W dniu 2019-09-13 o 16:54, Dana Mitchell pisze:
I think the Hardware Management Appliance sounds interesting. IBM seems to
spend more time onsite here working on the HMC's than the actual CEC's nowdays.
I may be wrong, but I understand the news about HMC as pizza-box PC
server inside CEC's
I just this the same thing. The DEBCHK lock function is a pe-chain that seems
it has run on for about 18 months.
I ended up bypassing 2 APARs that do not affect my installation.
OA58037 is according to L2 support, a very specific set of conditions.
IMO, it is OK to bypass an error hold, as long
Slide 8 shows the fanouts for a z196 Book.
CPC Drawer fanouts for a z114 shown below. I think, once you remove the I/O
Drawer (not a a cage 🙂) , unless you need the I/O drawer fanouts for a
different type of fanout, you can just leave the I/O drawer HCA2-C fanouts.
Shouldn't do any harm.
Unabl
Re: I may be wrong, but I understand the news about HMC as pizza-box PC
server inside CEC's rack.
Yes, you are wrong. The new optional IBM Hardware Management
Appliance (FC 0100) with the z15, eliminates the need for a standalone Hardware
Management Console. Both Hardware Management Console appli
Hi,
Thanks. You're right that it is a z196, but I hoped that the slots would
have the same form factor so I could use them. Maybe too sneaky :-).
I removed the cables to the adapter but the SE complains. It recommends me
to order a cable cleaning kit for the I/O adapter - I doubt it will help
:-)
Like many of you I suspect, I sometimes want to make changes to WLM that would
be so easy if I could put everything into a batch job and submit it to update
my policy. I get especially frustrated when I want to create report classes
for something like DDF, CICS or WAS transactions. I can desig
Take a look at MVS Programming Workload Management Services, Using the
administrative application
services chapter.
Mark Jacobs
Sent from ProtonMail, Swiss-based encrypted email.
GPG Public Key -
https://api.protonmail.ch/pks/lookup?op=get&search=markjac...@protonmail.com
‐‐‐ Original Me
Hi
I have seen few vendors suggesting an IPL as requisite if you are doing the
product install for first time and If it's upgrade then it's not required.
I am ignorant here. How does this makes a difference ? Why a dynamic update
won't work if it's a first install ?
Programmatically how does it
Thanks, Mark, that gives me starting point.
Jim Horne
Mainframe Services
jim.s.ho...@lowes.com
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of
Mark Jacobs
Sent: Monday, September 16, 2019 1:45 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Can you update WLM
Would have to understand where the modules you are referring to live and how
they are used, etc.
LPA content comes to mind. Take a quick look/read here.
https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/en/SSLTBW_2.4.0/com.ibm.zos.v2r4.ieag100/iea3g1_Managing_dynamic_LPA_content.htm
Regards,
Kevin
Peter,
I think it depends entirely on how the product is installed. The various
methods required might include,
1. LPA modules
2. Nucleus extensions
3. SVC(s)
4. New APF libraries
5. New linklist libraries
6. PPT modifications
7. Front-ending of existing SVCs
8. Console definition modifictions
9
> On Monday, September 16, 2019, 10:54:02 AM PDT, Peter
wrote:
> I have seen few vendors suggesting an IPL as requisite
Product vendor's do not want to be the cause for an IPL unless it's absolutely
necessary. z/OS has many features that we can use to avoid IPL's. SVC's can be
replaced
Hi Steve,
Thanks for the suggestion to include a link to the PoP! I'll pass it
along to the owner of the page.
As for the Acrobat Indexed Collection, it now includes all the
deliverables that were updated on 9/12:
http://publibz.boulder.ibm.com/zoslib/pdf/zosv2r4pdfkit-Sep-12-2019.zip
. Ple
In short, an IPL is easier than develping a program that installs SVCs
dynamically, load LPA modules, etc. some products does that. IBM's IMS for
example.
ITschak
On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 10:49 PM Lennie Dymoke-Bradshaw <
lenni...@rsmpartners.com> wrote:
> Peter,
>
> I think it depends entirely o
Why isn't your CE handling this?
In a message dated 9/16/2019 3:00:58 PM Central Standard Time,
022ad63487ef-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu writes:
This is why I'm thinking of removing the actual adapters.
--
For IBM-MAIN sub
> If it's upgrade then it's not required.
The first question is whether it is true. If they install something that
requires an IPL, how sure are they that they will never have to upgrade it?
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
From
Hi,
Because I bought it on eBay :-).
On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 10:13 PM Edward Finnell <
000248cce9f3-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
> Why isn't your CE handling this?
>
> In a message dated 9/16/2019 3:00:58 PM Central Standard Time,
> 022ad63487ef-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu w
Sorry, wasn't paying attention.
In a message dated 9/16/2019 3:32:59 PM Central Standard Time,
022ad63487ef-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu writes:
Because I bought it on eBay :-)
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive
It's all good - I didn't mention it, so you couldn't have known.
On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 10:34 PM Edward Finnell <
000248cce9f3-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
> Sorry, wasn't paying attention.
>
> In a message dated 9/16/2019 3:32:59 PM Central Standard Time,
> 022ad63487ef-dmarc-r
> On Sunday, September 15, 2019, 10:40:53 PM PDT, Bill Soper
> wrote:
> With CICS 5.5... you can submit as the CICS logged on userid...
This could still become a headache for the security admin and others if not
managed correctly. Assigning surogat and maintaining dataset profiles for CICS
On 9/16/2019 1:54 PM, Peter wrote:
Hi
I have seen few vendors suggesting an IPL as requisite if you are doing the
product install for first time and If it's upgrade then it's not required.
I am ignorant here. How does this makes a difference ? Why a dynamic update
won't work if it's a first ins
Questions about MVS Unix facility such as create_thread would probably get an
answer on the OMVS-l newsgroup.
Jon
On Tuesday, September 10, 2019, 12:46:23 PM PDT, Thomas David Rivers
wrote:
In the Callable Services documentation, in the pthread_create
description, the usage notes desc
Check IWMINSTL at SYS1.SAMPLIB.
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Well, I did do this. But, I am not sure it was worth it. The
ZOSMIGV2R3_NEXT_VSM_USERKEYCOMM check only tells me what I already knew. That I
have some address spaces using user key common. I had hoped it went further and
identified them. I know one for sure.
Yes, I do see the info on interp
On 17/09/2019 9:15 am, Gibney, Dave wrote:
Yes, I do see the info on interpreting SMF30_UserKeyCsaUsage and
SMF30_UserKeyCadsUsage. So, I guess my next step is to see if my MXG level has
this support, or do I need to update (in part, or fully) MXG.
Or, alternatively, is there some ICE tool sup
> On Friday, September 6, 2019, 11:43:00 AM PDT, Peter Relson
> wrote:
> Does it need saying that you ought to have your own recovery and take your
> own SVC Dump to meet your own diagnostic needs?
MPF processing is also used for Netview message processing and has some basic
abend recov
Here I must completely agree with Lennie (and not just because of the great
tag-line) on the first bullet. While the product I am most responsible for
hasn't required an IPL in many years (not for a new install or even a release
upgrade) the idea of doing an IPL as part of a new installation doe
> If I have dynam(DLL) module and the load module has a number of CSECT
> Can I still BASR to other CSECT
> By browsing dynam(DLL) module Seems to be another type format than regular
> load module
I've never used assembler DLL functionality but from my understanding, you are
supposed to u
That's part of a pretty long comedy of errors that apply to (mostly) LRS's
VPSIP product. If you are running VPSIP, like several of our sites, then you
are likely aware of the issues that this whole string of aparas has caused.
https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/debchk-deb-lock-new-function-list
On Mon, 16 Sep 2019 23:15:40 +, Gibney, Dave wrote:
>Well, I did do this. But, I am not sure it was worth it. The
>ZOSMIGV2R3_NEXT_VSM_USERKEYCOMM check only tells me what I already knew. That
>I have some address spaces using user key common. I had hoped it went further
>and identified th
30 matches
Mail list logo
