On Sun, 25 Aug 2024 19:08:41 -0400 Joseph Reichman
<05812645a43c-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
:>Would anyone know what value I have to set for S99TUPAR for key DALDSNAM I
:>am trying to allocate a new GDG(+1). I specified just the base and am
:>getting a duplicate dataset error from S
Shivang,
It's an option on the Resource Group panel. “No” is the default.
Modify a Resource Group
Enter or change the following information:
Resource Group Name . . . . : SPRT_B
Description . . . . . . . . . SPRT_B Resource Group
Define Capacity:
1 1. In Service
Although that might not answer your question about period switch.
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of
Dave Barry
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 11:36 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] WLM question : Is ziip service units counted in per
Writing code using relative addressing, as much as reasonably possible.
Problem: some IBM macros, e.g., ATTACH(X) and STORAGE, generate L and LA(E)
instructions instead of, e.g., LRL and LA(E)Y.
STORAGE OBTAIN,
Length=(0),
Loc=(31,31)
generates this instruction
L 15,=AL1(
"Duration is the amount of weighted SU (including zIIP) that a UOW (unit of
work) may consume before it is switched to the goals of the next .period."
Bear in mind that zIIP-eligible work can run on a GCP.
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of
Dave Barry
S
On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 at 11:50, Richard Zierdt <
richard.zie...@freschesolutions.com> wrote:
> Writing code using relative addressing, as much as reasonably possible.
> Problem: some IBM macros, e.g., ATTACH(X) and STORAGE, generate L and
> LA(E) instructions instead of, e.g., LRL and LA(E)Y.
>
> S
ASMMREL?
ARCHLVL=2? How old are the boxen you support?
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
עַם יִשְׂרָאֵל חַי
נֵ֣צַח יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל לֹ֥א יְשַׁקֵּ֖ר
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of
Richard Zierdt
Sent: Monday, August
I hadn't ever viewed the relative instructions as completely replacing
addressability. Interesting.
I do suspect that this is never going to be "fixed": it's a lot of work, and it
essentially ain't broken, so...
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of
Seymo
Normally programs have a static area which requires addressability. so using
literals doesn't hurt. Relative addressing allows you to avoid using base
registers for code.
In your case you would need to use OPSYN for L and look for a literal operand,
and change it..And instead of LRL why not use I
On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 14:06:06 -0400 Tony Harminc wrote:
:>On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 at 11:50, Richard Zierdt <
:>richard.zie...@freschesolutions.com> wrote:
:>
:>> Writing code using relative addressing, as much as reasonably possible.
:>> Problem: some IBM macros, e.g., ATTACH(X) and STORAGE, generate
On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 at 14:27, Binyamin Dissen <
0662573e2c3a-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 14:06:06 -0400 Tony Harminc wrote:
>
[...]
Don't see why a relative instruction should care about ARs.
>
The "relative" part of the instruction has to do with the target
LARL doesn't require a base register. If you don't need tp copy an AR, it and
IILF seem like the obvious instructions.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
עַם יִשְׂרָאֵל חַי
נֵ֣צַח יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל לֹ֥א יְשַׁקֵּ֖ר
From: IBM Mainframe Di
All:
Lurk mode off.
I find that I miss the in-person Technical Disclosure Meetings that were
once held by IBM in Poughkeepsie, NY. There were some very bright people
in the room on both sides of the mic, and everyone in the mainframe
development community AND IBM benefited from the exchange.
Thank you for all your thoughts. Bottom line, like taxes, it's just the way
things are unless IBM wants to change them. One idea offered was OPSYN, which
I'll experiment with.
Also, my suggestion of replacing LAE with LAEY doesn't get out of
base-displacement business, but LARL does. Howeve
On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 14:19:38 -0400, Phil Smith III wrote:
>I hadn't ever viewed the relative instructions as completely replacing
>addressability. Interesting.
>
>I do suspect that this is never going to be "fixed": it's a lot of work, and
>it essentially ain't broken, so...
>
"Enhanced" might
I tried with zfs primary 1 and secondary 1 but still it fails with
no space.
The multivolume works only in SMS managed ?
On Mon, 26 Aug 2024, 09:19 Brian Westerman, <
06ba4ed225c9-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
> Increasing the dataset you are increasing (SMPNTS) is only neces
16 matches
Mail list logo
