So do we, 2 CFs per Sysplex (you "cannot" run a production site with only 1).
I am a little confused about your questions:
System managed rebuild is standard and always active. This will rebuild
structures in another CF in case of problems. It is transparent to the
application, be it with some
Peter,
Using FETCHABLE gives me the same error.
With OS_DOWNSTACK I get the followig when I build:
CCN6404 (W) The parameter "OS_UPSTACK" specified for "pragma linkage"
is not valid. The pragma is ignored.
I ran it anyway and got the same thing.
I can't believ
Thin interrupts were introduced as a performance booster for shared CF engines.
However when we recently upgraded both CECs to z14 and z13, we discovered that
we can no longer live with 'fat' interrupts. In a new CEC, thin interrupts must
be enabled by CF command; there is no profile to carry ov
Hmm-m-m. Maybe #pragma linkage (IGGCSI00, OS_NOSTACK) would work? Also,
investigate your C compile listing, what is the compiler option XPLINK set to?
I get the impression from RTFM about the XPLINK option that
XPLINK(OSCALL(NOSTACK)) is the default when LP64 is in effect, is that true for
y
I would expect the pragma to affect the call, not the fetch.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of
Farley, Peter x23353
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2018 12:34 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSER
Dear Folks,
Sorry to bother you about this kind of thing. I have had to modify
several items on CBT File 483 from Thomas Ramseier, and since it is "his
file", I would like to contact him. Last I heard from him was in 2001,
when he worked for the Swiss Federal Office of Information Techno
Sam,
Jan Jaeger is with lzlabs. His mail should be jan.jae...@lzlabs.com.
ITschak
בתאריך יום ד׳, 19 בדצמ׳ 2018, 19:48, מאת Sam Golob :
> Dear Folks,
>
> Sorry to bother you about this kind of thing. I have had to modify
> several items on CBT File 483 from Thomas Ramseier, and since it is
On Wed, 19 Dec 2018 09:28:53 -0500, Pierre Fichaud wrote:
>I can't believe that an AMODE 31 module can't be fetched by 64-bit C
>code. __malloc31() can be used to get 31-bit storage.
Disclaimer: I am not a C guy.
64-bit C is XPLINK.
XPLINK-64 allocates the stack above the bar.
The save area that
I agree the original question was a bit confusing, but to answer it
directly:
-> System-managed duplexing is definitely not deprecated, but yes there is
an "overhead" to run system-managed duplexing for structures, which is why
a new enhancement was recently released
on z14 (CFLevel 22 and up)
We want to discard some very old tapes after making sure there's nothing of
value on them. When we run Innovation FATAR to analyze them, the jobs fail with
messages like those below using JCL like this:
//TAPEIN DD UNIT=TAPECR,LABEL=(,BLP),
// DISP=OLD,VOL=SER=(nn)
There's a
This is CA-1, but I thought RMM was compatible. And, I there are SAF profiles
controlling access. CA-1 defines it's own class for them
EXPDT=98000
Nonresident EXPDT keyword. Specifies that the tape volume being processed is
not under CA 1(r)
Tape Management System control
> -Original Messa
Mike Wood previously advised in a post a long time ago but still seems
applicable
Mike Wood <***@UK.IBM.COM> wrote:
The 413-08 is issued because rmm rejected the volume and the request was
specific; no other volume is acceptable, so OPEN fails the request in this
way. This is what happens when th
Here is what I have used to "get around" things. The DSN start with a "valid"
HLQ that RACF would not get in the way. We are a CA-1 shop.
//STEP010 EXEC PGM=FATAR,REGION=4096K
//TAPEIN DD UNIT=CART90O,DISP=OLD,
//VOL=SER=MUZM11,LABEL=(,BLP,EXPDT=
13 matches
Mail list logo
