Sorry for not following this thread properly. I don't know why OP wants a PDS
dataset. Nothing wrong with that; it just puts the user in charge of getting
the right attributes.
Suggestion: Use XDC to create a brand new sequential dataset with SDSF's
preferred attributes. Then use ISPF 3.2 to c
On 2016-12-31, at 09:54, Jesse 1 Robinson wrote:
> Sorry for not following this thread properly. I don't know why OP wants a PDS
> dataset. Nothing wrong with that; it just puts the user in charge of getting
> the right attributes.
>
> Suggestion: Use XDC to create a brand new sequential datas
On Fri, 30 Dec 2016 08:50:36 -0600, Edward Gould wrote:
>https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/12/161228213356.htm
>
>On December 31, 2016, a "leap second" will be added to the world's clocks at
>23 hours, 59 minutes and 59 seconds Coordinated Universal Time (UTC). This
>corresponds to 6:59
And 00 always gets used.. unless there isn't one.
Rob Schramm
On Thu, Dec 29, 2016, 8:18 AM Peter Relson wrote:
> You can have as many IEASYSxx as you can fit into the LOADxx statement or
> the reply to "specify system parameters".
>
> >the IPLINFO is not showing up
> DISPLAY IPLINFO will show
If IPLINFO isn't working.. which would be weird .. my first thought is that
you not authorized for command
Barring that and other "head slapping" " DOH" (Homer Simpson reference)
possibilities... Then it would make me start questioning the system
Integrity.
D IOS,CONFIG?
Rob Schramm
On Wed, Dec
11:59:60?
Charles
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Paul Gilmartin
Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2016 10:40 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Here comes an extra second
See today's Google Doodle. When will t
On Sat, 31 Dec 2016 11:53:41 -0800, Charles Mills wrote:
>11:59:60?
>
ITYM 23:59:60.
I actually got a Linux system to display 23:59:60 for a carefully chosen
TZ and time value. Them guys is thorough.
What if your program balks at that value? Well, it's the fault of that
program.
(I should ha
On Sat, 31 Dec 2016 16:11:48 -0600, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
>On Sat, 31 Dec 2016 11:53:41 -0800, Charles Mills wrote:
>
>>11:59:60?
>>
>ITYM 23:59:60.
It should happen at 00:00:00 in each time-zone. In one timezone that will be 1
second later than in all the others, but still at 00:00:00 :)
--
On Sat, 31 Dec 2016 16:32:04 -0600, Walt Farrell wrote:
>>>
>>ITYM 23:59:60.
>
>It should happen at 00:00:00 in each time-zone. In one timezone that will be 1
>second later than in all the others, but still at 00:00:00 :)
>
I had believed it happened at 23:59:60 UTC regardless of what time zone
On Sat, 31 Dec 2016 16:39:17 -0600, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
>On Sat, 31 Dec 2016 16:32:04 -0600, Walt Farrell wrote:
>>>ITYM 23:59:60.
>>
>>It should happen at 00:00:00 in each time-zone. In one timezone that will be
>>1 second later than in all the others, but still at 00:00:00 :)
>>
>I ha
On Sat, 31 Dec 2016 18:31:08 -0600, Walt Farrell wrote:
>>>
>>>It should happen at 00:00:00 in each time-zone. In one timezone that will be
>>>1 second later than in all the others, but still at 00:00:00 :)
>
>The most recent question, I think, and the one I answered, was "when will
>Google rele
Paul Gilmartin wrote:
I had believed it happened at 23:59:60 UTC regardless of what time zone you're
in. So, in America/Denver, 16:59:60.
We have empirical proof of that at one of my clients . Took down a monitoring
system this evening.
Was peacefully spawning services and suddenly the last-
On Sat, 31 Dec 2016 20:10:05 -0700, Jack J. Woehr wrote:
>Paul Gilmartin wrote:
>> I had believed it happened at 23:59:60 UTC regardless of what time zone
>> you're
>> in. So, in America/Denver, 16:59:60.
>
>We have empirical proof of that at one of my clients . Took down a monitoring
>system
On Sat, 31 Dec 2016 20:10:05 -0700, Jack J. Woehr wrote:
>
>We have empirical proof of that at one of my clients . Took down a monitoring
>system this evening.
>
>Was peacefully spawning services and suddenly the last-started time was in the
>future and it spawned 100 in a second and
>choked.
>
14 matches
Mail list logo
