> All I'm looking for is a system trace. Hoping to find hints what do look for > next. Make sure that you have your systrace set at maximum, then (not the default 64K, and even 1MB will not be enough, especially on a busy system). LE processing takes up a whole lot of real estate in systrace from the inintial incident to the time the trace actually gets captured. > I did in parallel to the discussion here and succeeded. I now know how to > change the options, but as you might have guessed, I'm working for a large > company. And large companies have processes. It will take quite some time to > bring those changed options to production, once I could convince engineering > to actually do it. Do I know about processes! :-(
> Not at will, yet, but it reocurred in production. Application people are > still trying to reproduce it in test. Would make everyting much easier. Did you get the same set of insufficient dump data? Just for comparison - were the same addresses involved? > ESPIE for unauthorized programs (like LE) supports interrupt codes > 1-15 (decimal), which does not include 17 (x'11') page fault. So > SLIP SET,A=SVCD,C=0C4,RE=11,ML=1,MODE=PP,J=jobname,END > should be able take a dump of this problem without interference from > LE's ESPIE. Admittedly we never specified RE=11 (or mode=pp) on the slip trap we had attempted for an 0C4 in my last job, but the slip trap on OC4 only prodcued a dump when TRAP was set to OFF. Maybe what interfered was the fact that parts of the code were authorized. Maybe Peter's "middleware infrastructure" is also authorized, at least in parts. Barbara ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
