Upgrading from a z890 to a z9 BC
Hi, Our management has decided to upgrade one of our z890's. IBM has recommended we upgrade to a z9 BC. We currently have two z890 that are in a basic sysplex. We are running z/OS 1.7. We also run a z800 that is not connected to the sysplex. The z800 is controlled by the same HMC as the z890's. As far as I remember the z9 BC uses a linux based HMC. Do we have to use the Linux based HMC If we do, can it control the z890 and z800 we will have in the HMC network. Will it be able to work together with the other OS/2 based HMC we have. TIA Gadi -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: IBM Confidential
On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 19:38:28 +0100, Phil Payne <[EMAIL PROTECTED] RESEARCH.FREESERVE.CO.UK> wrote: >17. You weren't explicit, but I assume that means you have received 17 separate (and unique) documents about the z6 that are marked IBM Confidential. I wonder what the world record is? >And it's not at all an unusual step for IBM, which has the most hypocritical attitude in the >whole industry towards pre-announcing. Like Dr Goebel putting the z890 MIPS table up in the >opening plenary session at WAVV in Leipzig weeks before the announcement? Get out of here. As a member of the WAVV Board, I can assure you that WAVV has never been in Leipzig. Dr. Strassemeyer (not Dr. Goebel) has indeed discussed future chip designs at WAVV opening sessions, but nothing at the level of detail given by Mr. Webb on the z6. It's the level of detail I find unusual. Perhaps you are referring to GSE, Guide-SHARE Europe? I don't attend those meetings, so I can't comment. >I shall continue to open my email, no matter what IBM's lawyers say. And if stuff turns up >that IBM thinks shouldn't - that's not MY problem, it's IBM's. Duty of care. >I have no >relationship with IBM and no obligation to treat anything that arrives as anything other than >public domain. It was IBM legal that threw our relationship into the toilet, >not me. Jeez, Phil. Remain calm. I just asked a simple question. I'm not accusing you of anything. Do whatever you want with your e-mail. Alan Altmark IBM -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: IBM Confidential
No, a z6 is not a p6. As stated in Charles Webb's presentation they are siblings, but not the same exact chip. Cyber wrote: I think chip itself is not a secret? z6 is p6? "Alan Altmark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 22:18:53 +0100, Phil Payne <[EMAIL PROTECTED] RESEARCH.FREESERVE.CO.UK> wrote:> I've now got more than one unsolicited copy of the z6 stuff what in hell am I (or we, including PSI) supposed to do about this? By "the z6 stuff" are you referring to materials about or related to z6 marked "IBM Confidential"? (The z6 chip information from Charles Webb is not confidential. An unusual step for IBM, yes, but not confidential.) Alan Altmark IBM -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Health-Checks
Hi folks, all of my complain about some heatlh-checks end up in some APAR (FIN) or in a redisgn in the next release. Some people ask why I just didn't disable these. Well I like the idea and I also like the checks even some of them need improvements. However we still use them and found several config problems while running those checks. So IBM please continue to code such health checks. Keep in mind you aill see complains only. So no complain means good new for you. I'm glad Kristine working on those healtchecks RCF. Regards Roland Roland Schiradin ALTE LEIPZIGER Lebensversicherung auf Gegenseitigkeit IT Betrieb - DB/DC Tel. (06171) 66-4095, Fax (06171) 66-7500-4095 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.Alte-Leipziger.de -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: ICKDSF - PARMS
>Look for something like IOS000 (IOS001, etc.) as an IBM message number. Then
>tell us everything on that line and all subsequent lines that are part of the
>same message.
I don't mean this in a nasty way; try looking up what the messages mean before
hitting the list. (8-{>}
-
Too busy driving to stop for gas!
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: ICKDSF - PARMS
In a message dated 10/26/2007 7:33:20 AM Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >We are using 3390. Sorry, it was an "I/O ERROR " >Is the ANANLYZE sufficient? This is like asking for help when the problem is reported as "program error." We need a lot more detailed information. The original and complete text of the I/O error message would be a good start. Look for something like IOS000 (IOS001, etc.) as an IBM message number. Then tell us everything on that line and all subsequent lines that are part of the same message. Bill Fairchild Franklin, TN ** See what's new at http://www.aol.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: IBM System/3 & 3277-1
The following message is a courtesy copy of an article that has been posted to comp.sys.ibm.sys3x.misc,alt.folklore.computers,bit.listserv.ibm-main as well. bbreynolds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > This thread started about the 3277-001 used on a System/3 Model 15 > (would that be a 5415?): as 3277's relied on the 3271/3272/3275 for > the major portion of their intelligence, I would assume that there > would have had to been some pretty substantial hardware in the > System/3 to make the 3277-001 believe it was attached to a > controller. I can't think how the functions would be split out on a > 3277 not on a controller; unless the 3277-001 was "gutted". Any hint > if a cable other than a simple coax connected the 3277 to the CPU? 3277 had quite a bit of local intelligence ... it was possible to do some custom stuff in the terminal that changed the repeat start-delay and repeat ... as well as adding fifo to handle keyboard locking up if you happen to be typing when the system went to (re)write something on the screen. the move to 3274 controller for 3278/3279/etc terminals ... moved all that intelligence back into the controller ... reducing amount of electronics and manufacturing costs. with electronics moved back into controller ... it also degraded performance and response. several of us complained about it ... but were told that 327x terminals were targeted at data entry market and didn't have the requirements for interactive response and human factors that would be needed for something like interactive computing. as seen in some of the referenced performance comparisons ... say http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001m.html#19 3270 protocol ... it was much more difficult to achieve subsecond response with 3274/3278 vis-a-vis 3272/3277. However, for mvs/tso with system response already on the order of a second (or much worse) ... it was pretty negligible consideration. however, heavily loaded vm/cms systems tended to be more on the order of a quarter second (or less, one system i had care&feeding of ... was on the order of .11 seconds 90th percentile for trivial interactive under heavy load). past posts mentioning some (hardware) fixes to 3277 ... and not being able to doing anything with later 3278/3279 because even that bit of electronics had been moved back into the controller (and/or some other 3272/3277 issues vis-a-vis 3274/3278). http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/94.html#23 CP spooling & programming technology http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/98.html#49 Edsger Dijkstra: the blackest week of his professional life http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/99.html#28 IBM S/360 http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/99.html#69 System/1 ? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/99.html#193 Back to the original mainframe model? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/99.html#239 IBM UC info http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000c.html#63 Does the word "mainframe" still have a meaning? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000c.html#65 Does the word "mainframe" still have a meaning? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000c.html#66 Does the word "mainframe" still have a meaning? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000c.html#67 Does the word "mainframe" still have a meaning? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000d.html#12 4341 was "Is a VAX a mainframe?" http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000g.html#23 IBM's mess http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001b.html#12 Now early Arpanet security http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001f.html#49 any 70's era supercomputers that ran as slow as today's supercompu http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001i.html#51 DARPA was: Short Watson Biography http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001k.html#30 3270 protocol http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001k.html#33 3270 protocol http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001k.html#44 3270 protocol http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001k.html#46 3270 protocol http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001l.html#32 mainframe question http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001m.html#17 3270 protocol http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001m.html#19 3270 protocol http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002f.html#14 Mail system scalability (Was: Re: Itanium troubles) http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002i.html#43 CDC6600 - just how powerful a machine was it? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002i.html#48 CDC6600 - just how powerful a machine was it? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002i.html#50 CDC6600 - just how powerful a machine was it? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002j.html#67 Total Computing Power http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002j.html#74 Itanium2 power limited? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002j.html#77 IBM 327x terminals and controllers (was Re: Itanium2 power http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002k.html#2 IBM 327x terminals and controllers (was Re: Itanium2 power http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002k.html#6 IBM 327x terminals and controllers (was Re: Itanium2 power http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002m.html#24 Original K & R C Compilers http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002p.html#29 Vector display systems http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002q.html#51 windows office xp http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003b.html#29 360/370 disk drives http://www.garli
IBM Confidential
> By "the z6 stuff" are you referring to materials about or related to z6 > marked "IBM Confidential"? (The z6 chip information from Charles > Webb is not confidential. An unusual step for IBM, yes, but not > confidential.) 17. And it's not at all an unusual step for IBM, which has the most hypocritical attitude in the whole industry towards pre-announcing. Like Dr Goebel putting the z890 MIPS table up in the opening plenary session at WAVV in Leipzig weeks before the announcement? Get out of here. (I actually called my IBM contact [name withheld] in the UK on my cellphone while the slide was on the projector. What did IBM do? You guessed right. Shot the messenger.) This is a game I'm not going to play again. The last time, as I say, I sent 13 (thirteen) notes to various parts of IBM about z890 materials in general circulation before announcement. It earned me the most insulting and threatening letter I've ever had. It's on the web at http://www.isham-research.co.uk/ibm_letter.html - I have never received an apology, a retraction, or even an acknowledgement of my concerns. And until I do, it stays there and I will do as I damn well please. I shall continue to open my email, no matter what IBM's lawyers say. And if stuff turns up that IBM thinks shouldn't - that's not MY problem, it's IBM's. Duty of care. I have no relationship with IBM and no obligation to treat anything that arrives as anything other than public domain. It was IBM legal that threw our relationship into the toilet, not me. In days of yore, this was a competitive issue. IBM spoon-fed Gartner and Meta and even corrected their draft copy for them - competing with that was very tough. IBM's letter names Tiiu Mayer - ask her how many times I complained about this, and how many times I held back from publishing only to see Gartner publish first. I find it hilarious here sometimes, where certain people desperately point you to every MIPS source but mine when I'm actually supplying the ones they point you to. Do a Google Search on "IBM Confidential" - with the quotes. 13,500 hits. There was an article in Datamation over three decades ago concluding with the suggestion that IBM should introduce a new classification: "WOW! This one's REALLY secret". But for now what "IBM Confidential" really means is "Please turn over". E.g. - check out: http://www.usabilityprofessionals.org/usability_resources/conference/2006/douglass-competitive_eval.pdf "IBM Confidential"? GMAB. It's absolutely meaningless. Not even up to the task of frightening infants and puppies. And on the subject of z6: Many, many years ago IBM made a word that I already knew but thought very obscure into a part of my life. Concatenation. Had I not got involved with System/360, I doubt I would have used that word more than three or four times in my lifetime. Working - as I now do much of the time - with malformed websites, I've learnt to use another obscure word. Deprecated. It's used to describe HTML features that are really obsolete and have been replaced by better ways of doing things. Hmmm. Has LSPR been "deprecated" on z6? A poisoned chalice, if ever I heard of one. -- Phil Payne http://www.isham-research.co.uk +44 7833 654 800 -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: IPL an LPAR with a very low weight?
Dave Thorn wrote: If an LPAR (in a "down" state) were set to a very low weight (1, for instance) and then IPLed, would there be problems? This assumes that the other LPARs are not at high utilizations and using all the CPU cycles themselves. Has anyone done this? Have problems occurred? I've been doing this many times. A lot of times. It was always separate system (no GRS complex, no MIM, no shared datasets, almost no shared volumes). I have *never* had any problem with that. In my case 1 means 1%, I tried even less. With or without capping. On litghtly or heavily loaded CPC. on small and big machines (100-1700 MIPS). -- Radoslaw Skorupka Lodz, Poland -- BRE Bank SA ul. Senatorska 18 00-950 Warszawa www.brebank.pl Sd Rejonowy dla m. st. Warszawy XII Wydzia Gospodarczy Krajowego Rejestru Sdowego, nr rejestru przedsibiorców KRS 025237 NIP: 526-021-50-88 Wedug stanu na dzie 01.01.2007 r. kapita zakadowy BRE Banku SA (w caoci opacony) wynosi 118.064.140 z. W zwizku z realizacj warunkowego podwyszenia kapitau zakadowego, na podstawie uchwa XVI WZ z dnia 21.05.2003 r., kapita zakadowy BRE Banku SA moe ulec podwyszeniu do kwoty 118.760.528 z. Akcje w podwyszonym kapitale zakadowym bd w caoci opacone. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Doyle Banks/Mainline is out until 10/30/2007.
I will be out of the office starting 10/26/2007 and will not return until 10/30/2007. I will be out until Tuesday, 10/30/2007. If you need immediate assistance, please contact Jim Cudworth (1-630-371-4911 or [EMAIL PROTECTED]). -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: IBM Confidential
On Sat, 2007-10-27 at 00:01 -0500, Alan Altmark wrote: > By "the z6 stuff" are you referring to materials about or related to z6 > marked "IBM Confidential"? (The z6 chip information from Charles Webb is > not confidential. An unusual step for IBM, yes, but not confidential.) Given his past form, I'm prepared to bet Phil has his hands on something the rest of us "mushrooms" are unlikely to find meandering around the web. For a little while anyway. And yes, Charles paper certainly shouldn't be the exception ... Shane ... -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Sharing DS8300 data from two z/OS sites
Radoslaw: Thanks for your thoughts. We are using our own network with two Ciena CN2000's the LICs are OC-48 LR-2 26dB, 1550 nm. The CIM is FC long range. Our network has a total 14 hops through a series of patch panels. We are getting section and line CV errors (547) Any ideas on the what impact the SONET CV errors might have on the data going along the network. Thanks in advance Leon Schwering Technical Analyst 407 ETR Concession Co. Ltd. 905-265-4070 x5422 647-273-7772 (mobile) [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of R.S. Sent: October 25, 2007 6:44 PM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Sharing DS8300 data from two z/OS sites Leon Schwering wrote: > We are getting ready to share data on our DS8300 between our two z/OS > sites. I would appreciate your collective thought on what I should be > looking out for. Our sites are about 40 km apart. It is feasible. Some delays can be observed due to the distance (40km). IMHO If you want further thoughts, you should provide more details about your configurations and your doubts. Regards -- Radoslaw Skorupka Lodz, Poland -- BRE Bank SA ul. Senatorska 18 00-950 Warszawa www.brebank.pl Sd Rejonowy dla m. st. Warszawy XII Wydzia Gospodarczy Krajowego Rejestru Sdowego, nr rejestru przedsibiorców KRS 025237 NIP: 526-021-50-88 Wedug stanu na dzie 01.01.2007 r. kapita zakadowy BRE Banku SA (w caoci opacony) wynosi 118.064.140 z. W zwizku z realizacj warunkowego podwyszenia kapitau zakadowego, na podstawie uchwa XVI WZ z dnia 21.05.2003 r., kapita zakadowy BRE Banku SA moe ulec podwyszeniu do kwoty 118.760.528 z. Akcje w podwyszonym kapitale zakadowym bd w caoci opacone. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
