The first rule of FAMS is you don't talk about FAMS. :-) I don't think that denying its existence is part of the contract, but I can't say anything else about it.
sas On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 12:05 PM, Paul Gilmartin < 0000000433f07816-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > On Mon, 18 Jul 2016 23:05:44 -0400, Steve Smith wrote: > > >FAMS is a secret interface. IBM may or may not provide the > >documentation upon receipt of a signed NDA, and presumably, a "nominal" > fee. > > > I'm aghast! You mean IBM has (finally) started keeping timestamps on > (some) files but to see them a customer must sign an NDS and pay for > the privilege (or use NFS)? What century does IBM think this is, anyway!? > > Are you allowed even to tell me it's secret? I suppose that explains the > conspicuous silence here of IBM employees. I wonder whether the > meager information will be removed from future editions of the NFS > description. And from the APARs. > > > On Tue, 19 Jul 2016 07:39:00 -0400, Ken Smith wrote: > > >You probably knew this but if you can run under ISPF, batch or > interactive, > >use LMMSTATS. > > > I believe not. As an experiment, I created a couple PDS members with > IEBGENER, no ISPF involved. NFS shows timestamps consistent with > those in the job log and differing by 0.1995 seconds which I assume is > job step overhead. ISPF member list shows no stats whatever for those > members. Would LMMSTATS in a program show me any different? > If you believe so, I'll try an experiment, but I'm skeptical. > > -- gil > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > -- sas ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
