I disagree. The answer is "it depends".
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of
Seymour J Metz
Sent: Tuesday, February 5, 2019 2:50 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Internal Coupling Channel on z13
It is possible to convert ENQ with
, 2019 3:42 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Internal Coupling Channel on z13
On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 at 01:53, Ed Jaffe wrote:
> Is it no longer possible to use "old school" shared DASD RESERVE/RELEASE
> to protect data? I know it won't work for sharing PDSE, but for
On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 at 01:10, Brian Westerman
wrote:
>
> Do you have any figures for how much "more" friendly the CPU usage is?
Funny thing... More than 40 years ago VM/370 was able to detect the
standard TIO/BC loop when issued in a virtual machine, and instead of
allowing it to eat CPU time, di
On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 at 01:53, Ed Jaffe wrote:
> Is it no longer possible to use "old school" shared DASD RESERVE/RELEASE
> to protect data? I know it won't work for sharing PDSE, but for
> old-school PDS and sequential, it should still work.
Reserve/Release works only if someone issues those CCW
127943573?mt=2
Youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCu_65HaYgksbF6Q8SQ4oOvA
From: Jesse 1 Robinson
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Date: 31/01/2019 18:44
Subject: Re: Internal Coupling Channel on z13
Sent by:IBM Mainframe Discussion List
We share CFs between Sandbo
y 31, 2019 1:38 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: (External):Re: Internal Coupling Channel on z13
(This thread has got quite long so pardon me if I repeat something someone else
said.)
If you must run a PRODUCTION Coupling Facility LPAR on SHARED engines I would
generally recommend tur
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Ravi Gaur
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2019 12:46 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: (External):Re: Internal Coupling Channel on z13
DYNDISP is recommended with THIN INTERRUPT for Non
ernal Coupling Channel on z13
Sent by:IBM Mainframe Discussion List
DYNDISP is recommended with THIN INTERRUPT for Non dedicated CF CPU
...like for our sandbox/dev systems we have non dedicated and we keep it
thin for them while for production which has CF CPU dedicated it's good
DYNDISP is recommended with THIN INTERRUPT for Non dedicated CF CPU ...like for
our sandbox/dev systems we have non dedicated and we keep it thin for them
while for production which has CF CPU dedicated it's good idea to keep it OFF
...You may like to look at Z14 Configuration setup guide which
Were this on single CP systems or did you have multiple CP's or specialty
processors handing things?
Brian
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the messag
On 1/30/2019 3:19 PM, Jesse 1 Robinson wrote:
Hence we were running with the default DYNDISP OFF. We set DYNDISP to THIN
INTERRUPT via CF command, and suddenly all was well again. Night and day.
Haha! No kidding! DYNDISP=OFF is basically a TIGHT CPU LOOP!
--
Phoenix Software International
Ed
DU
Subject: (External):Re: Internal Coupling Channel on z13
On 1/29/2019 10:07 PM, Brian Westerman wrote:
> No, just one single CP, no specialty processors are available.
We have two CF LPARs (CF01 and CF02) sharing a single ICF engine. From both CF
consoles I see:
2019029 22:56:50 => display dy
I haven't seen many single-CP boxes in general, and haven't seen one running
both CFCC and z/OS on that single CP. My expectation is that this would perform
poorly. Sync requests would be impossible since PR/SM can't have both the z/OS
and CFCC dispatched on the single CP at the same time, so al
Others have already said this. With just a single CP on the system, its not a
good idea to have a CFCC LPAR on the same CP which is also being used for z/OS
LPARs.
If you have not already read the the doc at the link below, I suggest you do.
It is very comprehensive and covers a lot more than y
Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
> Behalf Of Ed Jaffe
> Sent: 30 January, 2019 7:53
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: Internal Coupling Channel on z13
>
> On 1/29/2019 10:17 PM, Brian Westerman wrote:
> > This particular box has ju
On 1/29/2019 10:07 PM, Brian Westerman wrote:
No, just one single CP, no specialty processors are available.
We have two CF LPARs (CF01 and CF02) sharing a single ICF engine. From
both CF consoles I see:
2019029 22:56:50 => display dyndisp
2019029 22:56:50 CF0512I Dynamic CF Dispatching is
What is the percent busy at peak times? How big a percent do you
need? 10% for the ICF partition? Would you save that much by
converting Ring to Star?
On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 12:07 AM Brian Westerman
wrote:
>
> No, just one single CP, no specialty processors are available.
>
> Brian
>
> --
On 1/29/2019 10:17 PM, Brian Westerman wrote:
This particular box has just a single CP, no specialty processors, 3 LPARs, one
of them production, one application programmer test, and the other a sandbox
that is extremely low use and in any case shares only the res volume.
They "need" to run GR
This particular box has just a single CP, no specialty processors, 3 LPARs, one
of them production, one application programmer test, and the other a sandbox
that is extremely low use and in any case shares only the res volume.
They "need" to run GRS because it's not really safe to run without it
I agree that before the current CF20 implementation of the micocode only
version, it was supposed ot be almost fatal to try it, but with the new z13s
and z14 it's "supposed" to be "low" impact, but it doesn't really talk about
how low the impact is, and if it can be done with a single CP and no
Do you have any figures for how much "more" friendly the CPU usage is?
This box is a single CPU, no ICF, Zipp or zapp.
Brian
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.e
NO, I'm trying to use the Microcode Implementation, it has no CTC, and is just
memory to memory between LPARs on the same physical box.
Brian
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists
No, just one single CP, no specialty processors are available.
Brian
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
I agree with the recommendation to get a CF engine as the best/first choice
all around. I also agree to proceed with caution if you're going to share
one or more CPs between the Coupling Facility Control Code (CFCC) and z/OS
and/or other operating systems. "Proceed with caution" is not the same
thi
ERV.UA.EDU
Subject: (External):Re: Internal Coupling Channel on z13
Brian,
We've actually been thinking about this too, as we evaluate moving to z14's. We
currently have a 5 member GRS ring that could really benefit moving to GRS
Star, but nobody want's to spend any $ for an ICF.
Brian,
We've actually been thinking about this too, as we evaluate moving to z14's. We
currently have a 5 member GRS ring that could really benefit moving to GRS
Star, but nobody want's to spend any $ for an ICF.
As of BC12 generation IBM was still recommending against using GPs for CF
proces
, January 29, 2019 7:40 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Internal Coupling Channel on z13 [EXTERNAL]
GRS RING can/will run over CTC's. Not sure I would want to do that in a 3
member ring. It was bad enough in a 2 member ring.
I am currently using an ICF on a z/12 BC w/no issue. Hower
W dniu 2019-01-29 o 07:23, Brian Westerman pisze:
Hi,
Has anyone had any experience with using the internal coupling channels on a z13.
"supposedly" IBM has removed the active wait problems (where the CF lpar would
try to use 100% of whatever it gets from PR/SM), but I was wondering if it's r
frame Discussion List On Behalf Of
Brian Westerman
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2019 12:24 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Internal Coupling Channel on z13
Hi,
Has anyone had any experience with using the internal coupling channels on a
z13. "supposedly" IBM has removed
Hi Brian.
Are you referring to Coupling Facility Thin Interrupts? It sounds like you
might be.
Also, are you running a dedicated ICF engine? Or sharing?
Thanks, Martin
Sent from my iPad
> On 29 Jan 2019, at 06:24, Brian Westerman
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Has anyone had any experience with using t
Hi,
Has anyone had any experience with using the internal coupling channels on a
z13. "supposedly" IBM has removed the active wait problems (where the CF lpar
would try to use 100% of whatever it gets from PR/SM), but I was wondering if
it's ready for prime time yet. I have a z13s (single CPU
31 matches
Mail list logo
