thinking of a situation I was just contacted about yesterday with an FTP issue on a pre 1.13 system where I thought the verbose messages in the syslog would have helped operations (thus preventing a call to me). There is no joblog they could have looked at easily since I'm pretty sure the message was generated from a BPXAS address space (it may have been purged as soon as the unix pid terminated). Regards, Mark -- Mark Zelden - Zelden Consulting Services - z/OS, OS/390 and MVS mailto:[email protected] Mark's MVS Utilities: http://www.mzelden.com/mvsutil.html Systems Programming expert at http://expertanswercenter.techtarget.com/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
