Re: CFSIZER?
Well, as of today, Sizer is broken again. I get the MQ errors again. For the health checker structure (which previously gave me a cflevel13 answer) I now get the MQ error, too. A hitmiss tool. Barbara -- 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: CFSIZER?
Responded offline to pursue the problem further. Bill Neiman Parallel Sysplex development, IBM -- 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: CFSIZER?
Barbara, Well, I tried to take it offline but my email came back: If you're only getting the MQ error for certain structures, it may mean that there's a calculation error of some kind in the CFSizer back end, or that the inputs are mutually inconsistent and cause the sizing to fail at the CF. (For most structures, we try to screen inputs on the front end to prevent that, but if you're using the OEM pages there's no such protection.) Please send me the inputs you're using so I can dig into it (nei...@us.ibm.com). Bill Neiman Parallel Sysplex development, IBM -- 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: CFSIZER?
Barbara Nitz nitz-...@gmx.net wrote in message news:listserv%201107050421234610.0...@bama.ua.edu... We're in the process of installing a z196 which will come with cflevel17. We're currently running CFLEVEL15, and I have heard several horror stories about problems with structure sizes on CFLEVEL17. So I went to the CFsizer to get the latest and greatest in sizes. Or so I thought. The sizes given to me are all SMALLER than what we have currently defined (signalling structures and ISGLOCK). RRS, where we had failures last times because the structures were too small, consistently gives me ERROR MESSAGE: MQCLNT RECEIVERESPONSE: AN MQ EXCEPTION OCCURED EXECUTING CFSIZERRCVQUEUE.GET( MQMSG, DEFAULTGMO) COM.IBM.MQ.MQEXCEPTION: MQJE001: COMPLETION CODE '2', REASON '2033'.MQJE001: COMPLETION CODE '2', REASON '2033'. Very informative. (The MQGET reason code means 'Message not available'.) The health checker structure size comes back from a CFLEVEL13 CF ?!? System automation isn't even available in the CFsizer. Neither is Websphere for the WAS error log. In essence, I cannot rely on what the sizer tells me. What are the experiences of others who migrated from CFLEVEL15 to CFLEVEL17? Were the structures getting bigger? Is the sizer giving out values for RRS structures to anyone or is everybody receiving the above error? Is anyone able to get HC sizes for CFLEVEL17? I did notice that one of the error messages gets me a different web page on the left (where I choose structures). My (saved) link is http://www-947.ibm.com/systems/support/z/cfsizer/. Regards, Barbara In the Parallel Sysplex Update presentations I found: - from CF15 to CF16: 5-10% growth of structure sizes. - from CF16 to CF17: CFCC storage grows from 128MB to 512MB. 0-4% growth of sturcture sizes. Kees. For information, services and offers, please visit our web site: http://www.klm.com. This e-mail and any attachment may contain confidential and privileged material intended for the addressee only. If you are not the addressee, you are notified that no part of the e-mail or any attachment may be disclosed, copied or distributed, and that any other action related to this e-mail or attachment is strictly prohibited, and may be unlawful. If you have received this e-mail by error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, and delete this message. Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV (KLM), its subsidiaries and/or its employees shall not be liable for the incorrect or incomplete transmission of this e-mail or any attachments, nor responsible for any delay in receipt. Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij N.V. (also known as KLM Royal Dutch Airlines) is registered in Amstelveen, The Netherlands, with registered number 33014286 -- 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: CFSIZER?
Well, I tried to take it offline but my email came back: I send Bill an email (from an ID that doesn't reject everyone) with what I used. Barbara -- 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: CFSIZER?
As of this morning, Bill has managed to fix the sizer (or have it fixed). Using the url http://www.ibm.com/systems/support/z/cfsizer/, which immediately changes to the one I *had* been using (http://www-947.ibm.com/systems/support/z/cfsizer/), I now get results from the sizer, both for RRS and for the health checker structure, and at the correct cflevel, to boot. Even the OEM structures come back with cflevel17 results. My deepest appreciation to Bill for helping out here! Best regards, Barbara -- 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: CFSIZER?
Barbara, CFSizer requests are fielded by a CF at the IBM Poughkeepsie site. I suspect that you submitted your sizing requests during a period in which that CF and its containing sysplex were down for the July 4th holiday. The MQ messages simply mean that your sizing request didn't get through, and the CFLEVEL 13 output is a meaningless default. Please try your sizing requests again. If you don't get meaningful results, you may email me with your exact input and I can run the calculations for you on a test plex. We are aware that there are a number of structures that are not represented in CFSizer. CFSizer is maintained on a not-to-interfere best-effort basis, and in the current climate, there are no resources for implementing support for new structures. I suggest that you open a marketing requirement to request support for the structures you need. Two years ago, we were able to get a development line item approved for CFSizer and make up some ground. If enough people ask, in a formal quantifiable way, maybe we can do it again. Bill Neiman Parallel Sysplex development, IBM -- 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: CFSIZER?
Also ran into that here since we also followed the big bang theory while replacing two z9's with one z196. CFSIZER is ok if taken tongue-in-cheek, but some warning about CFLEVEL code size should be available somewhere. Wait state since GRS wouldn't come up due to not enough storage left in the CFs to allocate its structure. Doubled the size of the CF storage and all was well - but that was after trying various other things first since I had no warning of the code size increase. On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 5:55 AM, Mark Zelden m...@mzelden.com wrote: On Tue, 5 Jul 2011 11:48:37 +0200, mario@tiscali mbe...@tiscali.it wrote: Also, when moving to CFLEVEL17 don't forget that the size of the CF Control Code itself increases significantly. From some 100 MB to some 500 MB if I remember correctly. The CFCC LPAR memory definition should be updated to accomodate this. This is the one that bothered me - only because it was a surprise. I couldn't find anything written that told me it was normal nor was it mentioned in any of the z196 pre-install meetings that my client had. It took me a while to get confirmation from a large systems specialist within IBM that it was expected. He passed along this information from a colleague: the growth of the image is do to many enhancements in function and recovery in the CFCC 17 code. CFCC 17 on z196 has added some function and added enhanced recovery of the CF code. The number of supported structures was increased from 1023 to 2047 structures, the number of logical connection to a structure was increased, and the recovery was enhanced to improve nondisruptive MCL activation to maintain code levels and the ability to take nondisruptive CF dumps. CFCC recovery code has been added to take nondisruptive dumps of the CF and signal all connected images with a CRW machine check to invoke sysplex wide SVC and nondisruptive CF dumps for some CF recovery events to gather problem data. Mark -- Mark Zelden - Zelden Consulting Services - z/OS, OS/390 and MVS mailto:m...@mzelden.com Mark's MVS Utilities: http://www.mzelden.com/mvsutil.html Systems Programming expert at http://expertanswercenter.techtarget.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 -- 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: CFSIZER?
I agree that it should have been written in z196 redbooks too although I know it is written in SAPR guide of z196 Release Version 4 (October 2010). I don't know how many other customers know this before upgrading.But as expected, it is good that this information was mentioned in some sessions at SHARE and also it seems like IBM added this information to z196 pr/sm guide with update level 00a. It was not there when it was first published. - According to documents/sessions the old image size was 128 MB.Thinking 20-25 GB of size for some users,this difference may not be that much but for some customers with storage constrains, the difference maybe important, as one example which is mentioned here. Pr/sm Level 00a, it is now written in as below Important Note CF structures allocated in a CFLEVEL 17 coupling facility might need to be significantly larger than in previous CFLEVELs, in order to be allocated with a similar number of usable structure objects. It is highly recommended to use the CFSIZER tool: http://www.ibm.com/systems/support/z/cfsizer/. In addition to the potential structure size changes mentioned in this note, the CFCC Licensed Internal Code (LIC) for CFLEVEL 17 requires a minimum of 512 MB of central storage in order to activate. The increase in the minimum storage amount is required to accommodate the CFLEVEL 17 enhancements. Failure to define enough central storage will prevent the CFCC image from activating. Best Regards Meral -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Dick Bond Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2011 8:52 PM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: Re: [IBM-MAIN] CFSIZER? Also ran into that here since we also followed the big bang theory while replacing two z9's with one z196. CFSIZER is ok if taken tongue-in-cheek, but some warning about CFLEVEL code size should be available somewhere. Wait state since GRS wouldn't come up due to not enough storage left in the CFs to allocate its structure. Doubled the size of the CF storage and all was well - but that was after trying various other things first since I had no warning of the code size increase. On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 5:55 AM, Mark Zelden m...@mzelden.com wrote: On Tue, 5 Jul 2011 11:48:37 +0200, mario@tiscali mbe...@tiscali.it wrote: Also, when moving to CFLEVEL17 don't forget that the size of the CF Control Code itself increases significantly. From some 100 MB to some 500 MB if I remember correctly. The CFCC LPAR memory definition should be updated to accomodate this. This is the one that bothered me - only because it was a surprise. I couldn't find anything written that told me it was normal nor was it mentioned in any of the z196 pre-install meetings that my client had. It took me a while to get confirmation from a large systems specialist within IBM that it was expected. He passed along this information from a colleague: the growth of the image is do to many enhancements in function and recovery in the CFCC 17 code. CFCC 17 on z196 has added some function and added enhanced recovery of the CF code. The number of supported structures was increased from 1023 to 2047 structures, the number of logical connection to a structure was increased, and the recovery was enhanced to improve nondisruptive MCL activation to maintain code levels and the ability to take nondisruptive CF dumps. CFCC recovery code has been added to take nondisruptive dumps of the CF and signal all connected images with a CRW machine check to invoke sysplex wide SVC and nondisruptive CF dumps for some CF recovery events to gather problem data. Mark -- Mark Zelden - Zelden Consulting Services - z/OS, OS/390 and MVS mailto:m...@mzelden.com Mark's MVS Utilities: http://www.mzelden.com/mvsutil.html Systems Programming expert at http://expertanswercenter.techtarget.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 -- 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 and attachments are confidential and intended solely for the individual(s) stated in this message. If you received this message although you are not the addressee, you are responsible to keep the message confidential. The sender has no responsibility for the accuracy or correctness of the information in the message and its attachments. Our company shall have no liability for any changes or late receiving, loss of integrity and confidentiality, viruses and any damages caused in anyway to your computer system.
Re: CFSIZER?
On Wed, 6 Jul 2011 18:12:30 +, Meral Temel (Garanti Teknoloji) mer...@garanti.com.tr wrote: Pr/sm Level 00a, it is now written in as below Important Note CF structures allocated in a CFLEVEL 17 coupling facility might need to be significantly larger than in previous CFLEVELs, in order to be allocated with a similar number of usable structure objects. It is highly recommended to use the CFSIZER tool: http://www.ibm.com/systems/support/z/cfsizer/. In addition to the potential structure size changes mentioned in this note, the CFCC Licensed Internal Code (LIC) for CFLEVEL 17 requires a minimum of 512 MB of central storage in order to activate. The increase in the minimum storage amount is required to accommodate the CFLEVEL 17 enhancements. Failure to define enough central storage will prevent the CFCC image from activating. That's good to know. I hope it was specifically added to the installation checklist to go over with the client also. My sandbox CFs only had 512MB. They did activate, but that was about it. :-) Mark -- Mark Zelden - Zelden Consulting Services - z/OS, OS/390 and MVS mailto:m...@mzelden.com Mark's MVS Utilities: http://www.mzelden.com/mvsutil.html Systems Programming expert at http://expertanswercenter.techtarget.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: CFSIZER?
Bill, CFSizer requests are fielded by a CF at the IBM Poughkeepsie site. I suspect that you submitted your sizing requests during a period in which that CF and its containing sysplex were down for the July 4th holiday. The MQ messages simply mean that your sizing request didn't get through, and the CFLEVEL 13 output is a meaningless default. Well, this morning I still get CFLEVEL13 defaults and the MQ error, so it could not have been the 4th of July! :-) Besides, for the signalling structures I did get CFLEVEL17 results (same for ISGLOCK), but they appear awfully small considering that CFLEVEL16 (which we're going to jump over) had definite increases in size. Or so I have been told by people who went through this. Please try your sizing requests again. If you don't get meaningful results, you may email me with your exact input and I can run the calculations for you on a test plex. Thanks for your offer! I'll probably not take you up on it, though. I'll just double the RRS structure sizes, given that we *have* been warned about the very much bigger microcode per CF, which is my justification for 3GB per CF instead of 2. The rest of the structures can take care of themselves, they're not really important. Besides, almost always I use the defaults specified since I have no clue what the actual values would be, and only adjust number of systems down to what we have. (Exception are signalling structures - I know what to specify there!) We are aware that there are a number of structures that are not represented in CFSizer. CFSizer is maintained on a not-to-interfere best-effort basis, and in the current climate, there are no resources for implementing support for new structures. Somehow I am not surprised! I suggest that you open a marketing requirement to request support for the structures you need. Two years ago, we were able to get a development line item approved for CFSizer and make up some ground. If enough people ask, in a formal quantifiable way, maybe we can do it again. I know. The problem is that every time I have to use the sizer something doesn't work (and I complain here). And I resent IBM software support that try to make using the sizer a *requirement* and if your numbers don't match, they refuse to even look at things saying you didn't use the tool. In light of what you just said above that's hard to digest (I am NOT picking on you, Bill!) I was going to say that one can use the OEM part of the sizer and look through all the criteria (how many of IBMs customers actually know what adjunct data on a list structure are :-) ), but the result I get there is also from CFLEVEL13 and hence meaningless. I guess next time IBM refuses to look at my problem and cites the sizer, I'll refer them to this thread. (Again, I am NOT picking on you, Bill, so please don't feel bad personally.) Best regards, Barbara -- 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: CFSIZER?
Barbara, not to escape your question about CFSIZER, but if you are migrating from one CF to the other, meaning there will be a timeframe when both of them are online, then moving the structures through rebuild (or better REALLOCATE) will manage this for you. During rebuild structures are allocated by count which means that the CFLEVEL17 structure will be allocated large enough to contain the same number of objects currently contained by the CLEVEL15 one. Checking the actual CFLEVEL17 size and updating the CFRM policy accordingly will complete the job. Also, when moving to CFLEVEL17 don't forget that the size of the CF Control Code itself increases significantly. From some 100 MB to some 500 MB if I remember correctly. The CFCC LPAR memory definition should be updated to accomodate this. Hope this helps, mario On 05-Jul-11 11:21 AM, Barbara Nitz wrote: We're in the process of installing a z196 which will come with cflevel17. We're currently running CFLEVEL15, and I have heard several horror stories about problems with structure sizes on CFLEVEL17. So I went to the CFsizer to get the latest and greatest in sizes. Or so I thought. The sizes given to me are all SMALLER than what we have currently defined (signalling structures and ISGLOCK). RRS, where we had failures last times because the structures were too small, consistently gives me ERROR MESSAGE: MQCLNT RECEIVERESPONSE: AN MQ EXCEPTION OCCURED EXECUTING CFSIZERRCVQUEUE.GET( MQMSG, DEFAULTGMO) COM.IBM.MQ.MQEXCEPTION: MQJE001: COMPLETION CODE '2', REASON '2033'.MQJE001: COMPLETION CODE '2', REASON '2033'. Very informative. (The MQGET reason code means 'Message not available'.) The health checker structure size comes back from a CFLEVEL13 CF ?!? System automation isn't even available in the CFsizer. Neither is Websphere for the WAS error log. In essence, I cannot rely on what the sizer tells me. What are the experiences of others who migrated from CFLEVEL15 to CFLEVEL17? Were the structures getting bigger? Is the sizer giving out values for RRS structures to anyone or is everybody receiving the above error? Is anyone able to get HC sizes for CFLEVEL17? I did notice that one of the error messages gets me a different web page on the left (where I choose structures). My (saved) link is http://www-947.ibm.com/systems/support/z/cfsizer/. Regards, Barbara -- 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: CFSIZER?
not to escape your question about CFSIZER, but if you are migrating from one CF to the other, meaning there will be a timeframe when both of them are online, then moving the structures through rebuild (or better REALLOCATE) will manage this for you. Irrelevant here. The migration will be a 'big bang' thing - take everything down on the old box and bring it up on the new one. We will NOT be able to use any type of rebuild. Barbara -- 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: CFSIZER?
On Tue, 5 Jul 2011 11:48:37 +0200, mario@tiscali mbe...@tiscali.it wrote: Also, when moving to CFLEVEL17 don't forget that the size of the CF Control Code itself increases significantly. From some 100 MB to some 500 MB if I remember correctly. The CFCC LPAR memory definition should be updated to accomodate this. This is the one that bothered me - only because it was a surprise. I couldn't find anything written that told me it was normal nor was it mentioned in any of the z196 pre-install meetings that my client had. It took me a while to get confirmation from a large systems specialist within IBM that it was expected. He passed along this information from a colleague: the growth of the image is do to many enhancements in function and recovery in the CFCC 17 code. CFCC 17 on z196 has added some function and added enhanced recovery of the CF code. The number of supported structures was increased from 1023 to 2047 structures, the number of logical connection to a structure was increased, and the recovery was enhanced to improve nondisruptive MCL activation to maintain code levels and the ability to take nondisruptive CF dumps. CFCC recovery code has been added to take nondisruptive dumps of the CF and signal all connected images with a CRW machine check to invoke sysplex wide SVC and nondisruptive CF dumps for some CF recovery events to gather problem data. Mark -- Mark Zelden - Zelden Consulting Services - z/OS, OS/390 and MVS mailto:m...@mzelden.com Mark's MVS Utilities: http://www.mzelden.com/mvsutil.html Systems Programming expert at http://expertanswercenter.techtarget.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: CFSizer
To close the loop: CFSizer has been updated to accept 8-digit lock number values for structures that require that input. Bill Neiman XCF Development -- 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: CFSizer
On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 07:10:47 +0100, Barbara Nitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: before I take this offline, let me say this: Last time I checked structure sizes (back in September last year), the location of the sizer was somewhere else (it also looked different), so in the first place, I had a hard time finding the actual input screens. I did check to see if there was a feedback page somewhere, but didn't see any. (Must have looked in the wrong place). For those who haven't already discovered this, the CFSizer URL recently changed to http://www.ibm.com/systems/z/cfsizer. If you use the old URL (http://www.ibm.com/servers/eservers/zseries/cfsizer), you will be redirected to the new page. Bill Neiman XCF Development -- 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: CFSizer
Barbara et al, I am still the owner of CFSizer and I'll take a look at this problem. It should be easy enough to get it to accept larger numbers of locks for the various structures that ask for that input. It will be a somewhat bigger piece of work to get the OEM Lock structure sizing working. That was never implemented properly, so some invention will be required there. I can't promise that one any time soon. At the bottom of the CFSizer welcome page, there is an email link you can use to submit questions or report problems. The link will send your mail to the administrative owner of the tool, who will then forward it to me. Or you may contact me directly, whichever you like. It is true that CFSizer is not formally supported, but at the same time we recognize how widely used it is and that there are few if any other means for estimating structure sizes. We take reports of problems and requests for enhancements seriously, although we cannot always be as responsive as we and you would like because of the best-effort status of the tool. Lastly, I think it would be nice if people reporting problems could refrain from inflammatory and unjustified phrases such as completely useless. That kind of language tends to wound my delicate feelings, and it won't help your case when I'm trying to prioritize your request. Bill Neiman XCF Development -- 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: CFSizer
Bill Neiman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Barbara et al, I am still the owner of CFSizer and I'll take a look at this problem. It should be easy enough to get it to accept larger numbers of locks for the various structures that ask for that input. It will be a somewhat bigger piece of work to get the OEM Lock structure sizing working. That was never implemented properly, so some invention will be required there. I can't promise that one any time soon. At the bottom of the CFSizer welcome page, there is an email link you can use to submit questions or report problems. The link will send your mail to the administrative owner of the tool, who will then forward it to me. Or you may contact me directly, whichever you like. It is true that CFSizer is not formally supported, but at the same time we recognize how widely used it is and that there are few if any other means for estimating structure sizes. We take reports of problems and requests for enhancements seriously, although we cannot always be as responsive as we and you would like because of the best-effort status of the tool. Lastly, I think it would be nice if people reporting problems could refrain from inflammatory and unjustified phrases such as completely useless. That kind of language tends to wound my delicate feelings, and it won't help your case when I'm trying to prioritize your request. Bill Neiman XCF Development Bill, I must appologize for my reaction: I rushed trhough the page, found the disclaimer, which lead to my reaction, but missed the last line with the mailaddress. This is the least I expected to be present, and I am happy to find that it really is there. Kees. ** For information, services and offers, please visit our web site: http://www.klm.com. This e-mail and any attachment may contain confidential and privileged material intended for the addressee only. If you are not the addressee, you are notified that no part of the e-mail or any attachment may be disclosed, copied or distributed, and that any other action related to this e-mail or attachment is strictly prohibited, and may be unlawful. If you have received this e-mail by error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, and delete this message. Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV (KLM), its subsidiaries and/or its employees shall not be liable for the incorrect or incomplete transmission of this e-mail or any attachments, nor responsible for any delay in receipt. Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij N.V. (also known as KLM Royal Dutch Airlines) is registered in Amstelveen, The Netherlands, with registered number 33014286 ** -- 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: CFSizer
Bill, before I take this offline, let me say this: Last time I checked structure sizes (back in September last year), the location of the sizer was somewhere else (it also looked different), so in the first place, I had a hard time finding the actual input screens. I did check to see if there was a feedback page somewhere, but didn't see any. (Must have looked in the wrong place). As for delicate feelings, believe me, when my collegues told me 'it is *still* completely useless', mine were wounded, too, because if they can't use it, why the h... didn't they tell me earlier so I could do something about it? :-( That definitely wasn't meant as a slur against the sizer! I apologizr if it came across as such! Best regards, Barbara -- Ist Ihr Browser Vista-kompatibel? Jetzt die neuesten Browser-Versionen downloaden: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/browser -- 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: CFSizer
Barbara Nitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... In preparation of driver67L which for us includes changing to CFLevel15 we also checked structure sizes (again). I was informed for the first time that the sizer is completely useless, as it only accepts 9 locks for the IRLM structures (IMS and DB2), and in our installation, a single program can hold 15 locks concurrently. Whom would I contact to report this? Regards, Barbara Nitz You know if you read the disclaimer: SET FORTH BELOW ARE IMPORTANT TERMS REGARDING THE AGREEMENT FOR AS IS USE OF System z COUPLING FACILITY SIZER TOOL. YOU MUST READ THESE TERMS BEFORE USING THIS TOOL. ANY USE INDICATES YOUR ACCEPTANCE OF THESE TERMS. This is the category of freeware internet toolz, warez etc. etc. If they work, they work, if they don't you have bad luck. The price/performance ratio also prevents you from complaining. This is the new IT world where cellphones, ipods etc. have such a short lifecycle that it is not worth while to set up a support organization. Kees. ** For information, services and offers, please visit our web site: http://www.klm.com. This e-mail and any attachment may contain confidential and privileged material intended for the addressee only. If you are not the addressee, you are notified that no part of the e-mail or any attachment may be disclosed, copied or distributed, and that any other action related to this e-mail or attachment is strictly prohibited, and may be unlawful. If you have received this e-mail by error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, and delete this message. Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV (KLM), its subsidiaries and/or its employees shall not be liable for the incorrect or incomplete transmission of this e-mail or any attachments, nor responsible for any delay in receipt. Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij N.V. (also known as KLM Royal Dutch Airlines) is registered in Amstelveen, The Netherlands, with registered number 33014286 ** -- 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: CFSizer
Kees, come on! :-) This is the category of freeware internet toolz, warez etc. etc. If they work, they work, if they don't you have bad luck. The price/performance ratio also prevents you from complaining. This is the new IT world where cellphones, ipods etc. have such a short lifecycle that it is not worth while to set up a support organization. Yes, you're competely right. There is no defined support structure for the tool. The last time I loudly complained here about the sizer (which was a few years back) Bill Neiman of XCF development came forward and looked at the problem and fixed it. I am hoping he will do so again, and we can take this offline then. But given that a lot of IBMers don't monitor ibm-main anymore, I didn't want to just sent him an email about this. And if he doesn't respond, maybe another IBMer will contact someone *in the know*, so that we can all get this fixed. The thing is, when I tried the OEM Lock structure with my 15 locks, I go an 'unexpected MQ error' or some such thing, and that OEM Lock structure allows more than 6 digits as input So I am really out of luck Best regards, Barbara -- Pt! Schon vom neuen GMX MultiMessenger gehört? Der kann`s mit allen: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/multimessenger?did=10 -- 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: CFSizer
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 Barbara Nitz wrote: Yes, you're competely right. There is no defined support structure for the tool. The last time I loudly complained here about the sizer (which was a few years back) Bill Neiman of XCF development came forward and looked at the problem and fixed it. I am hoping he will do so again, and we can take this offline then. Although I can no longer comment on how IBM might respond to your post on IBM-MAIN about the CFSIZER, I will offer the following observation: 1) CFLEVEL 15 will have some impact on the size of some number (if not all) the structures in your coupling facilities. 2) It is possible that the change in the size can impact your availability position (e.g. you no longer have sufficient 'white space' for a successful failover if a CF fails). It may even be true that the migration may *fail* or result in an outage if you cannot allocate all of the structures in a CFLEVEL 15 CF (because the required increase in structure size overtakes the now smaller 'white space'). 3) It *should be* in IBM's best interests to provide you with appropriate capacity planning information for this migration, a failure or outage during the migration or after, because you were inappropriately prepared will, probably escalate quickly to a *crit-sit*. 4) It *should be* incumbent on you, as a systems programming professional, to point out these risks to your management, as well as to the vendor, and request that appropriate mitigation be made available to you. Scott Fagen Enterprise Systems Management -- 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: CFSizer
Not to comment on any reply in particular but rather to state the obvious:-)... I always say the estimates from CFSizer are a STARTING point. For example GBPs AREN'T going to be sized well from CFSizer. But this DOESN'T detract from Barbara's problem with CFSizer. Sorry to get disclaimery but I'm NOT the owner of CFSizer, just someone who has a foil on it in a presentation of his. :-) Martin Martin Packer Performance Consultant IBM United Kingdom Ltd +44-20-8832-5167 +44-7802-245-584 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unless stated otherwise above: IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU -- 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: CFSizer
On Jan 16, 2008, at 5:28 AM, Barbara Nitz wrote: ---SNIP The thing is, when I tried the OEM Lock structure with my 15 locks, I go an 'unexpected MQ error' or some such thing, and that OEM Lock structure allows more than 6 digits as input So I am really out of luck Best regards, Barbara -- Barbara, I know this doesn't answer your question but you might try your sales rep (IBM) and see if he can't get in contact with the the right people. Most sales reps here in the US are probably useless for this. I would bet that the european sales people at least know where to start. Ed -- 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
