Yes, but why and why not allow ALL. We have been running for years with
ALL. It should have been allowed to be upward compatible.
SET DUMP,
.-CP--. .-IPL---.
>>--Set--DUMP--.-.-DASD-------.--+-----+--+-------+--.---------.--.----.
-.--><
| | <--------< | '-ALL-' '-NOIPL-' '-NOPRINT-' '-XF-'
|
| '----rdev----'
|
'-OFF-----------------------------------------------------'
-----Original Message-----
From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Schuh, Richard
Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2006 3:12 PM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: z/VM 5.2 Dumps
The default is CP, there is no longer an ALL:
.-CP-. .-IPL---.
>>--Set--DUMP--.-.-DASD-------.--'----'--+-------+--.----.-.------------
----><
| | <--------< | '-NOIPL-' '-XF-' |
| '----rdev----' |
'-OFF---------------------------------------'
Regards,
Richard Schuh
> -----Original Message-----
> From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Behalf Of Stracka, James (GTI)
> Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2006 12:05 PM
> To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
> Subject: Re: z/VM 5.2 Dumps
>
>
> It appears IBM changed the SET DUMP command by removing the
> ALL option.
>
> SET DUMP aeb9 ALL IPL
> HCPDMR003E Invalid option - ALL
>
> Must now be:
>
> SET DUMP aeb9 cp IPL
> DASD AEB9 dump unit CP IPL pages 52052
>
> Why did IBM remove the ALL option in 5.2?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: The IBM z/VM Operating System
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of David Boyes
> Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2006 2:50 PM
> To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
> Subject: Re: z/VM 5.2 Dumps
>
>
> Most obvious reason is that 5.2 now dumps more than 2G. 4.4
> only dumped
> the 1st 2G regardless of how much real storage was there.
>
> David Boyes
> Sine Nomine Associates
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On
> > Behalf Of Schuh, Richard
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2006 2:31 PM
> > To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
> > Subject: z/VM 5.2 Dumps
> >
> > IIRC, there was a discussion, either at SHARE or in this forum, in
> which
> > it was stated that dumps of z/VM 5.2 would not be
> significantly larger
>
> > than those from what were then the current systems (mine was 4.4).
> Would
> > somebody like to recant? Our dumps are much, much larger.
> When I used
> > VMARC to compress a 5.2 dump, it is reduced to approximately 18% of
> its
> > former size. That compressed dump is larger than the uncompressed
> dumps I
> > used to get from 4.4. Same h/w, same everything except for VM CP.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Richard Schuh
> >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
> If you are not an intended recipient of this e-mail, please
> notify the sender, delete it and do not read, act upon,
> print, disclose, copy, retain or redistribute it. Click here
> for important additional terms relating to this e-mail.
http://www.ml.com/email_terms/
--------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------
If you are not an intended recipient of this e-mail, please notify the sender,
delete it and do not read, act upon, print, disclose, copy, retain or
redistribute it. Click here for important additional terms relating to this
e-mail. http://www.ml.com/email_terms/
--------------------------------------------------------
