Re: EXT 1005 z/OS System Trace entry

[Johnny Ying]

-->MVS OS/390 z/OS places a value in the CPU timer before invoking a task.
-->The task will either decide to wait on its own (to satisfy a page fault, for 
I/O, etc.) or will keep running until it uses up the quantum of time.

hey,will you explained more details for us.
Where does "a value" came from??Maybe the dispatcher will dynamically adjust 
the value,but there must be a initial value that zOS places in the CPU timer 
before dispatch the task.

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

GRS CNS policy

[Tidy, David (D)]

Hi all,
I've just noticed the ability to position the GRS contention
notification in a GRS star (OA11382). I did notice that the reasoning
for the ability to do this is to better balance workload in a sysplex,
but can't find any recommendations as to the positioning. We are running
sysplex mostly as a DB2 server, but not particularly as a load balancer,
so do have busier systems than others. We run many DB2 systems per
image. We have also had CPU contention problems, where GRS appears high
in the mix (together with DB2 systems). My 2 questions are:
1) does anyone have a policy on GRS CNS positioning in their sysplex
(and if so what is it and why)?
2) otherwise does anyone have any opinion on whether it might make sense
to position CNS in either the busiest or the quietest system in the
sysplex (the former on the basis of reduced traffic, the latter on
better CPU allocation)?

Best regards,
David Tidy  Tel:(31)115-67-1745
IS Technical Management/SAP-Mf  Fax:(31)115-67-1762 
Dow Benelux B.V.
Mailto:dt...@dow.com
Inkoop Gbw (427)
H. H. Dowweg 5  
4542 NM Hoek
The Netherlands
Handelsregisternr. 24104547 



--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: IBM Ported Tools for z/OS install problem

[Peter Ten Eyck]

I did run the FOTISMKD job, creating a directory (see below):

//SYSTSPRT DD SYSOUT=*   
//SYSTSIN DD *   
PROF MSGID   
FOTMKDIR /techsupp/OSP17864/ 
/*   

This directory is different than my mount point of /techsupp/, I do not
think this is the issue.

I am still focusing on the message:

BPXF170E RETURN CODE 0081, REASON CODE 0594003D.  A SYMLINK FAILED FOR
LINK NAME /techsupp/OSP17864/Service/usr/lib/nls/msg/C/IB
M/../../En_US/ope

I do not know where this path is defined or coming from, looking through the
install jobs, I do not see where it is created or why it is needed?

Still struggling...Peter

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: COBOL and Floating Point (was: SHARE Session 8194: z390 and zcobol Portable Mainframe COBOL Compiler written in structured macro assembler

[Clark Morris]

On 7 Jan 2009 15:25:56 -0800, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:

>Clark,
>  Easy answer, there have been no recent changes to IBM's responses on
>floating point (or bit) support.
>
>Harder answer is that you keep getting confused about different terms and
>requirements.
>
>In the '02 Standard there are 3 new USAGEs
>  FLOAT-SHORT
>  FLOAT-LONG
>  FLOAT-EXTENDED
>
>IBM (or anyone else) *COULD* implement these as any format of floating point
>they wanted, e.g.
>  FLOAT-SHORT *could* equal COMP-1
>   and both
>  FLOAT-LONG and FLOAT-EXTENDED *could* equal COMP-2
>
>There is no requirement in the Standard they be implemented in any IEEE
>format (or any other portable format).  There isn't even any requirement
>that float-extended take more storage than float-long (but it can't be
>smaller).

I understand that IBM could implement these usages as hex floating
point.  However, this would be short-sighted and shoot self in foot
implementation.  IBM COBOL already has the requirement to communicate
with JAVA which uses IEEE binary floating point.  Thus implementing
the new usages as IEEE is upward compatible with existing programs and
in fact allows them to have both types of floating point in a single
program.
>
>   ***
>
>OK, now for the terminology "IEEE" floating point.
>
>I think (but won't swear to it) that you are talking about the OLD (not
>decimal based) floating point format.  Adding support for this would
>certainly aid in communication with other z/OS languages and facilities that
>already support this - as well as in handling files created in other
>environment.
Exactly

>
>However, before you see that in COBOL, it would be my best guess that IBM is
>likely to implement the IEEE *decimal* floating-point formats already
>available in Assembler, PL/I, DB2 and possibly other z/OS
>languages/facilities.  Not only does this seem to be a "strategic" direction
>for IBM, but it also provides a data-type that retains COBOL's historic
>interest in "decimal arithmetic accuracy" that can be "lost" in both the
>traditional IBM "hex" floating point and the older IEEE binary based
>floating point.

Why not do both at the same time.  I believe JAVA now has the decimal
floating point and JAVA COBOL co-existence was strategic at one point.
Maybe the requirements for implementing various of the 2002 standard
features should updated to point to JAVA co-existence and IBM
strategic directions.  While the last time I touched COBOL was late
2006, I would be willing to update any of the requirements I
submitted.
>
>I certainly do not know when this latter may show up, but I would expect it
>sooner than later.  As far as the older IEEE support, I wouldn't be
>surprised if that NEVER shows up in COBOL (and I am not positive that there
>is a requirement that explicitly asks for it).

I thought that I submitted one in the 2002 - 2004 time frame.
>
>"Clark Morris"  wrote in message
>news:...
>> On 6 Jan 2009 13:09:50 -0800, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
>>
>> >>for zcobol initial release at SHARE.  It doesn't test things like EXEC
>CICS or
>> >>Enterprise COBOL extensions such as EXTENDED-FLOAT, but it sure looks
>like
>> >
>> >There is no "EXTENDED-FLOAT" in Enterprise COBOL.
>> >There are floating-point data types, COMP-1, COMP-2, and "external
>> >floating-point".  There is a "FLOAT-EXTENDED" that is a part of the 2002
>> >COBOL Standard that we have not yet implemented in Enterprise COBOL,
>> >maybe you are thinking of that?
>>
>> So what is the status of USAGE BIT and the other usages related to the
>> 2002 standard for which there are existing SHARE requirements?  Proper
>> implementation of the standard floating point USAGEs (IEEE floating
>> point) would allow COBOL to cleanly communicate with JAVA while
>> leaving any existing COMP-1 and COMP-2 data as hex floating point. And
>> is IBM COBOL going to support the decimal floating point that has been
>> implemented at least on the z series and that was sponsored by IBM?
>> >
>> >Cheers,
>> >TomR  >> COBOL is the Language of the Future! <<
>> >
>>
>> --
>> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
>> send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu 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 lists...@bama.ua.edu 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 lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: HCD - IM column

[Arthur Gutowski]

On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 16:48:24 +0100, R.S. 
 wrote:

>Arthur Gutowski wrote:
>> Very bizarre.  I assume you mean 2084, as 2064 will not allow you to create
>> CSS'.  BTW, with a 2064 processor, # IM reports consistently with the
>> definitions above.
>
>I mean 2064, z/900. For *the test above* I chose 2064. Single CSS.
>However I noticed same discrepancy on XMP machines.
>
>BTW: number of CSSes shouldn't be a factor, because U command shows
>devices accessible from *this CSS* (=CPC for SMP machines).
>You cannot type U for 2084 CPC, but you can do it for 2084.CSS

OK, bad assumption on my part.  The fact that I do not see this discrepancy 
on a 2064 (z900) with HCD on my system led me astray.  I do, however, see it 
on 2084.CSSx, which I thought was where this started.  I agree, it should not 
be a factor, but apparently something is different.  If you're interested in 
comparing notes (PTF levels), we can pursue offline.

Regards,
Art Gutowski
Ford Motor Company

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: AIX gets 64 bit COBOL but still none for Z/os ...

[R.S.]

Is there any reason to have 64-bit COBOL on z/OS ?
Of course except satisfaction when watching AMODE 64 in ISPF member list...

--
Radoslaw Skorupka
Lodz, Poland


--
BRE Bank SA
ul. Senatorska 18
00-950 Warszawa
www.brebank.pl

Sąd Rejonowy dla m. st. Warszawy 
XII Wydział Gospodarczy Krajowego Rejestru Sądowego, 
nr rejestru przedsiębiorców KRS 025237

NIP: 526-021-50-88
Według stanu na dzień 01.01.2008 r. kapitał zakładowy BRE Banku SA  wynosi 
118.642.672 złote i został w całości wpłacony.

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: IBM Ported Tools for z/OS install problem

[Mark Zelden]

On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 07:09:39 -0600, Peter Ten Eyck
 wrote:

>I did run the FOTISMKD job, creating a directory (see below):
>
>//SYSTSPRT DD SYSOUT=*
>//SYSTSIN DD *
>PROF MSGID
>FOTMKDIR /techsupp/OSP17864/
>/*
>This directory is different than my mount point of /techsupp/, I do not
>think this is the issue.
>
>I am still focusing on the message:
>
>BPXF170E RETURN CODE 0081, REASON CODE 0594003D.  A SYMLINK FAILED FOR
>LINK NAME /techsupp/OSP17864/Service/usr/lib/nls/msg/C/IB
>M/../../En_US/ope
>
>I do not know where this path is defined or coming from, looking through the
>install jobs, I do not see where it is created or why it is needed?
>

That is the message catalog.   

When you ran the MKDIR job was a service (maintenance) copy of your
z/OS unix root mounted at  /techsupp/OSP17864/?   Is it still?   Did you
examine the output of that job?  

Mark
--
Mark Zelden
Sr. Software and Systems Architect - z/OS Team Lead
Zurich North America / Farmers Insurance Group - ZFUS G-ITO
mailto:mark.zel...@zurichna.com
z/OS Systems Programming expert at http://expertanswercenter.techtarget.com/
Mark's MVS Utilities: http://home.flash.net/~mzelden/mvsutil.html

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: IBM Ported Tools for z/OS install problem

[Peter Ten Eyck]

I think you may be on to something here...I am looking into to this now and
will post my findings. Thanks, Peter

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: AIX gets 64 bit COBOL but still none for Z/os ...

[John McKown]

On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 14:56:51 +0100, R.S.  wrote:

>Is there any reason to have 64-bit COBOL on z/OS ?
>Of course except satisfaction when watching AMODE 64 in ISPF member list...
>
>--
>Radoslaw Skorupka
>Lodz, Poland

I've often wondered this as well. 31 bit addressing gives the possibility of
more than 1 Gib of data for an application. What __user written__
application would use more than this?

I understand 64 bit addressing for system type functions. I guess. But even
that is overkill because you cannot configure any z/OS system such that you
could actually acquire that much addressable storage. Now, using 64 bit
address space to "memory map" VSAM LDSes starts to make sense to me.

"64 bit" is, for now, more marketing hype as far as I can see. But I've been
wrong before, if somebody has a good, actual (not theoretical) use for 64
bit addressing in an application program.

--
John

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: AIX gets 64 bit COBOL but still none for Z/os ...

[Schneiderwent, Craig - DOT]

 > Is there any reason to have 64-bit COBOL on z/OS ?

Parsing or generating _really_ _big_ XML data streams?

In a CICS Web Services provider scenario, one could posit a very large 01 
level, only some of which gets filled in for any one request...

 01  Work-Areas.
 05  Some-Table-NbPIC 9(008) COMP-5.
 05  Some-Other-Table-Nb  PIC 9(008) COMP-5.
 05  Marks-Nb PIC 9(008) COMP-5.

 01  Response.
 05  Personal-Info.
 10  Given-Name   PIC N(80) USAGE NATIONAL.
 10  Family-Name  PIC N(80) USAGE NATIONAL.
 05  Some-Table Occurs 0 To 200 Depending Some-Table-Nb.
 10  Photo-Base-64-JPEG   PIC X(20480).
 10  Fingerprint-base-64-JPEG PIC X(40960).
 10  Scars-Marks-Tattoos Occurs 0 To 100 Depending Marks-Nb PIC 
X(20480).
 05  Some-Other-Table Occurs 0 To 10 Depending Some-Other-Table-Nb.
 10  MPEG4-encoded-somehowPIC X(1024000).
 05  [more big-ish data here]


But I'm just making this up, AFAIK we don't have anything like this.

One could also posit a video rental business that keeps the videos in DB2 BLOBs 
and serves them via CICS Web Services COBOL applications.  But I don't know of 
any such business.

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: AIX gets 64 bit COBOL but still none for Z/os ...

[Mohammad Khan]

There are some cases that do need it. If a program is processing XML or 
Large OBjects ( LOBs - document images, video, audio ) the memory use 
baloons up pretty fast. If these are being used under CICS multiply by the 
number of concurrent transactions. There is only so much that you can fit 
below the bar so more data there means less of code. Channels and containers 
in CICS are already above the bar and have to be shuffled around the bar 
because COBOL can't address them where they are. In my opinion this 
enhancement is more useful than the object oriented entensions they added I-
don't-know-when-because-I-have-yet-to-see-them-being-used.
Mohammad


On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 08:09:12 -0600, John McKown  
wrote:

>On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 14:56:51 +0100, R.S. 
 wrote:
>
>>Is there any reason to have 64-bit COBOL on z/OS ?
>>Of course except satisfaction when watching AMODE 64 in ISPF member 
list...
>>
>>--
>>Radoslaw Skorupka
>>Lodz, Poland
>
>I've often wondered this as well. 31 bit addressing gives the possibility of
>more than 1 Gib of data for an application. What __user written__
>application would use more than this?
>
>I understand 64 bit addressing for system type functions. I guess. But even
>that is overkill because you cannot configure any z/OS system such that you
>could actually acquire that much addressable storage. Now, using 64 bit
>address space to "memory map" VSAM LDSes starts to make sense to me.
>
>"64 bit" is, for now, more marketing hype as far as I can see. But I've been
>wrong before, if somebody has a good, actual (not theoretical) use for 64
>bit addressing in an application program.
>
>--
>John
>

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: MVS 4 minute 'outage'

[David Andrews]

On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 13:56 -0800, Edward Jaffe wrote:
> I would be surprised to see anyone running z/OS on a uniprocessor
> these days.

On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 16:31 -0600, Pommier, Rex R. wrote:
> We have one - z9bc uni capped at 15 MSUs.  The vast majority of our work
> runs under a single TCB IDMS address space.

Rex, your configuration pretty much describes ours.  I've always been
distrustful of (little) dual processors, which make your CPU hogs run
half-fast.

Of course, we don't run at 100% either.

> Rumor has it that the latest release of IDMS will run on a zIIP

Did CA ever disclose performance experience for IDMS R17 on zIIP?  (They
refused me as recently as August, and so we missed the lease cycle.  No
zIIP for us.)

-- 
David Andrews
A. Duda and Sons, Inc.
david.andr...@duda.com

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: AIX gets 64 bit COBOL but still none for Z/os ...

[Ted MacNEIL]

>I've often wondered this as well. 31 bit addressing gives the possibility of
more than 1 Gib of data for an application. >What __user written__
application would use more than this?

All you'll ever need is 640K!
16M is more than enough memory.
Close the patent office. Everything that can be invented has been invented.

Haven't you learned, yet?

-
Too busy driving to stop for gas!

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Submitting jobs to a z/os guest from vm

[Vince Getgood]

Hi all, and a happy and (un)eventful new year to you all.

One of our sysprogs has come to me with a question, and I think I know the 
answer, but wanted to check my thinking.

We use FTP to submit jobs to a z/OS guest from VM, but he would like to set 
up a mechanism that does not rely on TCP/IP being available.

It's been a lng time since I did anything under VM, but I THINK we need 
to define a card reader to z/OS using HCD, then point to it in JES parms [RDR
(1) UNIT=), and then use that from VM.

How did I do?

Thanks in advance.

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: AIX gets 64 bit COBOL but still none for Z/os ...

[Ed Finnell]

 
In a message dated 1/9/2009 9:08:10 A.M. Central Standard Time,  
craig.schneiderw...@dot.state.wi.us writes:

videos in DB2 BLOBs and serves them via CICS Web Services COBOL  
applications.  But I don't know of any such business.


>>
CNBC was reporting the Porn industry is asking  for several billion in 
bailout funds due to declining revenue in DVD  sales/rentals?




**A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy 
steps! 
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/10075x1215047751x1200957972/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=De
cemailfooterNO62)

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: Submitting jobs to a z/os guest from vm

[Paul Gilmartin]

On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 09:50:49 -0600, Vince Getgood wrote:
>
>We use FTP to submit jobs to a z/OS guest from VM, but he would like to set
>up a mechanism that does not rely on TCP/IP being available.
>
>It's been a lng time since I did anything under VM, but I THINK we need
>to define a card reader to z/OS using HCD, then point to it in JES parms [RDR
>(1) UNIT=), and then use that from VM.
>
There's also RSCS/NJE, which uses (I believe) not TCP/IP but VTAM.
And NJE has the advantage (or disadvantage) of propagating the
owning user ID from VM to MVS.

-- gil

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Fw: COBOL and Floating Point (was: SHARE Session 8194: z390 and zcobol Portable Mainframe COBOL Compiler written in structured macro assembler

[Bill Klein]

Clark,
  When you bring up Java, this confuses me.  Currently IBM does all the
required conversion for floating point items shared between COBOL and Java
in a z/OS environment.

Do you have real-world evidence that this does isn't working.

  ***

As far as SHARE requirements go, Requirement SSLNGC0413617,
ISO 2002 defined floating point data types 
from 2004 includes the following information,

  Again, it is important to state that not all of these reasons are valid
for all 
SHARE installations; some installations would find one or more of these
reasons 
compelling; while other installations would find only a single reason their 
motivation in setting the priority as it is.

Finally, to avoid continuing confusion about whether or not this requirement
is 
asking for IEEE floating point support, a separate requirement
(SSLNGC0413621"

That requirement currently has a response of "RECOGNIZED" (the lowest
-non-REJECT response).

the requirement SSLNGC0413621,
   COBOL (optional) support for IEEE Floating Point 
also has a response of "RECOGNIZED"".

My assumption is that IBM is treating the older requirement as against the
binary format as the newer requirement SSLNGC07005  
COBOL support for Hardware decimal floating point 
already has an ACCEPT response.


As currently written, I would *think* that it would be clear to IBM that
this is asking for the ONLY format of IEEE floating point data that was
available IN 2004.  However, there is nothing in the requirement that
actually says that it needs to be "old-style binary IEEE floating-point" and
that the requirement would NOT be met by providing decimal floating point
support.

"Clark Morris"  wrote in message
news:<6tkem45k95u9c18tmoutc4o98cs772i...@4ax.com>...
> On 7 Jan 2009 15:25:56 -0800, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
> 
> >Clark,
> >  Easy answer, there have been no recent changes to IBM's responses on
> >floating point (or bit) support.
> >
> >Harder answer is that you keep getting confused about different terms and
> >requirements.
> >
> >In the '02 Standard there are 3 new USAGEs
> >  FLOAT-SHORT
> >  FLOAT-LONG
> >  FLOAT-EXTENDED
> >
> >IBM (or anyone else) *COULD* implement these as any format of floating
point
> >they wanted, e.g.
> >  FLOAT-SHORT *could* equal COMP-1
> >   and both
> >  FLOAT-LONG and FLOAT-EXTENDED *could* equal COMP-2
> >
> >There is no requirement in the Standard they be implemented in any IEEE
> >format (or any other portable format).  There isn't even any requirement
> >that float-extended take more storage than float-long (but it can't be
> >smaller).
> 
> I understand that IBM could implement these usages as hex floating
> point.  However, this would be short-sighted and shoot self in foot
> implementation.  IBM COBOL already has the requirement to communicate
> with JAVA which uses IEEE binary floating point.  Thus implementing
> the new usages as IEEE is upward compatible with existing programs and
> in fact allows them to have both types of floating point in a single
> program.
> >
> >   ***
> >
> >OK, now for the terminology "IEEE" floating point.
> >
> >I think (but won't swear to it) that you are talking about the OLD (not
> >decimal based) floating point format.  Adding support for this would
> >certainly aid in communication with other z/OS languages and facilities
that
> >already support this - as well as in handling files created in other
> >environment.
> Exactly
> 
> >
> >However, before you see that in COBOL, it would be my best guess that IBM
is
> >likely to implement the IEEE *decimal* floating-point formats already
> >available in Assembler, PL/I, DB2 and possibly other z/OS
> >languages/facilities.  Not only does this seem to be a "strategic"
direction
> >for IBM, but it also provides a data-type that retains COBOL's historic
> >interest in "decimal arithmetic accuracy" that can be "lost" in both the
> >traditional IBM "hex" floating point and the older IEEE binary based
> >floating point.
> 
> Why not do both at the same time.  I believe JAVA now has the decimal
> floating point and JAVA COBOL co-existence was strategic at one point.
> Maybe the requirements for implementing various of the 2002 standard
> features should updated to point to JAVA co-existence and IBM
> strategic directions.  While the last time I touched COBOL was late
> 2006, I would be willing to update any of the requirements I
> submitted.
> >
> >I certainly do not know when this latter may show up, but I would expect
it
> >sooner than later.  As far as the older IEEE support, I wouldn't be
> >surprised if that NEVER shows up in COBOL (and I am not positive that
there
> >is a requirement that explicitly asks for it).
> 
> I thought that I submitted one in the 2002 - 2004 time frame.
> >
> >"Clark Morris"  wrote in message
> >news:...
> >> On 6 Jan 2009 13:09:50 -0800, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
> >>
> >> >>for zcobol initial release at SHARE.  It doesn't test things like
EXEC
> >CICS or
> >> >>Enterprise

Re: DFHSM QUESTION - SETSYS PARTIALTAPE(MIGRATION(MARKFULL) BACKUP(MARKFULL))

[willie bunter]

I verified if the tapes were marked full and all checks out.  We are currently 
using :RELEASE z/OS 01.08.00

Sorry for not answering earlier.  I was away on vacation.  My apologies.  
 
David, as per your suggestion I instructed the  operators to reply N.  However, 
AUTOMATION answers to the mount request.  I have asked the AUTOMATIONS group 
not to trap the mount command :
ARC0310A CAN TAPE  BE MOUNTED ON DEVICE  ? REPLY Y OR N

--- On Fri, 12/26/08, O'Brien, David W. (NIH/CIT) [C]  
wrote:

From: O'Brien, David W. (NIH/CIT) [C] 
Subject: Re: DFHSM QUESTION - SETSYS PARTIALTAPE(MIGRATION(MARKFULL) 
BACKUP(MARKFULL))
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Date: Friday, December 26, 2008, 4:10 AM

Since we have dueling hypothesis, I decided to retest mine against my current
level of software. With all my ML2 volumes Delvol'd to Markfull, I then
issued a Migrate to ML2. Instead of the expected mount for an existing ML2, HSM
mounted a scratch and added a ML2 tape. C'est le vie. We are currently at
Z\os 1.9.

Willie, What level of Z\os are you running? At 1.4 the outsourcer I was
working with at the time complained whenever someone issued a HMIG / ML2 because
HSM issued  mounts for an existing Primary/Alternate tapes. Of course the
Alternate was off-site, hence the complaint. They had Partialtape Markfull as
well.


From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Douglas
Shupe [dsh...@bellsouth.net]
Sent: Friday, December 26, 2008 12:17 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: DFHSM QUESTION - SETSYS PARTIALTAPE(MIGRATION(MARKFULL)
BACKUP(MARKFULL))

Most likely you have sent a tape that has not been 'marked full'
offsite.
A list of your ML2 tapes should confirm this. You might consider checking
the backup tapes also.

- Original Message -
From: "O'Brien, David W. (NIH/CIT) [C]"

Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main
To: 
Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2008 9:14 AM
Subject: Re: DFHSM QUESTION - SETSYS PARTIALTAPE(MIGRATION(MARKFULL)
BACKUP(MARKFULL))


> Willie,
>
> I was hoping someone would answer citing documentation. If they have, I
> haven't seen it.
>
> Short answer is HSM mounts the last ML2 tape used to satisfy a HMIG / ML2
> request.
> Since you have Duplex = Y for your migrate tapes HSM also wants to mount
> the alternate. Instruct your operators to reply N to the inevitable Can
> this tape be mounted msg. HSM will then migrate the dataset and initiate a
> Tapecopy of the ML2 tape when the migrate is done.
>
> Perhaps someone on the list can suggest a way to prevent the average user
> from migrating datasets to ML2?
> 
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of
> willie bunter [williebun...@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 10:07 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
> Subject: DFHSM QUESTION - SETSYS PARTIALTAPE(MIGRATION(MARKFULL)
> BACKUP(MARKFULL))
>
> Good Day To All,
>
> I have this parm coded in the DFHSM STC:
> SETSYS PARTIALTAPE(MIGRATION(MARKFULL) BACKUP(MARKFULL))
>
> This partion has DUPLEX option:
> SETSYS DUPLEX(MIGRATION(Y) BACKUP(N)
>
> However, for some reason when a user issues a MIGRAT 2 command DFHSM
> issues a tape mount request for both copies.  The problem is that one copy
> is offsite.  Is there a reason why this is occurring?
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu 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 lists...@bama.ua.edu 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 lists...@bama.ua.edu 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 lists...@bama.ua.edu 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 lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: AIX gets 64 bit COBOL but still none for Z/os ...

[John McKown]

On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 15:58:23 +, Ted MacNEIL  wrote:

>>I've often wondered this as well. 31 bit addressing gives the possibility of
>more than 1 Gib of data for an application. >What __user written__
>application would use more than this?
>
>All you'll ever need is 640K!
>16M is more than enough memory.
>Close the patent office. Everything that can be invented has been invented.
>
>Haven't you learned, yet?
>
>-

Why not go "whole hog"? Skip 64 bit addressing entirely. Go to 128 bit. Why
not? After all the "i" series machines are already using 128 bit addressing.
And all their languages support it. IBM claims that the "i" has the largest
number of 64-bit mode programs in existence.

Someone did point out one future use for 64 bit addressing in COBOL. That
would be when CICS supports COMMAREAs, and other data areas, above the bar.
CICS is storage constrained even in with 31 bit addressing. However, CICS
does not yet support above the bar memory areas for applications.

BTW - I prefer solid examples for current need, not histrionics.

--
John

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: SMS Dataclass attribute

[Chase, John]

> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of gsg
> 
> I there any impact in setting all of your DATACLASSes to SPEED?  I
notice
> that alot of our datasets the index component is set to RECOVERY, but
the
> data component is set to SPEED.  Not sure why you would want to do
that,
> but I would think the DATA component would be the most important.

True, from a business perspective, but from the access method's
perspective it's easy to see why the index would be more important:
That's how the access method gets to the data.

-jc-

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: Submitting jobs to a z/os guest from vm

[Len Rugen]

In the OLD days, we defined a virtual card reader to the JCL eating OS 
(I last did this on OS/VS1) then to a "spool pun to guest" and punch 
your JCL from CMS. 

If its a small shop, you can setup virtual printers (say matching your 
CMS id's) and have each of them spooled to the matching CMS id.  OS 
print there comes to your CMS reader.  Under OS/VS1, the JES sep routine 
issued diagnose to to the appropriate SPOOL command.  It played well 
with RSCS, but on a small scale, I don't think RSCS would be needed. 


I'm assuming this functionality would still work?



Vince Getgood wrote:

Hi all, and a happy and (un)eventful new year to you all.

One of our sysprogs has come to me with a question, and I think I know the 
answer, but wanted to check my thinking.


We use FTP to submit jobs to a z/OS guest from VM, but he would like to set 
up a mechanism that does not rely on TCP/IP being available.


It's been a lng time since I did anything under VM, but I THINK we need 
to define a card reader to z/OS using HCD, then point to it in JES parms [RDR

(1) UNIT=), and then use that from VM.

How did I do?

Thanks in advance.

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu 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 lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: Need TN3270e software

[Harris, Randy]

Take a look at "Passport PC to Host" by Zephyr Corporation. www.zephyrcorp.com 
It's a great tn3270e product.

Randy Harris
Sr. Systems Programmer / DBA
Lane Furniture Industries, Inc.
Tupelo, MS 38802
Phone: 662-566-3447
ran...@lanefurniture.com
 
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of 
Jerry Fuchs
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 11:17 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Need TN3270e software

We are FINALLY replacing our OLD 3174's with IBM 2074 control units.

The 3270 software that we have been using for years does not support 
TN3270e.

Any suggestions on what to get and contact info?

Thanks,

Jerry Fuchs
Senior Systems Engineer
Wendy's Arby's Group
One Dave Thomas Blvd.
Dublin, Ohio 43017
(614) 764-3594

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html



This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which 
it is addressed and may contain privileged, proprietary or otherwise private 
information. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or 
the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended 
recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or 
copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this 
communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender 
of this E-Mail or by telephone and delete this communication from your system.

Warning: Although this e-mail and any attachments are believed to be free of 
any virus or other defect that might affect any computer system into which it 
is received and opened, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure 
that it is virus free and the company cannot accept responsibility for any loss 
or damage arising from the use of this email or attachments.

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: Need TN3270e software

[Kirk Wolf]

I'm sure that its not as good as the best commercial TN3270 emulators,
but I use the free/open source x3270 on Linux and its "wc3270" build
when I'm forced to use Windows.

Later builds support both SSL and custom screen sizes.   Its a little
cryptic on how to setup and use, but once you get past that it works
fine (for me).

If you use Linux, it is probably available from your distro package manager.
For windows, there is a custom build here:  http://x3270.bgp.nu/download.html

Kirk Wolf
Dovetailed Technologies

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: AIX gets 64 bit COBOL but still none for Z/os ...

[Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)]

In <496757a3.4080...@bremultibank.com.pl>, on 01/09/2009
   at 02:56 PM, "R.S."  said:

>Is there any reason to have 64-bit COBOL on z/OS ?

Yes.
 
-- 
 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
 ISO position; see  
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: Auditors (was: Survey says...)

[Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)]

In , on 01/07/2009
   at 07:59 AM, Walt Farrell  said:

>Thus, it was not -our- management making that policy, but an outside body
>making the policy, and we had to adhere to it or show why it should not
>apply to us.

The real question is what you do when you are complying with the published
external policies but the external auditors claim that you aren't.
 
-- 
 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
 ISO position; see  
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: Submitting jobs to a z/os guest from vm

[Walt Farrell]

On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 11:35:29 -0600, Len Rugen  wrote:
>It played well with RSCS, but on a small scale, I don't think RSCS would be
needed.
>

As far as I know, if you do not use RSCS (and thus, JES NJE), each submitted
job will need to contain the user's ID and password.

With RSCS and appropriate RACF and JES setup RACF can supply the proper ID
automatically, with no passwords required.

-- 
  Walt Farrell, CISSP
  IBM STSM, z/OS Security Design

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: MVS 4 minute 'outage'

[Pommier, Rex R.]

On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 13:56 -0800, Edward Jaffe wrote:
> I would be surprised to see anyone running z/OS on a uniprocessor
> these days.

On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 16:31 -0600, Pommier, Rex R. wrote:
> We have one - z9bc uni capped at 15 MSUs.  The vast majority of our
work
> runs under a single TCB IDMS address space.

Rex, your configuration pretty much describes ours.  I've always been
distrustful of (little) dual processors, which make your CPU hogs run
half-fast.

Of course, we don't run at 100% either.

> Rumor has it that the latest release of IDMS will run on a zIIP

Did CA ever disclose performance experience for IDMS R17 on zIIP?  (They
refused me as recently as August, and so we missed the lease cycle.  No
zIIP for us.)

-- 


David,

I haven't heard anything about performance.  I just saw the blurb that
they were going to be supporting it.  We are better than a year away
from upgrading to IDMS 17 at this point.  My DBAs have to figure out how
to get us off Oracle 9 on the unix boxes before we can even consider an
IDMS upgrade.

But the whole idea of running IDMS on a specialty engine sounds
intriguing.

Rex

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: AIX gets 64 bit COBOL but still none for Z/os ...

[Ted MacNEIL]

>BTW - I prefer solid examples for current need, not histrionics.

Call it histrionics if you like.
But, just because we don't need it today, doesn't mean we won't need it 
tomorrow.
This field already suffers from short-sightedness.
Please don't add more.

My point was think ahead.
Don't get stuck because you can't think of a need, today.

When XA came out, nobody could understand the need for 2GB.
Think DB2.
Where do you think the buffers and special pools are in V8+.

Don't be the mud for the stick!
-
Too busy driving to stop for gas!

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: Submitting jobs to a z/os guest from vm

[Ted MacNEIL]

>In the OLD days, we defined a virtual card reader to the JCL eating OS

IIRC, you also need to TAG it.
And, it's not a reader.
It's a punch.
-
Too busy driving to stop for gas!

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: IEFSSSSA, IGDVLD and subsystem calls to SMS

[Roland Schiradin]

Ken, 

it's not documented unless you pay a lot of money. Same apply to IGWFAMS 
service. SHOWzOS and MXI (freeware) use it. It was easy to understand the 
returned data. 

Roland

>I have seen some shareware code that uses SUBSYS calls to SMS to obtain 
such information as the STORAGE GROUP a volser resides in, etc.  I looked 
through my manuals to find a discussion regarding some of the fields that were 
being set in the SSSA prior to subsys call, but, I did not find any discussion 
in 
my unlicensed manuals.  I am guessing the interface is widely documented 
anywhere?  Any help you can offer would be appreciated.
>
>Ken Kripke
>kkri...@mindspring.com

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: AIX gets 64 bit COBOL but still none for Z/os ...

[Denis Gäbler]

 For video on demand databases are too slow.
You would use a streaming server, for which I don't know any available for 
System z OS except VM Stairs.
In addition, a streaming server would serve a stream, so you need a small 
buffer (e.g. 128MB) and fast DASD for 1000 Users.

For the 64Bit discussion, as long as LE cannot mix 64Bit and 31Bit modules, 
what is the benefit?


 

-Original Message-
From: Schneiderwent, Craig - DOT 
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Sent: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 3:36 pm
Subject: Re: AIX gets 64 bit COBOL but still none for Z/os ...










 > Is there any reason to have 64-bit COBOL on z/OS ?

Parsing or generating _really_ _big_ XML data streams?

In a CICS Web Services provider scenario, one could posit a very large 01 
level, 
only some of which gets filled in for any one request...

 01  Work-Areas.
 05  Some-Table-NbPIC 9(008) COMP-5.
 05  Some-Other-Table-Nb  PIC 9(008) COMP-5.
 05  Marks-Nb PIC 9(008) COMP-5.

 01  Response.
 05  Personal-Info.
 10  Given-Name   PIC N(80) USAGE NATIONAL.
 10  Family-Name  PIC N(80) USAGE NATIONAL.
 05  Some-Table Occurs 0 To 200 Depending Some-Table-Nb.
 10  Photo-Base-64-JPEG   PIC X(20480).
 10  Fingerprint-base-64-JPEG PIC X(40960).
 10  Scars-Marks-Tattoos Occurs 0 To 100 Depending Marks-Nb PIC 
X(20480).
 05  Some-Other-Table Occurs 0 To 10 Depending Some-Other-Table-Nb.
 10  MPEG4-encoded-somehowPIC X(1024000).
 05  [more big-ish data here]


But I'm just making this up, AFAIK we don't have anything like this.

One could also posit a video rental business that keeps the videos in DB2 BLOBs 
and serves them via CICS Web Services COBOL applications.  But I don't know of 
any such business.

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu 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 lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: AIX gets 64 bit COBOL but still none for Z/os ...

[John McKown]

On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 19:50:07 +, Ted MacNEIL  wrote:

>>BTW - I prefer solid examples for current need, not histrionics.
>
>Call it histrionics if you like.
>But, just because we don't need it today, doesn't mean we won't need it
tomorrow.
>This field already suffers from short-sightedness.
>Please don't add more.
>
>My point was think ahead.
>Don't get stuck because you can't think of a need, today.
>
>When XA came out, nobody could understand the need for 2GB.
>Think DB2.
>Where do you think the buffers and special pools are in V8+.
>
>Don't be the mud for the stick!

OK - how much money, in the form of licensing cost, are you willing to pay
to get 64 bit addressing in COBOL? If you can get people to tell IBM
something like: "We are willing to pay $200 a month extra plus $2000 extra
one time for a compiler which can create AMODE(64) programs.", then you're
likely to get IBM's attention. But if people say: "We want AMODE(64) COBOL
but at the current cost of AMODE(31) COBOL", then IBM is likely to not pay
much attention. TANSTAAFL.

Also, somebody needs to prioritize AMODE(64) COBOL versus other desired
enhancements. There is only so much money and so many qualified developers.

For example. COBOL now uses System XML for XML processing. Should IBM have
forgone that (with the associated benefit of XML processing in COBOL now
being able to run on a zAAP) for 64 bit addressing?

If I implied that 64 bit addressing in COBOL is a unwanted / unneeded
enhancement, I gave the wrong impression and I hope that I have corrected
it. I just wonder about the relative importance of 64 bit addressing versus
other COBOL enhancements.

--
John

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: MVS 4 minute 'outage'

[Chris Hoelscher]

John siraco and Greg Beedy (CA) gave a webcast presentation on CA-IDMS 17 
and performance on zIIP - included benchmark performance results - i would 
think this presentation is available from CA
but i cannot say for sure

Chris Hoelscher
Senior IDMS & DB2 Database Administrator
Humana Inc
502-476-2538
choelsc...@humana.com





But the whole idea of running IDMS on a specialty engine sounds
intriguing.

Rex

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html



The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which 
it is addressed and may contain CONFIDENTIAL material.  If you receive this 
material/information in error, please contact the sender and delete or destroy 
the material/information.

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: AIX gets 64 bit COBOL but still none for Z/os ...

[Ted MacNEIL]

>If I implied that 64 bit addressing in COBOL is a unwanted / unneeded 
>enhancement, I gave the wrong impression and I hope that I have corrected it.
>I just wonder about the relative importance of 64 bit addressing versus other 
>COBOL enhancements.

That's a different issue.
I thought you didn't see the need rather than the cost.
Sorry to have teed off at you.
-
Too busy driving to stop for gas!

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

AIX gets 64 bit COBOL but still none for Z/os ...

[Bill Klein]

"Denis G"äbler""  wrote in message
news:<8cb40acc0589804-abc-...@webmail-dx19.sysops.aol.com>...
>  For video on demand databases are too slow.
> You would use a streaming server, for which I don't know any available for
System z OS except VM Stairs.
> In addition, a streaming server would serve a stream, so you need a small
buffer (e.g. 128MB) and fast DASD for 1000 Users.
> 
> For the 64Bit discussion, as long as LE cannot mix 64Bit and 31Bit
modules, what is the benefit?
> 

There are existing SHARE requirements for a 3 phased approach to "mixed
31-/64-bit" LE support

1) Document what actually works today (as Assembler can "shift" something
needs to document what happens when "both sides" activate LE applications

2) SUPPORT fixed 31-/-64 but with separately owned LE resources on both
sides

3) Full mixed mode application support

  ***

As we haven't even seen "phase 1" implemented yet, I don't know how soon I
will expect phases 2 or 3.  I am, however with you that providing 64-bit
COBOL support for applications that are TOTALLY 64-bit and can't
"communicate easily/transparently" with 31-bit code is a "non-starter" for
real world use in z/OS COBOL shops.

I suppose, I wouldn't object to seeing it, but if IBM used lack of
interest/use of it to delay providing MIXED 31-/64-bit support, then I would
definitely NOT be happy.

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

First z/OS 1.9 IPL Problem

[Eric Bielefeld]

I just IPL'd z/OS 1.9 for the first time.  I've been waiting for about 35 
minutes after the IPL messages stopped coming out for JES2 to issue a message.  
If I do a D A,L, it shows JES2 as running, and a bunch of tasks starting, like 
they should be before JES2 is fully initialized.  I can't really go back in the 
log to see if I have any messages.

We are running on a z/800 with about 350 MIPS.  Most of the time, our DB2 lpar 
is running flat out, and the other production Lpar is taking a few cycles.  The 
1.9 lpar is weighted at 10%, and allows only 1 of the 2 processors to be used.  
Could it just take that long for it to come up?  

According to RMF Mon 3, my lpar is taking 1.4% of CPU steadily.  Early in the 
IPL, it had as much as 10% for a 100 second interval.

Any thoughts?

Eric

--
Eric Bielefeld
Systems Programmer
Washington University
St Louis, Missouri
314-935-3418

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: AIX gets 64 bit COBOL but still none for Z/os ...

[Howard Brazee]

On 9 Jan 2009 09:01:19 -0800, joa...@swbell.net (John McKown) wrote:

>Why not go "whole hog"? Skip 64 bit addressing entirely. Go to 128 bit. Why
>not? After all the "i" series machines are already using 128 bit addressing.
>And all their languages support it. IBM claims that the "i" has the largest
>number of 64-bit mode programs in existence.

...

>BTW - I prefer solid examples for current need, not histrionics.

If there is a need to change to 64 bit, examine the costs and
alternatives of going beyond this need.   Don't spend money twice when
once will do.

There are sites that will benefit significantly from this change.  And
it's a change that could make IBM better market its product (which
indirectly helps us).

Of course, maybe IBM sees its future in AIX instead of ZOS.  I don't
know that it would be wrong in doing so.   But if it sees both
coexisting, it should develop them together. 

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: First z/OS 1.9 IPL Problem

[Eatherly, John D [EQ]]

Try $S.

Thanks
John Eatherly
972.254.5441
972.830.3627


-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of 
Eric Bielefeld
Sent: Friday, January 09, 2009 3:08 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: First z/OS 1.9 IPL Problem

I just IPL'd z/OS 1.9 for the first time.  I've been waiting for about 35 
minutes after the IPL messages stopped coming out for JES2 to issue a message.  
If I do a D A,L, it shows JES2 as running, and a bunch of tasks starting, like 
they should be before JES2 is fully initialized.  I can't really go back in the 
log to see if I have any messages.

We are running on a z/800 with about 350 MIPS.  Most of the time, our DB2 lpar 
is running flat out, and the other production Lpar is taking a few cycles.  The 
1.9 lpar is weighted at 10%, and allows only 1 of the 2 processors to be used.  
Could it just take that long for it to come up?

According to RMF Mon 3, my lpar is taking 1.4% of CPU steadily.  Early in the 
IPL, it had as much as 10% for a 100 second interval.

Any thoughts?

Eric

--
Eric Bielefeld
Systems Programmer
Washington University
St Louis, Missouri
314-935-3418

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu 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 lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: AIX gets 64 bit COBOL but still none for Z/os ...

[David Andrews]

On Fri, 2009-01-09 at 14:11 -0600, John McKown wrote:
> OK - how much money, in the form of licensing cost, are you willing to pay
> to get 64 bit addressing in COBOL?

What I already pay today, for a current COBOL compiler backed by
developers and support staff.

-- 
David Andrews
A. Duda and Sons, Inc.
david.andr...@duda.com

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: First z/OS 1.9 IPL Problem

[Len Rugen]

It can, I don't remember the weights and shares I had, but defining a 
single CP to my oft-IPL'ed test system and bumping it's share to 
something that gave it a few mips (IIRC, we were 160 total and I gave it 
10) was acceptable.   An idling lpar on this system would use 2% or more 
of the plex. 


Also, don't CLPA if you don't need to

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: First z/OS 1.9 IPL Problem

[Ted MacNEIL]

>According to RMF Mon 3, my lpar is taking 1.4% of CPU steadily.  Early in the 
>IPL, it had as much as 10% for a 100 second interval.

I don't think it has anything to do with 1.9.
I've found that any OS requires 10% of the processor (regardless of size) to 
IPL.
1.4% is way to small.
So is a 100 second interval.
-
Too busy driving to stop for gas!

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: First z/OS 1.9 IPL Problem

[Ted MacNEIL]

>Also, don't CLPA if you don't need to

First IPL -- you have to!
-
Too busy driving to stop for gas!

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: First z/OS 1.9 IPL Problem

[Eric Bielefeld]

John.  I tried $S.  I didn't really think it would work, and it just said it 
was an invalid command.  The first IPL, according to the Installing Your Order 
book, you have to reply with COLD and FORMAT. There aren't any messages 
outstanding.

Eric

 "Eatherly wrote: 
> Try $S.
> 
> Thanks
> John Eatherly
> 972.254.5441
> 972.830.3627
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf 
> Of Eric Bielefeld
> Sent: Friday, January 09, 2009 3:08 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
> Subject: First z/OS 1.9 IPL Problem
> 
> I just IPL'd z/OS 1.9 for the first time.  I've been waiting for about 35 
> minutes after the IPL messages stopped coming out for JES2 to issue a 
> message.  If I do a D A,L, it shows JES2 as running, and a bunch of tasks 
> starting, like they should be before JES2 is fully initialized.  I can't 
> really go back in the log to see if I have any messages.
> 
> We are running on a z/800 with about 350 MIPS.  Most of the time, our DB2 
> lpar is running flat out, and the other production Lpar is taking a few 
> cycles.  The 1.9 lpar is weighted at 10%, and allows only 1 of the 2 
> processors to be used.  Could it just take that long for it to come up?
> 
> According to RMF Mon 3, my lpar is taking 1.4% of CPU steadily.  Early in the 
> IPL, it had as much as 10% for a 100 second interval.
> 
> Any thoughts?
> 
> Eric
> 
> --
> Eric Bielefeld
> Systems Programmer
> Washington University
> St Louis, Missouri
> 314-935-3418

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: First z/OS 1.9 IPL Problem

[Bob Shannon]

Did you do a $S? Did your console messages go to an unexpected console? You can 
always take a SAD to determine the state of your system.

Bob Shannon
Rocket Software

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: AIX gets 64 bit COBOL but still none for Z/os ...

[John McKown]

On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 16:11:36 -0500, David Andrews  wrote:

>On Fri, 2009-01-09 at 14:11 -0600, John McKown wrote:
>> OK - how much money, in the form of licensing cost, are you willing to pay
>> to get 64 bit addressing in COBOL?
>
>What I already pay today, for a current COBOL compiler backed by
>developers and support staff.
>
>--
>David Andrews

Unless I totally misunderstand you, you want enhancements to COBOL for the
price of the current COBOL.

I have a question. Are you paying the same for Enterprise COBOL that you
paid for OS/VS COBOL 2.4 (in adjusted dollars, of course)? (what about ANS
COBOL? - the freebie) No? You're paying more? Then you did pay more for a
"better" COBOL compiler. And, hopefully, you got more use from it. But,
then, you didn't pay "up front" (as I may have implied) and you didn't
really have a choice, unless you don't mind being unsupported. Until
recently, we actually still used the OS/VS COBOL 2.4 compiler and library
for one application. It was so weirdly coded that conversion to Enterprise
COBOL was delayed (they first tried when VS COBOL II was installed). Wish I
knew more, but I successfully avoided getting in the middle of that mess.

--
John

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: AIX gets 64 bit COBOL but still none for Z/os ...

[John McKown]

On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 14:08:29 -0700, Howard Brazee 
wrote:


>There are sites that will benefit significantly from this change.  And
>it's a change that could make IBM better market its product (which
>indirectly helps us).
>
>Of course, maybe IBM sees its future in AIX instead of ZOS.  I don't
>know that it would be wrong in doing so.   But if it sees both
>coexisting, it should develop them together.
>

The people over on Midrange-L (the iSeries equivalent of this forum) have
the same complaint that we do on this point. IBM seems, in some ways, to
want to get out of the OS and hardware business. This may not be the case,
but is an easy conclusion to draw when IBM keeps increasing prices and
doesn't seem to "push" the platform like it used to.

Good thing that I'm a Linux bigot. It runs on just about anything and is
fairly consistent whether it is on an Atom (Intel netbook processor) or a
pSeries or a zSeries.

--
John

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: First z/OS 1.9 IPL Problem

[Gibney, Dave]

   IF you did get up to where JES is some functioning, you can revert to your 
old system and look at the log from there. If you've D R,R and as you say see 
nothing, I'd suspect OMVS or SMS didn't make it up due to some error. !.9 has 
some newer Displays for OMVS status.
   What level are you migrating from?

Dave Gibney
Information Technology Services
Washington State Univsersity


-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of 
Eric Bielefeld
Sent: Friday, January 09, 2009 1:08 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: First z/OS 1.9 IPL Problem

I just IPL'd z/OS 1.9 for the first time.  I've been waiting for about 35 
minutes after the IPL messages stopped coming out for JES2 to issue a message.  
If I do a D A,L, it shows JES2 as running, and a bunch of tasks starting, like 
they should be before JES2 is fully initialized.  I can't really go back in the 
log to see if I have any messages.

We are running on a z/800 with about 350 MIPS.  Most of the time, our DB2 lpar 
is running flat out, and the other production Lpar is taking a few cycles.  The 
1.9 lpar is weighted at 10%, and allows only 1 of the 2 processors to be used.  
Could it just take that long for it to come up?  

According to RMF Mon 3, my lpar is taking 1.4% of CPU steadily.  Early in the 
IPL, it had as much as 10% for a 100 second interval.

Any thoughts?

Eric

--
Eric Bielefeld
Systems Programmer
Washington University
St Louis, Missouri
314-935-3418

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu 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 lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: First z/OS 1.9 IPL Problem

[Eric Bielefeld]

We are migrating from z/OS 1.7.  My test Lpar is not part of the production 
sysplex, and won't ever be from what I understand.  

I IPL'd 3 times now, all with the same results.  I tried taking a Stand Alone 
dump, and I never get a console message, even though it is supposed to go to 
the same console as the IPL.  I hit enter - that didn't do anything.

Someone said do a $S, which as I've already replied says its an invalid 
command.  I'm going home now, so I'll probably call IBM on Monday morning.

Eric

 "Gibney wrote: 
>IF you did get up to where JES is some functioning, you can revert to your 
> old system and look at the log from there. If you've D R,R and as you say see 
> nothing, I'd suspect OMVS or SMS didn't make it up due to some error. !.9 has 
> some newer Displays for OMVS status.
>What level are you migrating from?
> 
> Dave Gibney
> Information Technology Services
> Washington State Univsersity
> 
--
Eric Bielefeld
Systems Programmer
Washington University
St Louis, Missouri
314-935-3418

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: Submitting jobs to a z/os guest from vm

[Paul Gilmartin]

On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 12:49:44 -0600, Walt Farrell wrote:
>
>With RSCS and appropriate RACF and JES setup RACF can supply the proper ID
>automatically, with no passwords required.
>
FSVO "proper".  For historic reasons, my VM and z/OS user IDs
differ.  Is there any way to automate jobs submitted by
VMGIL to run as user ID ZOSGIL?  If IBM supplied an exit,
they'd likely be delighted to activate it.

Our admins have set up for several of us in this situation
IDs such as VMGIL; no TSO logon; all profiles identical
to ZOSGIL.  But ongoing duplicate redundant parallel
maintenance is a PITA.  And there's the often-mentioned
phenomenon that getpwuid() sometimes reports me as ZOSGIL;
other times as VMGIL.

It would really be useful if RACF provided user ID aliasing,
so whenever a program or programmer said "VMGIL" it would
automatically seek on to the entry for "ZOSGIL", and there
wouldn't be two OMVS segments with my UID.

-- [*]gil

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: First z/OS 1.9 IPL Problem

[Skip Robinson]

'Invalid command' in response to $S means that JES2 has not initialized far
enough to respond to any commands. I would suggest D R,R on the console. My
bet is that JES2 doesn't like something in the init deck and is waiting for
you to respond to a WTOR.

.
.
JO.Skip Robinson
Southern California Edison Company
Electric Dragon Team Paddler
SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager
626-302-7535 Office
323-715-0595 Mobile
jo.skip.robin...@sce.com


   
 Eric Bielefeld
 To 
 Sent by: IBM  IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
 Mainframe  cc 
 Discussion List   
  Re: First z/OS 1.9 IPL Problem  
   
   
 01/09/2009 02:26  
 PM
   
   
 Please respond to 
   IBM Mainframe   
  Discussion List  

   
   




We are migrating from z/OS 1.7.  My test Lpar is not part of the production
sysplex, and won't ever be from what I understand.

I IPL'd 3 times now, all with the same results.  I tried taking a Stand
Alone dump, and I never get a console message, even though it is supposed
to go to the same console as the IPL.  I hit enter - that didn't do
anything.

Someone said do a $S, which as I've already replied says its an invalid
command.  I'm going home now, so I'll probably call IBM on Monday morning.

Eric

 "Gibney wrote:
>IF you did get up to where JES is some functioning, you can revert to
your old system and look at the log from there. If you've D R,R and as you
say see nothing, I'd suspect OMVS or SMS didn't make it up due to some
error. !.9 has some newer Displays for OMVS status.
>What level are you migrating from?
>
> Dave Gibney
> Information Technology Services
> Washington State Univsersity
>
--
Eric Bielefeld

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: First z/OS 1.9 IPL Problem

[Schwarz, Barry A]

I ran into a similar situation some time ago when a library that should
have been was not APF authorized.

-Original Message-
From: Eric Bielefeld 
Sent: Friday, January 09, 2009 1:08 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: First z/OS 1.9 IPL Problem

I just IPL'd z/OS 1.9 for the first time.  I've been waiting for about
35 minutes after the IPL messages stopped coming out for JES2 to issue a
message.  If I do a D A,L, it shows JES2 as running, and a bunch of
tasks starting, like they should be before JES2 is fully initialized.  I
can't really go back in the log to see if I have any messages.

We are running on a z/800 with about 350 MIPS.  Most of the time, our
DB2 lpar is running flat out, and the other production Lpar is taking a
few cycles.  The 1.9 lpar is weighted at 10%, and allows only 1 of the 2
processors to be used.  Could it just take that long for it to come up?


According to RMF Mon 3, my lpar is taking 1.4% of CPU steadily.  Early
in the IPL, it had as much as 10% for a 100 second interval.

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: First z/OS 1.9 IPL Problem

[Mark Zelden]

On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 15:07:57 -0600, Eric Bielefeld 
wrote:

>I just IPL'd z/OS 1.9 for the first time.  I've been waiting for about 35
minutes after the IPL messages stopped coming out for JES2 to issue a
message.  If I do a D A,L, it shows JES2 as running, and a bunch of tasks
starting, like they should be before JES2 is fully initialized.  I can't
really go back in the log to see if I have any messages.
>
>We are running on a z/800 with about 350 MIPS.  Most of the time, our DB2
lpar is running flat out, and the other production Lpar is taking a few
cycles.  The 1.9 lpar is weighted at 10%, and allows only 1 of the 2
processors to be used.  Could it just take that long for it to come up?
>
>According to RMF Mon 3, my lpar is taking 1.4% of CPU steadily.  Early in
the IPL, it had as much as 10% for a 100 second interval.
>
>Any thoughts?
>

$S - or S JES2,PARM='WARM,NOREQ' or reply WARM,NOREQ to the 
startup prompt or put the parm in the PROC.

Mark
--
Mark Zelden
Sr. Software and Systems Architect - z/OS Team Lead
Zurich North America / Farmers Insurance Group - ZFUS G-ITO
mailto:mark.zel...@zurichna.com
z/OS Systems Programming expert at http://expertanswercenter.techtarget.com/
Mark's MVS Utilities: http://home.flash.net/~mzelden/mvsutil.html

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: First z/OS 1.9 IPL Problem

[Thompson, Steve]

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On
Behalf Of Eric Bielefeld
Sent: Friday, January 09, 2009 4:27 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: First z/OS 1.9 IPL Problem

We are migrating from z/OS 1.7.  My test Lpar is not part of the
production sysplex, and won't ever be from what I understand.  

I IPL'd 3 times now, all with the same results.  I tried taking a Stand
Alone dump, and I never get a console message, even though it is
supposed to go to the same console as the IPL.  I hit enter - that
didn't do anything.

Someone said do a $S, which as I've already replied says its an invalid
command.  I'm going home now, so I'll probably call IBM on Monday
morning.



Double-check your IODF contents against your parmlib info to make sure
that you are pointing to the correct console(s).

Also, check the HMC "console" (sorry, I forgot the name of it) and see
if "MVS" is doing "lost console" support stuff.

It has been a few years now, but I had something screwed up in my
definitions (pre z/OS 1.4) and once NIP was done, I lost my console and
everything I needed to see was going to the "HMC" console area.

Regards,
Steve Thompson

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: First z/OS 1.9 IPL Problem

[Mark Zelden]

On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 21:18:44 +, Ted MacNEIL  wrote:

>>According to RMF Mon 3, my lpar is taking 1.4% of CPU steadily.  Early in
the IPL, it had as much as 10% for a 100 second interval.
>
>I don't think it has anything to do with 1.9.
>I've found that any OS requires 10% of the processor (regardless of size)
to IPL.
>1.4% is way to small.

Really?  I've IPLed with 1% ... it just takes a long time.  And 1% of a z900
at that
(box virtually at 100% busy and weight of sandbox LPAR = 1%).  
I wonder how people ever IPLed a 3 mip P/390?

Mark
--
Mark Zelden
Sr. Software and Systems Architect - z/OS Team Lead
Zurich North America / Farmers Insurance Group - ZFUS G-ITO
mailto:mark.zel...@zurichna.com
z/OS Systems Programming expert at http://expertanswercenter.techtarget.com/
Mark's MVS Utilities: http://home.flash.net/~mzelden/mvsutil.html

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: First z/OS 1.9 IPL Problem

[Mark Zelden]

On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 22:26:59 +, Eric Bielefeld 
wrote:

>We are migrating from z/OS 1.7.  My test Lpar is not part of the production
sysplex, and won't ever be from what I understand.
>
>I IPL'd 3 times now, all with the same results.  I tried taking a Stand
Alone dump, and I never get a console message, even though it is supposed to
go to the same console as the IPL.  I hit enter - that didn't do anything.
>
>Someone said do a $S, which as I've already replied says its an invalid
command.  I'm going home now, so I'll probably call IBM on Monday morning.
>

Are you sure there are not any outstanding WTORs to respond to? (D R,L or D
R,R to display).  Sort of hard to diagnose without more info.  I've seen
similar problems after JES startup... like missing or wrong proclibs. But
that is after
JES2 initialized.Did you try and watch the NIP messages for any
errors.I know they can come out real fast on emulated consoles these
days... 
might be able to see them better by using the HMC as a console.   What about
any other messages prior to JES2 startup.  How is it starting (VIA IEFSSNxx,
COMMNDxx)?  Do you get prompted at startup time?  


Otherwise... you need to get SAD working.

Mark
--
Mark Zelden
Sr. Software and Systems Architect - z/OS Team Lead
Zurich North America / Farmers Insurance Group - ZFUS G-ITO
mailto:mark.zel...@zurichna.com
z/OS Systems Programming expert at http://expertanswercenter.techtarget.com/
Mark's MVS Utilities: http://home.flash.net/~mzelden/mvsutil.html

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: First z/OS 1.9 IPL Problem

[Natarajan Mohan]

It just took a while... But P/390 eventually worked :-)

Natarajan

>>> Mark Zelden  1/9/2009 3:12 PM >>>
On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 21:18:44 +, Ted MacNEIL  wrote:

>>According to RMF Mon 3, my lpar is taking 1.4% of CPU steadily.  Early in
the IPL, it had as much as 10% for a 100 second interval.
>
>I don't think it has anything to do with 1.9.
>I've found that any OS requires 10% of the processor (regardless of size)
to IPL.
>1.4% is way to small.

Really?  I've IPLed with 1% ... it just takes a long time.  And 1% of a z900
at that
(box virtually at 100% busy and weight of sandbox LPAR = 1%).  
I wonder how people ever IPLed a 3 mip P/390?

Mark
--
Mark Zelden
Sr. Software and Systems Architect - z/OS Team Lead
Zurich North America / Farmers Insurance Group - ZFUS G-ITO
mailto:mark.zel...@zurichna.com 
z/OS Systems Programming expert at http://expertanswercenter.techtarget.com/ 
Mark's MVS Utilities: http://home.flash.net/~mzelden/mvsutil.html 


NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY 

The information contained in this communication, including but not limited to 
any accompanying document(s) and/or attachment(s), is privileged and 
confidential and is intended solely for the above-named individual(s). If you 
are not the intended recipient, please be advised that any distribution, 
copying, disclosure, and/or use of the information contained herein is strictly 
prohibited. If you received this communication in error, please destroy all 
copies of the communication, whether in electronic or hard copy format, and 
immediately contact the Security Office at EDFUND at (916) 526-7539 or 
securityoff...@edfund.org. Thank you.

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: First z/OS 1.9 IPL Problem

[Rick Fochtman]

-


I just IPL'd z/OS 1.9 for the first time.  I've been waiting for about 35 
minutes after the IPL messages stopped coming out for JES2 to issue a message.  
If I do a D A,L, it shows JES2 as running, and a bunch of tasks starting, like 
they should be before JES2 is fully initialized.  I can't really go back in the 
log to see if I have any messages.

We are running on a z/800 with about 350 MIPS.  Most of the time, our DB2 lpar is running flat out, and the other production Lpar is taking a few cycles.  The 1.9 lpar is weighted at 10%, and allows only 1 of the 2 processors to be used.  Could it just take that long for it to come up?  


According to RMF Mon 3, my lpar is taking 1.4% of CPU steadily.  Early in the 
IPL, it had as much as 10% for a 100 second interval.

Any thoughts?
 


-
Is the a PARM= on the EXEC statement for JES2? If so, try removing it.

--
Rick
--
Remember that if you’re not the lead dog, the view never changes.

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: First z/OS 1.9 IPL Problem

[Natarajan Mohan]

One way to catch NIP messages is to disconnect all CONSOLES and let the message 
go to system messages on HMC. 

Natarajan



NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY 

The information contained in this communication, including but not limited to 
any accompanying document(s) and/or attachment(s), is privileged and 
confidential and is intended solely for the above-named individual(s). If you 
are not the intended recipient, please be advised that any distribution, 
copying, disclosure, and/or use of the information contained herein is strictly 
prohibited. If you received this communication in error, please destroy all 
copies of the communication, whether in electronic or hard copy format, and 
immediately contact the Security Office at EDFUND at (916) 526-7539 or 
securityoff...@edfund.org. Thank you.

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: First z/OS 1.9 IPL Problem

[Ted MacNEIL]

>Really?  I've IPLed with 1% ... it just takes a long time.  And 1% of a z900 
>at that (box virtually at 100% busy and weight of sandbox LPAR = 1%).
>I wonder how people ever IPLed a 3 mip P/390?

Lucky you!
I've found in an LPAR environment, especially with the synchronous requirements 
of an IPL, that you really do need a larger chunk of the processor than you 
need once the IPL is done.
In most cases, I've found a 'long time' is never.
-
Too busy driving to stop for gas!

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

You're invited to learn more!

[Angelo Corridori]

Q&A Teleconference for z/OS Associate Certificate Program

Please join the staff of the Institute for Data Center Professionals for a 
brief telephone discussion describing our Spring 2009 Enterprise Computing 
z/OS Certificate program. 

Where & When
Date: January 15th-Thursday
Time:  12:00pm to 1:00 pm (EST)
Call in US#: 1-888-469-0495
International: 1-210-795-2680
Passcode:  63893

You will have a chance to ask questions and learn about various aspects of 
the program
content and delivery
participation and companies represented
success and testimonials
enrollment/application process
tuition information
history of the program

Please RSVP by Wednesday, January 14, 2009 via email to: 
roberta.digg...@marist.edu

Please forward this invitation to other prospective participants.  Thank 
you!

P.S. If you can't attend this call, more information is available at our 
web site: www.idcp.org/learnzos

Regards,
 Angelo


Angelo F. Corridori
Director of Large Systems Education
Marist College
angelo.corrid...@marist.edu
1-845-575-3000 x2168

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: AIX gets 64 bit COBOL but still none for Z/os ...

[Clark Morris]

On 9 Jan 2009 12:13:51 -0800, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:

>On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 19:50:07 +, Ted MacNEIL  wrote:
>
>>>BTW - I prefer solid examples for current need, not histrionics.
>>
>>Call it histrionics if you like.
>>But, just because we don't need it today, doesn't mean we won't need it
>tomorrow.
>>This field already suffers from short-sightedness.
>>Please don't add more.
>>
>>My point was think ahead.
>>Don't get stuck because you can't think of a need, today.
>>
>>When XA came out, nobody could understand the need for 2GB.
>>Think DB2.
>>Where do you think the buffers and special pools are in V8+.
>>
>>Don't be the mud for the stick!
>
>OK - how much money, in the form of licensing cost, are you willing to pay
>to get 64 bit addressing in COBOL? If you can get people to tell IBM
>something like: "We are willing to pay $200 a month extra plus $2000 extra
>one time for a compiler which can create AMODE(64) programs.", then you're
>likely to get IBM's attention. But if people say: "We want AMODE(64) COBOL
>but at the current cost of AMODE(31) COBOL", then IBM is likely to not pay
>much attention. TANSTAAFL.
>
>Also, somebody needs to prioritize AMODE(64) COBOL versus other desired
>enhancements. There is only so much money and so many qualified developers.
>
>For example. COBOL now uses System XML for XML processing. Should IBM have
>forgone that (with the associated benefit of XML processing in COBOL now
>being able to run on a zAAP) for 64 bit addressing?
>
>If I implied that 64 bit addressing in COBOL is a unwanted / unneeded
>enhancement, I gave the wrong impression and I hope that I have corrected
>it. I just wonder about the relative importance of 64 bit addressing versus
>other COBOL enhancements.


If COBOL is still considered strategic and going forward rather than
something to be maintained until you can migrate to the brave new
world of Java, C#, New Vision, etc., then 64 bit is needed to support
IBM strategy.  COBOL is supposed to communicate with Java and COBOL
routines are supposed to be usable in Websphere applications.  Guess
what?  Both of those environments can be either 31 bit or 64 bit.
Someone else pointed out that things can get tight in a heavily used
CICS region and that the 2 gig limit can impact the number of
concurrent transactions.  If COBOL is other than a cash cow, then
serious upgrading is needed.  The fact that there is an interface
routine to enable floating point to be passed between COBOL and Java
so that hex floating point can be converted to IEEE and vice versa
still enrages me.

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html