Re: Multiprise 3000 - fatal SE problems - help please!
On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 09:05:51 -0500, Hal Merritt wrote: >My memories are rusty, but I'll try. See below. Even if I'm wrong, I might jog >some (better) brain bones :-) >-Original Message- >From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Mike Ross >Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2010 9:00 PM >To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu >Subject: Multiprise 3000 - fatal SE problems - help please! >2. I'm aware of activation profiles - reset profiles, load profiles >etc. What exactly IS 'activation' with respect to the MP3000 CPC? Is >it correct and normal for the SE to act as if the CPC is powered-off >until a reset profile has been run successfully? > Yes. The CPC is actually sort of a daughter board on the Intel board. The SE needs the profile to understand how to set up the CPC just like other CPU's. Memory allocation, LPARs, I/O subsystem, etc. I seem to remember loading the IOCDS as source via the floppy and running an assembler to create the initial IOCDS. That defined the LPARs, channels, etc. > >3. Restoring from two different tapes 2 years different in age >produces identical results - no trace of the default activation >profiles, and errors which make it impossible to edit activation >profiles. This can't be coincidence, there has to be a massive clue >there? > I agree. You seem to be missing a IOCDS as well as activation profiles. That turns out not to be the case; the IOCDS stuff is in a different part of the SE, and that is all present and correct. There are the usual IOCDS present... single image, multiple LPARs, DIAGNOSE etc. The problem is *activation profiles*, specifically reset profiles, not IOCDS; if I understand correctly the load profile invokes the IOCDS. >6. I can't find it documented anywhere, but is there a procedure to >restore the system to a blank default as-shipped factory configuration >*without* any customer data? Just the default IBM profiles etc.? There >must be such a procedure, but maybe it was only used internally within >IBM? > IIRC, the customer had to supply things like an IOCDS, activation profiles, configure the DASD, and somehow supply an operating system. I was not involved in that initial op sys step. Sure - but it absolutely should have the default IBM-supplied activation profiles, and/or several customer-defined activation profiles, and it doesn't - or they're 'hidden' somehow. I can't supply an activation profile as I get a LIC exception when I try to use the activation profile editor! Mike -- 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: Multiprise 3000 - fatal SE problems - help please!
On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 11:27:36 -0500, Hal Merritt wrote: >How are you logged in? Is the SE in SERVICE mode? If so, try logging in as a >sysprog. > >And, of course, it -is- a PC. Have you rebooted lately? Using the secret red >button? > >-Original Message- >From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Michael Ross >Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 9:21 AM >To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu >Subject: Re: Multiprise 3000 - fatal SE problems - help please! > > > >On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 09:05:51 -0500, Hal Merritt wrote: >..snip > >Sure - but it absolutely should have the default IBM-supplied activation >profiles, and/or >several customer-defined activation profiles, and it doesn't - or they're >'hidden' somehow. >I can't supply an activation profile as I get a LIC exception when I try to >use the activation >profile editor! Logged-in as SYSPROG and SERVICE, rebooted and power-cycled a few dozen times! Mike -- 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: Multiprise 3000 - fatal SE problems - help please!
Harry, some thoughts in line: On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 14:13:30 -0400, Harry Wahl wrote: >You're barking up the wrong tree. Based on what you describe, your software is >fine; >the SBC that runs OS/2 is running; your CPC is working; so I don't think this >is an SE >issue at all. ok... so why is the SE complaining of a LIC error? And why can't I even *see* the activation profiles that should be there? >You don't need an activation profile to use the machine, it's more of a >convenience. You >do need to be able to do a POR, however. After that you can just IPL manually. >If the >CPC wasn't working you would be reading about it in your hardware log. What >you >describe is the SE is unable to issue control commands to the CPC and receive >returned >information. That almost makes sense, except my understanding concerning the need for activation is different from yours. >What seems to be missing is control signalling between the SE and the CPC. The >SE and >the CPC are working and communicating, but control signalling is DOA. Again that almost makes sense... >You probably have a missing, loose or removed signal cable. Some cables inside >IBM >mainframes are not what they seem (actually most), IBM sometimes uses >connectors >that are common in PCs for entirely different purposes. Do not assume, based >on >physical form factor, that you know what a cable or connector is used for. I'm well aware of it; STI cables, for instance, look a lot like SCSI cables! >I'm a design engineer, not a CE so I don't know what cable it would be, but >somewhere >along the backplane where the OS/2 SBC is seated there should be a cable >coming from >another card on the same backplane that runs to the part of the frame where >the CPC >board is. That cable is probably your problem. It's all on the backplane - except for *one* STI cable from the CPC box to the BIDI card, as you describe above. I've checked and re-checked that damn cable. In any case, as I understand it, that's a 'secondary' channel; the primary channel for SBC-CPC comms is direct via the backplane. >If the machine was just moved, the cable may have just come loose. The machine was moved, and pretty much stripped bare as part of the process. It's been reassembled, problems found, disassembled, connectors checked and cleaned with infinite care, and put back together again. I don't *think* it's a hardware problem. This is one of the first trees I barked up :-) I'll give you a call on another matter this PM if I may... Mike -- 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
Oddball question for real old-timers: IBM 2314 / Memorex 660
One for the real old-timers here! I'm restoring a DEC RP02 disk drive - re-badged Memorex 660, IBM 2314 clone. On cleaning it up, I find that the 'basin' - the sheet metal which lines the cavity in which the disk pack spins - is painted with a dark grey paint which is positively sticky - tacky to the touch. I've never encountered this on a disk drive before. Do people think this is just old, deteriorated paint? Or is it possible that it's intended to be sticky - to trap any particulates which elude the HEPA filter? If so, would that have been factory applied, or a customer 'modification' done in the field? Anyone ever found sticky paint on a removable-pack disk drive before? And, while I'm on the subject, I desperately need disk packs for this thing - IBM 2314-compartible, the disk pack was 2316 IIRC. Also badly needed, IBM 3330-1 disk packs for another drive I'm restoring. And while I have your attention, I'll repeat my annual appeal for old IBM hardware - I'm trying to track down S/360, S/370, and S/3 CPUs and peripherals, card reader/punches, DASD (desperate to find 3340s!), Selectric terminals, 3277 terminals, and similar vintage equipment! (this is for my museum, and yes I do find it and get it working - see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBtXLZcY_bM ) Thanks! Mike http://www.corestore.org -- 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
3277 terminals and emulators
Folks, I'm in the process of powering-up my System/3: http://www.corestore.org/3.htm One vital component I don't have is a console terminal. The System/3 uses a 3277 console - specifically, a 3277 Model 1 (yes, the 12 lines x 40 characters one!). So: 1. Does anyone reading this list have one, or have any leads on where one might be found? 2. Failing that, I'm looking for any 3rd party compatible terminals, or device combinations that could add up to 3277-1 compatibility. So far, the only leads I have are that the 3270 card in the XT/370 desktop mainframe machine did 3277 emulation - but I don't know if it supported Model 1 mode. Ditto for the 'Appleline' external 3270 box for early Mac & Lisa machines; again I've heard that supported 3277, but don't know about Model 1 specifically. What about the machine that was marketed as the XT/3270 - did that support 3277 Mod. 1, for instance? Any clues, leads, or suggestions would be most welcome! And, while I'm looking for desperately rare things, I'm also going to need 3340 disk drives at some point... anyone know where those might be found? Who made 100% plug-compatible 3340 clones? Thanks! Mike -- 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: FW: The PSI Letter V4
On Fri, 3 Nov 2006 15:44:14 -, Phil Payne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I was sceptical about Hercules. I got slimed for it, but I was right. Can't let you get away with that, Phil - you were dead wrong. You repeatedly stated that IBM would shut Hercules down, harped on about intellectual property infringement (ignoring IBM's stated position that it wouldn't enforce its patents against open-source projects) - hell at several points I recall you predicting that IBM were going to get a 'cease and desist' against the Hercules programmers - here's part of the post, from you: (from the 'missing redbook chapter' saga in 2002) >Clearing the decks for a 'Cease and Desist'. IBM can hardly issue one if >some of its own >documentation seems to sanction Hercules. It's come a bit late, too - back >in Autumn I posted >that I expected it in mid-February, but I guess lawyers get paid by the >hour. Hercules is very much alive and well, and still costs the same as it did when you were sceptical about it :-) Mike http://www.corestore.org -- 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: The PSI Letter V4
On Sun, 5 Nov 2006 10:30:28 -, Phil Payne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >SABENA? > >There were many "interpretations" of airline names. > >As always on the Internet, someone has a better collection than me. > >http://www.travel-images.com/airline-acronyms.html > >It misses "Back Every Afternoon" for BEA - one I always found apposite. It also misses one of my favourites. The rules that allow airlines to fly long distances over oceans using planes with only two engines are called ETOPS - 'Extended-range Twin-engine Operation Performance Standards'. Some wag suggested it really stood for 'Engines Turning Or Passengers Swimming'... equally apposite. Mike http://www.corestore.org -- 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: 3705 ID Tag
On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 23:17:32 -0400, William Donzelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Would you like me to mail you the id tag ? I also have a 2914 id tag that >> you can have. > >Certainly. > >I am not to familiar - none at all, actually - with the 2914. What is it? As others have said, a channel switch. Pictures on my temporary 360 page: http://www.corestore.org/360.htm Cheers Mike -- 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: Downgrade 9672
At that price it would make more sense to do it yourself! How on earth do IBM arrive at that figure? Or you could buy a used R16 etc. for less money - try ebay! Mike On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 08:44:47 -0400, Larry Kraus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yes, you can pay IBM $5,000 to $10,000 dollars to make it an R16, R26, >etc. > >-Original Message- >Hi Listers, > >> We have an IBM 9672-R56 hardware. Is there any way we can downsize it -- 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: Downgrade 9672
On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 09:35:14 -0500, SArnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I remnember Texas Tech getting a speed "upgrade" to there 370/145 back >in the 70's. It consisted of the CE removing three loops from the 145's >microcode. The price tag for this upgrade? A cool $ 50K! Pretty extortionate... I'm sure there are third-party companies that did/do this kind of thing a hell of a lot cheaper than IBM... Mike -- 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: Downgrade 9672
On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 09:48:13 +0200, R.S. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Phil Steele wrote: >[...] >> I always imagined that IBM's 'Licenced Internal Code' ( not to mentioned Graduated licnening charges, of course!) >> was a way to protect them from any one else being able to undo >>a 'Kneecapped' processor nowadays. Perhaps... but there are people who take that as a challenge! This kind of thing will happen when Linux hackers get hold of mainframes ;-) >I heard about guys, who upgrade 9672 machines. They could enable >remaining CPs as well as memory. >There are customers who don't care, and probably it's not illegal in >some countries. I think I know the same people... I believe it's true, IBM no longer have a monopoly on enabling CPs etc. IBM hate it, but if the customer owns the hardware, there's not a lot they can do about it - so long as the customer pays the correct software charges of course... Similar scenario occured a couple of years ago on AS/400 with a product called 'Fast/400': http://www.itjungle.com/tfh/tfh060302-story03.html Mike -- 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: 3174's
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 14:48:10 -0700, Edward E. Jaffe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Ed Finnell wrote: > >>We gutted all ours in the great downsizing. Kept all the >>memory cards and harddrives for couple of remaining consoles. >>Those 20MB harddrives are $1500 from IBM if you can get them. Might >>find spare 3174s on reseller market and cannibalize them for >>parts. > >Funny you should mention that. Don Oberg from Universal Capital >periodically sends me his current price list on used IBM equipment. >Below is an excerpt from the July 21, 2005 price list. 3174s look to be >dirt cheap! Don Oberg is a good guy - bought an Application StarterPak 3000 from him last year, got great service. Mike http://www.corestore.org -- 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
