Re: ipl of new system
On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 13:20:02 -0500, John Kelly john_j_ke...@ao.uscourts.gov wrote: snip IGGN505A Specify unit for SYS1.IBM.PARMLIB on SYSR1 or cancel === then I checked our SYS1 datasets and SYS1.PARMLIB is the only one cataloged to volser **. Maybe because SYSR1 is not resolved yet. You can try this. now /snip Appear like the DSN is changing. Initially it was SYS1.IBM.PARMLIB, now the OP is talking about SYS1.PARMLIB, hopefully just a slip. I'll have to second everyone else's opinion, every time that I get this type of error, it's because I'm using the wrong IODF but there's always a first time for everything. Jack Kelly Jack, I am not the OP. The OP has a SYS1.IBM.PARMLIB, we build/generate our systems from the installation libraries and create a SYS1.PARMLIB, but it is the same PARMLIB and possibly couldn't bear SYSR1. However, Mark showed that that is not the problem. Kees. -- 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: reconciling CA1, OAM, and 3494-B10
John, what z/OS level are you? Keep us posted, in case we could run into the same problem with our TS7700. Good Luck, Kees. -- 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: reconciling CA1, OAM, and 3494-B10
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 14:46:33 -0600, McKown, John john.mck...@healthmarkets.com wrote: -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Kees Vernooy Sent: Friday, December 18, 2009 2:40 PM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: Re: reconciling CA1, OAM, and 3494-B10 John, what z/OS level are you? Keep us posted, in case we could run into the same problem with our TS7700. Good Luck, Kees. z/OS 1.10. So are we. I am very interested in possible software causes, either in CA1 or in z/OS. We have a 3584 and a TS3500. Old. Right now I'm running a CTSSYNC of over 25,000 tapes in SCRATCH status to CA1, but not according to ISMF. When that finishes (1.5 hours?), the IBM support person will call back with some ALTER commands to do. If that doesn't work, then we'll get with the hardware guy (currently on site) and do some more stuff. I really hate this box. I can recommend the TS7700, I love it. Kees. -- John McKown Systems Engineer IV IT Administrative Services Group HealthMarkets(r) 9151 Boulevard 26 * N. Richland Hills * TX 76010 (817) 255-3225 phone * (817)-961-6183 cell john.mck...@healthmarkets.com * www.HealthMarkets.com Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message may contain confidential or proprietary information. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. HealthMarkets(r) is the brand name for products underwritten and issued by the insurance subsidiaries of HealthMarkets, Inc. -The Chesapeake Life Insurance Company(r), Mid-West National Life Insurance Company of TennesseeSM and The MEGA Life and Health Insurance Company.SM -- 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: Virtual tape on z/OS (was: Virtual tape on VM)
You can read some more at: http://ca.com/us/products/product.aspx?id=1599 http://ca.com/files/ProductBriefs/ca_vtape_virtual_tape_system_pb.pdf The Virtual Tape system intercepts requests for scratch mounts, buffers them on disk as Virtual Volumes then stacks the Virtual Volumes onto a physical tape, fully utilizing it. It was regularly brought to our attention by CA, but we have good control over our production JCL and tape allocations and were able to redirect the production tape allocations to disk ourselves when needed. If your IT department does not have control over production JCL, then this product is valuable to redirect tape allocations to disk from a central, systems point of control. Kees. On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 18:03:34 +0200, Lindy Mayfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just curious, how is that done on z/OS? -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of McKown, John Sent: 27. kesäkuuta 2008 23:32 To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Virtual tape on VM There is a product from CA, also called VTAPE, which runs on z/OS. It emulates tape on z/OS DASD. We got rid of it due to high CPU utilization. We never tried to determine if it was the product or the way we customized it. -- John McKown Senior Systems Programmer HealthMarkets Keeping the Promise of Affordable Coverage Administrative Services Group Information Technology -- 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
Re: Virtual tape on VM
We used to have a product under VM called VTAPE, from STK (now SUN) I believe, that emulated virtual tapes and units on VM disks. We do z/OS here, not VM, that is done by another department, so I could be incorrect on the details. Kees. -- 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: Virtual tape on VM
John, You are right, I know this product, but this is not the one I mean. I searched some and I think it is this VTAPE product: http://www.vsoftsys.com/vssiprod.htm Kees. -- 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: Moving from CA-MIM to GRS.
On Mon, 6 Feb 2006 00:00:00 GMT, Ted MacNEIL [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There is a REDBOOK on conversion from MIM to GRS! - -teD Ted, you mentioned a Redbook in your reply above. I cannot find it, do you have the number for me? Kees. -- 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: DFSORT SORTWK questions
On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 13:03:34 -0400, David Betten [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: See my answers below: We had a very large DFSort job that abended because of insufficient Sortwk space with message ICE083A, indicating that 4 times 65535 tracks were not enough. I'm guessing your system is not a z/OS 1.7 yet. Just an fyi that for systems at 1.7 or later, DFSORT allocates the sortworks as large format so they can exceed 65535 tracks (providing there are volumes with that much space available). Looking for options to raise the default of 4 Sortwk's, I ran into 2 questions to which I could not find the answer: 1. I cannot find any recommandations in the DFSort manuals about the optimum number of Sortwk's. 2. From the manual I understood that the number of Sortwk's that I specify in the DYNALOC parameter of the ICEMAC macro's specified the *maximum* number of Sortwk's DFSort was allowed to take and that it does not force dymanic allocation, nor the number of Sortwk's. DFSORT will almost always allocate the number of sortworks you specify in the DYNALOC (installation default) or DYNALLOC (runtime specified). However, if you have JCL sortworks coded but DYNAUTO=IGNWKDD is not in effect, then it will use the JCL sortworks and not perform dynamic allocation. When dynamic allocation is used, the sortwork space required is spread across all the sortworks. So more sortworks does not mean more space, but instead it means more/smaller sortwork datasets. I'm sorry if our manuals are unclear and will see if we can revise to make it more clear. I'll add that to the list of things to consider for future releases. David, thanks for the clarifications. Yes, we are at 1.6. I noticed that allocating a large number of sortwk's can take a considerably long time, so I think I will leave the TSO defaults at 4 and raise the JCL defaults to 10. The abending job was sorting a 16 GB DB2 table space, so this will raise the new limit well above that size. I appreciate that you add a few lines of recommandation about the number of sortwk's to the tuning manual. Thanks, Kees. -- 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: RMM scratch tape management
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 09:18:54 +0100, Perryman, Brian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi folks Hopefully Mike Wood will jump in here.. Is it possible to get RMM to specify what volume is used when a scratch tape is requested? We have a virtual tape device (BusTech's 'Mainframe Appliance for Storage'). It pretends to be a bank of sixteen 3490 tape drives. When a tape mount for a scratch volume is requested, this device intercepts the 'PRIVAT' message and picks a volume which it thinks is a scratch volume, and mounts it. This gives me a problem in that I have to keep the MAS scratch list in step with what RMM thinks are scratch (or more importantly, NOT scratch). There is a BusTech utility batch program to do this, running off an RMM scratch report. For each tape in the RMM scratch list, it tells the MAS to scratch the volume. This is working ok most of the time. However there is a slight window of risk. If between the time the report was generated and the time the scratch requests go in, a scratch tape is used to satisfy a mount request, it can get scratched inside the MAS even though the tape is now in use. RMM of course won't know about this. Brian, I found this thread in the archives, we are looking at the BusTech MAS device at the moment. You know the device by now, I saw in a later thread that you were satisfied by the box. Are you still? I am interested in the potential window of risk you mentioned. Did you expirience any problems with this and if so, how did you deal with them? Thanks, Kees. -- 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
