Re: the Z/10 and timers.
On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 14:16:39 +0900, Timothy Sipples wrote: UNIVAC 1108: There was an 1108 II model (a.k.a. 1108A) introduced in August, 1965, which was the machine available with multiple CPUs. Wikipedia says 296 of the 1108s (uniprocessor and multiprocessor) were sold, so this was a reasonably popular machine for its time. I don't know how many of any other machines were sold, but I'd think that 296 machines sold in that time frame would have made the 1108 a *very* popular machine. -- Tom Marchant -- 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: the Z/10 and timers.
Tom Marchant wrote: On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 14:16:39 +0900, Timothy Sipples wrote: UNIVAC 1108: There was an 1108 II model (a.k.a. 1108A) introduced in August, 1965, which was the machine available with multiple CPUs. Wikipedia says 296 of the 1108s (uniprocessor and multiprocessor) were sold, so this was a reasonably popular machine for its time. I don't know how many of any other machines were sold, but I'd think that 296 machines sold in that time frame would have made the 1108 a *very* popular machine. IIRC, the Univac 1110 was also a multiprocessor as well. It cost me a good university job. -- 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: the Z/10 and timers.
Shmuel Metz writes: S/370? Multiprocessing on mainframes goes back at least to the late 1950's, and was common even before the S/360 was announced. Bendix, Burroughs, General Electric and UNIVAC come to mind, but there were no doubt others. What were they smoking? In fairness, I don't think they (the original poster's foil) were talking about multiprocessing in the multitasking sense (sharing one CPU). I think they were talking about hardware designs, specifically Symmetric Multiprocessing (SMP) hardware designs. At least, that's what the mention of two 80386 CPUs on the same motherboard suggests. And it's a little tough to pin down when SMP began, because engineers are going to quibble about the definition and exact characteristics that qualify. However, some notable systems include a version of the System/360 Model 65 (with dual processors -- I've seen this referred to as the M65MP), and this option carried into the Model 67. The Model 65 started shipping in November, 1965, although I'm not sure exactly when the M65MP variant shipped, and I don't know much about it. Probably not much later, if at all, since the Model 67 shipped in August, 1966. But for the vast majority of customers dual (or more) CPUs in a single machine weren't typical until System/370. The M65MP wasn't first, though. The Burroughs D825, a military computer [a.k.a. the Naval Research Laboratory's AN/GYK-3(V)], gets a lot of recognition as the first (hardware) multiprocessing computer, and this machine started shipping in August, 1962, and was operational in November that year. (UNIVAC LARCs had some design provision for multi-CPUs but never shipped that way.) The D825 could have up to 4 CPUs, and there was a crossbar switch to queue memory requests to the shared memory modules (up to 16). The operating system, AOSP (Automatic Operating and Scheduling Program), allowed a program to have multiple processes executing in parallel on the separate CPUs. [Reference here: http://www.cc.gatech.edu/gvu/people/randy.carpenter/folklore/v3n1.html] All the above was way, way before my time. Before my parents met, etc. Hopefully someone else can fill in the details for those curious. I think it's fair to note that nothing has really changed in all those years about the utility of multi-CPU (now even multi-core) designs. The software elements are still critical, and in some sense SMP concedes defeat when you're out of engineering tricks to make a single core run faster. For example, if you have 4 CPUs each rated at 2 MIPS, that's not going to be as business-attractive as a single CPU running at 8 MIPS, ceteris paribus. (The former machine can never run a single task any faster than 2 MIPS, and sometimes you're just plain single task bound.) I guess there's a slight argument that hardware separation of tasks might be useful when other design elements (such as interrupt processing and operating system support for multiprocessing) are weak. Very slight, perhaps vanishingly so, especially nowadays and in the context of PR/SM. Underlying physical hardware separation is now used for things like zAAPs, zIIPs, and IFLs (i.e. for licensing reasons). Fast forward to 2009. Sun, in particular, talks about how wonderful it is they've got a single CPU die with higher core counts. Well, of course: they had to move in that direction earlier than other vendors because SPARC hit a wall long ago. Adding all those cores is only partial compensation, and increasingly less and less compensation. An UltraSPARC T2 CPU chip, for example, has 8 cores but each maxes out at 1.4 GHz. As another example, have you noticed that the Intel CPU inside your PC (or Mac) has been stuck on 2.x GHz (or occasionally 3.x in a desktop) for a long, long time now -- and that now Intel is pushing quad-core CPUs down into even notebook computers? That's more evidence of reaching that brick wall. Every CPU vendor is struggling with that, but some reached the wall earlier (and harder) than others. - - - - - Timothy Sipples IBM Consulting Enterprise Software Architect Based in Tokyo, Serving IBM Japan / Asia-Pacific E-Mail: timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.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: the Z/10 and timers.
The following message is a courtesy copy of an article that has been posted to bit.listserv.ibm-main,alt.folklore.computers as well. timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com (Timothy Sipples) writes: And it's a little tough to pin down when SMP began, because engineers are going to quibble about the definition and exact characteristics that qualify. However, some notable systems include a version of the System/360 Model 65 (with dual processors -- I've seen this referred to as the M65MP), and this option carried into the Model 67. The Model 65 started shipping in November, 1965, although I'm not sure exactly when the M65MP variant shipped, and I don't know much about it. Probably not much later, if at all, since the Model 67 shipped in August, 1966. 360/67 uniprocessor was very much a 360/65 uniprocessor with address relocation (virtual memory) hardware added (with virtual memory mode providing for both 24-bit and 32-bit virtual addressing). 360/67 multiprocessor was much more complex than 360/65 multiprocessor. 360/65 multiprocessor had processors sharing all the same memory ... but each processor had its own private channels. To simulate a multiprocessor I/O configuration ... multi-channel controllers were used ... with the channels from the different processors connecting into shared controllers (usually with the same address configuration). 360/67 multiprocessor had a lot more to it, including a channel controller box ... and in multiprocessor operation ... all processors addressed all channels. part of the control registers were used to address the switch settings in the channel controller (which controlled the configuration of the channels as well as the memory banks). In at least one three-way 360/67 multiprocessor shipped, the control registers were not only used to sense the channel controller switch settings ... but were also able to change the hardware configuration settings. Originally there was 360/60 (and 360/70) with slower memory ... and a model with virtual memory added. I remember seeing an early virtual memory reference manual describing standard multiprocessor architecture was for 4-way (which was reflected in the control register and channel control description). All the processors were renumbered when 750mic memory replaced the slower speed memory. Howerver, I don't anything about 360/65 multiprocessor was for anything other than two-way. copy of the 360/67 function characteristics (including description of the channel controller box, control register values, etc) http://bitsavers.org/pdf/ibm/360/funcChar/GA27-2719-2_360-67_funcChar.pdf the corporate official operating system for the 360/67 was tss/360 ... directory with various TSS/360 documents: http://bitsavers.org/pdf/ibm/360/tss/ some amount of 360/67 features weren't seen again until 370xa. the science center had started a project to do a virtual machine implementation ... and first attempted to get a 360/50 to modify with virtual memory hardware ... but because so many 360/50s were going to the FAA air traffic control project ... had to settle for a 360/40. this was used to develop cp/40. when the science center was able to obtain a 360/67, cp/40 morphed into cp/67. ... directory with at least one manual: http://bitsavers.org/pdf/ibm/360/cp67/ cp67 was very much a skunk works project ... with numerous corporate attempts from various quarters, at various times, to periodically terminate it. slightly related recent post http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009.html#6 mvs preemption dispatcher lots of the early 360/67 lore can be found in Melinda's VM history document ... a number of versions in various formats can be found here: http://www.princeton.edu/~melinda os/360 mp/65 smp implementation basically had a single global system spin-lock ... applications could run concurrently on both processors, but at entry to the supervisor ... TESTSET instruction was used in attempt to obtain the global lock. If the other processor had the lock, it would just branch back to TESTSET and repeat the operation until the other processor released the lock (basically only a single processor executing in the supervisor at a time). charlie was doing fine-grain multiprocessor locking work on cp67 at the science center ... lots of past post mentioning science center http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#545tech when he invented the compareswap instruction (chosen because CAS are charlie's initials) ... lots of past posts mentioning SMP and/or compareswap http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#smp there was then discussions with the 370 hardware architecture group to have them include compareswap instruction ... however it was initially rejected ... with the comment that the favorite son operating system people saw no need for anything more than the testset instruction (see above comment about global system spin-lock). The architecture group said that in order to justify compareswap instruction for 370 ... other than SMP system lock use
Re: the Z/10 and timers.
2009/1/7 Anne Lynn Wheeler l...@garlic.com: Howerver, I don't anything about 360/65 multiprocessor was for anything other than two-way. In particular, the 65MP did not have a programmable prefix register to relocate low storage for each CPU the way S/370 and later do. Rather, the prefixing was either ON or OFF for each CPU, and controlled by a front panel switch. If OFF, references to the low 4KB of storage went to the low 4KB; if ON, they went to the high 4KB of installed storage. So this would make life difficult for more than two CPUs. Tony H. -- 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: the Z/10 and timers.
The following message is a courtesy copy of an article that has been posted to bit.listserv.ibm-main,alt.folklore.computers as well. tz...@attglobal.net (Tony Harminc) writes: In particular, the 65MP did not have a programmable prefix register to relocate low storage for each CPU the way S/370 and later do. Rather, the prefixing was either ON or OFF for each CPU, and controlled by a front panel switch. If OFF, references to the low 4KB of storage went to the low 4KB; if ON, they went to the high 4KB of installed storage. So this would make life difficult for more than two CPUs. re: http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009.html#28 the Z/10 and timers. 360/67 smp had a programmable prefix register similar to 370 (reference the 360/67 functional specification mentioned in previous post) ... i.e. references to real page zero were remapped to the page address in the prefix register ... as a result ... each processor could have its own, unique page zero (when otherwise all other addresses on all processors mapped to the same storage locations). for 370 smp prefix register, reverse mapping was added ... i.e. references to the real page address (specified in the prefix register) were mapped back to the common page zero. -- 40+yrs virtualization experience (since Jan68), online at home since Mar70 -- 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: the Z/10 and timers.
In of76e979ec.2cbf127e-on49257537.00278b0f-49257537.002cf...@us.ibm.com, on 01/07/2009 at 05:10 PM, Timothy Sipples timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com said: In fairness, I don't think they (the original poster's foil) were talking about multiprocessing in the multitasking sense (sharing one CPU). Nor was I. I think they were talking about hardware designs, Yes, like those marketed by the companies I listed, all[1] of whom had commercially marketed tightly coupled systems before S/360. And it's a little tough to pin down when SMP began, because engineers are going to quibble about the definition and exact characteristics that qualify. I'm not aware of any definition that would exclude, e.g., Bendix G21, Burroughs B5000, GE 625, UNIVAC 1108. However, some notable systems include a version of the System/360 Model 65 (with dual processors -- I've seen this referred to as the M65MP), and this option carried into the Model 67. The 2067 was a somewhat different and, IMHO, better SMP design, although the CPU was almost identical. But for the vast majority of customers dual (or more) CPUs in a single machine weren't typical until System/370. For IBM customers; I don't believe that to be true for Burroughs[2], General Honey B.U.L.L. or UNIVAC. [1] I'm only aware of one Bendix G21, so I'm not sure whether it counts as commercially marketed. [2] At least on their B5x00 and B6500/... lines -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT ISO position; see http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html 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: the Z/10 and timers.
I was just pointing out that multi-CPU machines don't seem to go back as far as the 1950s, much less exploitation of those multiple CPUs in any meaningful ways. Here are the dates I can find on the various machines you list: Bendix G21: The G20 was introduced in February, 1961, so the G21 had to come after that. (And after the D825, which was delivered in August, 1962, since that machine is widely credited as first.) Bendix sold out to CDC sometime in 1963, so the G21 might have had a CDC badge (more or less) by the time it was delivered. (CDC kept producing the G15s for a few years.) The Carnegie Institute of Technology, one of the predecessors of Carnegie-Mellon University, might have been the sole G21 customer. The G21 had 2 CPUs. This machine architecture does not have any direct (or probably even indirect) descendants. Burroughs B5000: December, 1962 (after their D825), and perhaps later than that for the 2 CPU version. The B5000 is controversial here since in 2 CPU configuration it was more master-slave from what I gather. But it was certainly a highly significant machine in the evolution of computing. The B5000 has direct, lineal descendants in today's Unisys ClearPath MCP mainframes. GE 625: Actually, it was the 635 that was available with multiple processors (usually 2 if ordered that way; one customer ordered 4). The 635 was November, 1964. (Again, MP systems might have shipped later.) This machine, too, has direct, lineal descendants in today's Groupe BULL GECOS-based and NEC ACOS-based machines, with an intermediate journey through Honeywell. UNIVAC 1108: There was an 1108 II model (a.k.a. 1108A) introduced in August, 1965, which was the machine available with multiple CPUs. Wikipedia says 296 of the 1108s (uniprocessor and multiprocessor) were sold, so this was a reasonably popular machine for its time. Again, these machines have direct, lineal descendants in today's Unisys ClearPath Dorado mainframes. But your central point remains, even if the 1950s aren't involved: MP designs appeared long before many people assume. And IBM certainly wasn't the first (though obviously being late to that particular party didn't matter and might have even been a feature, not a bug, a la today's maxi-core-fixated Sun). Somebody else might remember and be able to characterize the vendors' relative uniprocessor performances in order to add a little a color to the picture. Also any information about cross-machine clustering, if any, in that era. - - - - - Timothy Sipples IBM Consulting Enterprise Software Architect Based in Tokyo, Serving IBM Japan / Asia-Pacific E-Mail: timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.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: the Z/10 and timers.
Thompson, Steve wrote: [...] If you remember correctly, the autoexec.bat file had TIME DATE commands in it so that DOS would not ask you for the date and time when you booted the system. And this was a carry over from CP/M's lack of a need for a stable TOD. Correction1: You were asked about date and time when you didn't have autoexec.bat. Correction2: The reason was *lack of timer*, not unstable one. First PCs had no timer at all. No battery. Like ZX Spectrum or Atari 800, or Amstrad CPC 6128, ... Battery clock was add-on feature (a card) on PC XT and became standard in PC AT. BTW: the clock in PC was (*is*) inaccurate by design. Of course the above and any rant on non-IBM platform does not justify, why STP for time synchronisation is so expensive. It's only software, and same software (in functions performed) on other platforms is free. -- Radoslaw Skorupka Lodz, Poland -- BRE Bank SA ul. Senatorska 18 00-950 Warszawa www.brebank.pl Sd Rejonowy dla m. st. Warszawy XII Wydzia Gospodarczy Krajowego Rejestru Sdowego, nr rejestru przedsibiorców KRS 025237 NIP: 526-021-50-88 Wedug stanu na dzie 01.01.2008 r. kapita zakadowy BRE Banku SA wynosi 118.642.672 zote i zosta w caoci wpacony. -- 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: the Z/10 and timers.
In 45d79eacefba9b428e3d400e924d36b90176a...@iwdubcormsg007.sci.local, on 01/05/2009 at 06:34 PM, Thompson, Steve steve_thomp...@stercomm.com said: While working in Silicon Valley in the '90s, I had someone tell me that mainframes can't operate in a tightly coupled environment (and they weren't joking -- the poor guy who said this worked in Milpitas with a company that was trying to get 2 80386 CPUs to work together on the same motherboard). I looked at him and said that the S/370 S/370? Multiprocessing on mainframes goes back at least to the late 1950's, and was common even before the S/360 was announced. Bendix, Burroughs, General Electric and UNIVAC come to mind, but there were no doubt others. What were they smoking? -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT ISO position; see http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html 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: the Z/10 and timers.
Hal, Sorry for the delay in posting this. I have been on vacation since Dec 19th and was not aware of this posting. I work in the System z Hardware brand organization, have been a member of the STP team for the past many years and have worked closely with the development team to bring STP to market. It seems there have been a lot of postings in the past 2.5 weeks and there is a lot of confusion and incorrect information in some of the postings. But let me attempt to respond to your orginal posting. Server Time Protocol (STP) is a server-wide facility that is implemented in the Licensed Internal Code (LIC) of the z10 EC, z10 BC, z9 EC, z9 BC, z990, and z890 servers. STP presents a single view of time to Processor Resource/Systems Manager (PR/SM), and is designed to provide the capability for multiple STP configured servers to maintain time synchronization with each other. Besides providing the capability to synchronize multiple servers, STP also provides NTP client support. NTP client support addresses the requirements of customers who need to provide the same accurate time across heterogeneous platforms in an enterprise. If I understand your requirement that is what you want to do. All STP functions are enabled only after feature code 1021 is installed on the server. Thi includes the NTP client support mentioned above. Many customers have already implemented STP on a single server so that they can provide the same accurate time across heterogeneous platforms. Once STP is enabled on a server, you still need to configure it - described in the Redbooks - assign CTN ID, assign roles such as Preferred Time Server and Current Time Server. On a single server you have the choice of running z/OS with its CLOCKxx member coded to run with STPMODE YES, STPMODE NO or with SIMETRID. If STPMODE YES is coded in parmlib, z/OS will respond to STP interrupts and machine checks. To understand better the implications for operating systems that do not support STP please refer to http://www- 03.ibm.com/support/techdocs/atsmastr.nsf/WebIndex/FLASH10631 I hope this helps. At this time I will not attempt to clarify some of the confusion in other postings until I see responses to this one. Noshir Dhondy System z System Technology -- 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: the Z/10 and timers.
Yahbut, and this is as I understood it to be, and whatever. It still does not address the primary criticism we get from the squatty box people. That is: IT STILL REQUIRES AN !OUTRAGOEUSLY! !EXPENSIVE! SERVICE, ETC TO GET THE TIME INTO THE z/BOX!!! Which by the way is totally free for any other platform I know about. Dave Gibney Information Technology Services Washington State Univsersity -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Noshir Dhondy Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 1:17 PM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: Re: the Z/10 and timers. Hal, Sorry for the delay in posting this. I have been on vacation since Dec 19th and was not aware of this posting. I work in the System z Hardware brand organization, have been a member of the STP team for the past many years and have worked closely with the development team to bring STP to market. It seems there have been a lot of postings in the past 2.5 weeks and there is a lot of confusion and incorrect information in some of the postings. But let me attempt to respond to your orginal posting. Server Time Protocol (STP) is a server-wide facility that is implemented in the Licensed Internal Code (LIC) of the z10 EC, z10 BC, z9 EC, z9 BC, z990, and z890 servers. STP presents a single view of time to Processor Resource/Systems Manager(tm) (PR/SM(tm)), and is designed to provide the capability for multiple STP configured servers to maintain time synchronization with each other. Besides providing the capability to synchronize multiple servers, STP also provides NTP client support. NTP client support addresses the requirements of customers who need to provide the same accurate time across heterogeneous platforms in an enterprise. If I understand your requirement that is what you want to do. All STP functions are enabled only after feature code 1021 is installed on the server. Thi includes the NTP client support mentioned above. Many customers have already implemented STP on a single server so that they can provide the same accurate time across heterogeneous platforms. Once STP is enabled on a server, you still need to configure it - described in the Redbooks - assign CTN ID, assign roles such as Preferred Time Server and Current Time Server. On a single server you have the choice of running z/OS with its CLOCKxx member coded to run with STPMODE YES, STPMODE NO or with SIMETRID. If STPMODE YES is coded in parmlib, z/OS will respond to STP interrupts and machine checks. To understand better the implications for operating systems that do not support STP please refer to http://www- 03.ibm.com/support/techdocs/atsmastr.nsf/WebIndex/FLASH10631 I hope this helps. At this time I will not attempt to clarify some of the confusion in other postings until I see responses to this one. Noshir Dhondy System z System Technology -- 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: the Z/10 and timers.
On Mon, 5 Jan 2009 13:41:54 -0800, Gibney, Dave wrote: Yahbut, and this is as I understood it to be, and whatever. It still does not address the primary criticism we get from the squatty box people. That is: IT STILL REQUIRES AN !OUTRAGOEUSLY! !EXPENSIVE! SERVICE, ETC TO GET THE TIME INTO THE z/BOX!!! Which by the way is totally free for any other platform I know about. TANSTAAFL. It costs CPU cycles, network bandwidth, memory footprint (real or virtual). I'll grant there's a matter of degree. And the price was set to maximize revenue. -- 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: the Z/10 and timers.
On Mon, 5 Jan 2009 13:41:54 -0800, Gibney, Dave gib...@wsu.edu wrote: Yahbut, and this is as I understood it to be, and whatever. It still does not address the primary criticism we get from the squatty box people. That is: IT STILL REQUIRES AN !OUTRAGOEUSLY! !EXPENSIVE! SERVICE, ETC TO GET THE TIME INTO THE z/BOX!!! Which by the way is totally free for any other platform I know about. Dave Gibney Information Technology Services Washington State Univsersity Too true. Especially in these economic times. Tell management that something which is absolutely FREE in Windows and every major UNIX environment (excluding z/OS) is going to cost to support in z/OS and they simply freak out. Now, I somewhat understand why. Timing on the z/OS platform is a critical resource. On Windows and Linux, it is a bit of ah, who cares?. z/OS will die if a clock runs backwards. This is so ingrained in the software that I doubt it can every be fixed. Not so on any other platform that I'm aware of. -- 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: the Z/10 and timers.
-Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of John McKown Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 4:09 PM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: Re: the Z/10 and timers. SNIP Now, I somewhat understand why. Timing on the z/OS platform is a critical resource. On Windows and Linux, it is a bit of ah, who cares?. z/OS will die if a clock runs backwards. This is so ingrained in the software that I doubt it can every be fixed. Not so on any other platform that I'm aware of. SNIP It ain't broken. Way back when, one of the things that made most of us not trust any data that came from a system that did not have a hard clock was that anyone could reset the time and date. If you remember correctly, the autoexec.bat file had TIME DATE commands in it so that DOS would not ask you for the date and time when you booted the system. And this was a carry over from CP/M's lack of a need for a stable TOD. While working in Silicon Valley in the '90s, I had someone tell me that mainframes can't operate in a tightly coupled environment (and they weren't joking -- the poor guy who said this worked in Milpitas with a company that was trying to get 2 80386 CPUs to work together on the same motherboard). I looked at him and said that the S/370 had machines with 2 CPUs sharing 16MB of memory, besides having as many as 32 I/O ONLY CPUs operating on that same memory. And then there were the complexes that had 8 of these machines tied to each other. The look of astonishment was priceless. The point to this is, all of those mainframe systems lived or died based on them being in synchronization. And you can't have a clock running backwards -- that would get a Machine Check for failed timing facility. I don't think Intel, AMD or Motorola (a la 6800 or 68000 chips from when I worked with them) has an equivalent. Time only goes forward by definition (look at the Principles of Operation). This is why time change on a mainframe (S/360-30 beyond?) took pushing a button (or flipping a switch) before you could change the TOD. You were being required to do this as an on purpose thing, not an accident with someone playing around with the time commands or instructions. Regards, Steve Thompson -- Opinions expressed by this poster are not necessarily those of poster's employer and should not necessarily be construed as such. -- -- 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: the Z/10 and timers.
On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 21:44:29 -0600, Paul Gilmartin wrote: On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 10:47:28 -0600, Arthur Gutowski wrote: As an NTP Server, I get why STP is a prerequisite, *but* if the z10 (z9) is a client, is STP FC 1021 still required to receive the timing signal from an NTP server versus a dial-out, and WHY? I believe STP is not a prerequisite for an NTP server, and that in fact NTP servers have been available for z/OS since long before the advent of STP. OK, so catching up on everyone else's posts, that means I need STP for: Sysplex beyond a single CEC Clock Steering Acting as an NTP server to the chicken-plex I was under the apparently mistaken impression that HMC/SE could step time to synch with the periodic dial-out, and subsequently z/OS could be stepped to synch with HMC/SE. This wasn't possible prior to STP or 9037? On the other hand, I do NOT need STP for: Monoplex Dial-out to ETS Getting time from an NTP server Right? 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: the Z/10 and timers.
Close OK, so catching up on everyone else's posts, that means I need STP for: Sysplex beyond a single CEC *Getting time from an NTP server* Clock Steering I was under the apparently mistaken impression that HMC/SE could step time to synch with the periodic dial-out, and subsequently z/OS could be stepped to synch with HMC/SE. This wasn't possible prior to STP or 9037? As mentioned you can set time automatically via dialup with the HMC, but there is no steering. On the other hand, I do NOT need STP for: Monoplex Dial-out to ETS *Acting as an NTP server to the chicken-plex* - not necessarily the best idea if no clock steering _ Dave Jousma Assistant Vice President, Mainframe Services david.jou...@53.com 1830 East Paris, Grand Rapids, MI 49546 MD RSCB1G p 616.653.8429 f 616.653.8497 -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Arthur Gutowski Sent: Monday, December 22, 2008 10:55 AM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: Re: the Z/10 and timers. On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 21:44:29 -0600, Paul Gilmartin wrote: On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 10:47:28 -0600, Arthur Gutowski wrote: As an NTP Server, I get why STP is a prerequisite, *but* if the z10 (z9) is a client, is STP FC 1021 still required to receive the timing signal from an NTP server versus a dial-out, and WHY? I believe STP is not a prerequisite for an NTP server, and that in fact NTP servers have been available for z/OS since long before the advent of STP. This e-mail transmission contains information that is confidential and may be privileged. It is intended only for the addressee(s) named above. If you receive this e-mail in error, please do not read, copy or disseminate it in any manner. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. Please reply to the message immediately by informing the sender that the message was misdirected. After replying, please erase it from your computer system. Your assistance in correcting this error is appreciated. -- 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: the Z/10 and timers.
In listserv%200812220954349133.0...@bama.ua.edu, on 12/22/2008 at 09:54 AM, Arthur Gutowski aguto...@ford.com said: OK, so catching up on everyone else's posts, that means I need STP for: Sysplex beyond a single CEC Yes. Clock Steering Yes Acting as an NTP server to the chicken-ple No. I was under the apparently mistaken impression that HMC/SE could step time to synch with the periodic dial-out, and subsequently z/OS could be stepped to synch with HMC/SE. There is no non-disruptive synchronization of z/OS. For that you need clock steering. On the other hand, I do NOT need STP for: Monoplex Dial-out to ETS Getting time from an NTP server You don't need it to get the time, but you do need it to adjust the TOD clock in real time. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT ISO position; see http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html 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: the Z/10 and timers.
Yes, that should work, and that method requires the STP feature. Hal Merritt hmerr...@jackhenry.com 12/18/2008 5:00 PM I thought I read that while z/os cannot get time as a NTP client, the z/10 box can with some NTP software on the HMC. That, in turn, sets the z/10 clocks and, I think, that percolates up to z/os. There was some discussion on what was required, and I was wondering if the story had changed for the z/10, and, if so, what feature codes I needed. -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Jousma, David Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 3:01 PM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: Re: the Z/10 and timers. That does not work. Covered here many times. You have to do stuff on your HMC to set time. z/OS cannot get time as a client. How are you getting time today? _ Dave Jousma Assistant Vice President, Mainframe Services david.jou...@53.com 1830 East Paris, Grand Rapids, MI 49546 MD RSCB1G p 616.653.8429 f 616.653.8497 -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Hal Merritt Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 3:50 PM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: Re: the Z/10 and timers. My scenario: single box, lots of LPARs. I have no need for a SYSPLEX Timer nor do I foresee one. I am running the server and the tinkertoys look to me for their time source. I wish to run the client so that I can set my clock to a secondary or tertiary standard. This e-mail transmission contains information that is confidential and may be privileged. It is intended only for the addressee(s) named above. If you receive this e-mail in error, please do not read, copy or disseminate it in any manner. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. Please reply to the message immediately by informing the sender that the message was misdirected. After replying, please erase it from your computer system. Your assistance in correcting this error is appreciated. -- 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 NOTICE: This electronic mail message and any files transmitted with it are intended exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is addressed. The message, together with any attachment, may contain confidential and/or privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, printing, saving, copying, disclosure or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please immediately advise the sender by reply email and delete all copies. -- 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 CONFIDENTIALITY/EMAIL NOTICE: The material in this transmission contains confidential and privileged information intended only for the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, please be advised that you have received this material in error and that any forwarding, copying, printing, distribution, use or disclosure of the material is strictly prohibited. If you have received this material in error, please (i) do not read it, (ii) reply to the sender that you received the message in error, and (iii) erase or destroy the material. Emails are not secure and can be intercepted, amended, lost or destroyed, or contain viruses. You are deemed to have accepted these risks if you communicate with us by email. 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: the Z/10 and timers.
On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 23:10:15, Roy Hewitt ibm- m...@frozen.eclipse.co.uk wrote: it's still STP that you need... why not have a look at the redbook. Server Time Protocol Implementation Guide, SG24-7281-01 (latest draft) [...] The NTP ability of STP (via the SE) is a version 2 (or is it v3?? ) enhancment to STP.. but bottom line is you still need either Sysplex timer or STP to sync any zSeries to external time source. If I read correctly, the OP later clarified he currently has no sysplex timer - single CEC, multiple LPARs - i.e., all monoplex. If that is true, then I read nothing in STP Implementation that states SIMETRID with an external dial-out to the atomic clock in the sky won't still work in this case. z/OS gets the time just fine without STP. To the original query of keeping in synch with the tinkertoy farm, participating in timing network is another matter... As an NTP Server, I get why STP is a prerequisite, *but* if the z10 (z9) is a client, is STP FC 1021 still required to receive the timing signal from an NTP server versus a dial-out, and WHY? 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: the Z/10 and timers.
Who is going to dial-out if not STP? Arthur Gutowski aguto...@ford.com 12/19/2008 11:47 AM On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 23:10:15, Roy Hewitt ibm- m...@frozen.eclipse.co.uk wrote: it's still STP that you need... why not have a look at the redbook. Server Time Protocol Implementation Guide, SG24-7281-01 (latest draft) [...] The NTP ability of STP (via the SE) is a version 2 (or is it v3?? ) enhancment to STP.. but bottom line is you still need either Sysplex timer or STP to sync any zSeries to external time source. If I read correctly, the OP later clarified he currently has no sysplex timer - single CEC, multiple LPARs - i.e., all monoplex. If that is true, then I read nothing in STP Implementation that states SIMETRID with an external dial-out to the atomic clock in the sky won't still work in this case. z/OS gets the time just fine without STP. To the original query of keeping in synch with the tinkertoy farm, participating in timing network is another matter... As an NTP Server, I get why STP is a prerequisite, *but* if the z10 (z9) is a client, is STP FC 1021 still required to receive the timing signal from an NTP server versus a dial-out, and WHY? 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 CONFIDENTIALITY/EMAIL NOTICE: The material in this transmission contains confidential and privileged information intended only for the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, please be advised that you have received this material in error and that any forwarding, copying, printing, distribution, use or disclosure of the material is strictly prohibited. If you have received this material in error, please (i) do not read it, (ii) reply to the sender that you received the message in error, and (iii) erase or destroy the material. Emails are not secure and can be intercepted, amended, lost or destroyed, or contain viruses. You are deemed to have accepted these risks if you communicate with us by email. 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: the Z/10 and timers.
Arthur Gutowski wrote: If I read correctly, the OP later clarified he currently has no sysplex timer - single CEC, multiple LPARs - i.e., all monoplex. If that is true, then I read nothing in STP Implementation that states SIMETRID with an external dial-out to the atomic clock in the sky won't still work in this case. z/OS gets the time just fine without STP. Every day, our new HMC gets time from NIST or other atomic clock source via the Internet. When we POR, the SE takes the time from the HMC. So, we're in sync at POR time. But then what? Is there something that steers our z10's TOD clock to re-sync with the HMC each day after it gets updated? -- Edward E Jaffe Phoenix Software International, Inc 5200 W Century Blvd, Suite 800 Los Angeles, CA 90045 310-338-0400 x318 edja...@phoenixsoftware.com http://www.phoenixsoftware.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: the Z/10 and timers.
Art, Arthur Gutowski wrote: On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 23:10:15, Roy Hewitt ibm- m...@frozen.eclipse.co.uk wrote: it's still STP that you need... why not have a look at the redbook. Server Time Protocol Implementation Guide, SG24-7281-01 (latest draft) [...] The NTP ability of STP (via the SE) is a version 2 (or is it v3?? ) enhancment to STP.. but bottom line is you still need either Sysplex timer or STP to sync any zSeries to external time source. If I read correctly, the OP later clarified he currently has no sysplex timer - single CEC, multiple LPARs - i.e., all monoplex. If that is true, then I read nothing in STP Implementation that states SIMETRID with an external dial-out to the atomic clock in the sky won't still work in this case. z/OS gets the time just fine without STP but you still need STP to do the dial out or NTP request..(or sysplex timer) To the original query of keeping in synch with the tinkertoy farm, participating in timing network is another matter... As an NTP Server, I get why STP is a prerequisite, *but* if the z10 (z9) is a client, is STP FC 1021 still required to receive the timing signal from an NTP server versus a dial-out, and WHY? Simply because there isn't a z/OS NTP client. The only NTP client for zSeries *and* z/OS (zLinux is different I believe) is part of STP. The place were you define the NTP server address when your zbox is an NTP client is part of the STP definitions on the HMC/SE. Last time we discussed this..(check the archives it comes up quite regularly..) I wondered whether the TOD clock Steering Facility (aka instruction PTFF) is only *fully* valid on machines with STP, (I know you can call the query request form of PTFF without STP as I tried on a z890) as this would enable a z/OS NTP client to work.. well for single monoplex etc.. Cheers Roy -- 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: the Z/10 and timers.
Edward Jaffe wrote: Arthur Gutowski wrote: If I read correctly, the OP later clarified he currently has no sysplex timer - single CEC, multiple LPARs - i.e., all monoplex. If that is true, then I read nothing in STP Implementation that states SIMETRID with an external dial-out to the atomic clock in the sky won't still work in this case. z/OS gets the time just fine without STP. Every day, our new HMC gets time from NIST or other atomic clock source via the Internet. When we POR, the SE takes the time from the HMC. is this new on z10? Previously the SE took the time from the CEC once a day and then the cec took the time from the SE at POR as you say. And then you could set the HMC to sync from SE. (perhaps I should RTFM on z10 SE ops) So, we're in sync at POR time. But then what? Is there something that steers our z10's TOD clock to re-sync with the HMC each day after it gets updated? er.. yes.. that'll be STP ;-) Cheers Roy -- 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: the Z/10 and timers.
Exactly. STP is the only function that I know of (other than the old Sysplex Timer) that can keep the clock accurate. We are currently using it with two CECs, but we will be getting rid of one CEC in the near future. I can't see any way that I can keep my clock accurate without STP. PORs are few and far between these days, far too much clock drift can occur during that time. Edward Jaffe edja...@phoenixsoftware.com 12/19/2008 12:35 PM Every day, our new HMC gets time from NIST or other atomic clock source via the Internet. When we POR, the SE takes the time from the HMC. So, we're in sync at POR time. But then what? Is there something that steers our z10's TOD clock to re-sync with the HMC each day after it gets updated? CONFIDENTIALITY/EMAIL NOTICE: The material in this transmission contains confidential and privileged information intended only for the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, please be advised that you have received this material in error and that any forwarding, copying, printing, distribution, use or disclosure of the material is strictly prohibited. If you have received this material in error, please (i) do not read it, (ii) reply to the sender that you received the message in error, and (iii) erase or destroy the material. Emails are not secure and can be intercepted, amended, lost or destroyed, or contain viruses. You are deemed to have accepted these risks if you communicate with us by email. 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: the Z/10 and timers.
Roy Hewitt wrote: Last time we discussed this..(check the archives it comes up quite regularly..) I wondered whether the TOD clock Steering Facility (aka instruction PTFF) is only *fully* valid on machines with STP, (I know you can call the query request form of PTFF without STP as I tried on a z890) as this would enable a z/OS NTP client to work.. well for single monoplex etc.. As I understand this instruction, the steering functions are only available to the basic machine. They can't be used in LPAR mode. Since you can't run a modern machine in anything but LPAR mode, these functions are only usable by the LPAR hypervisor code. The STO (Set TOD Offset) function is listed as may be available in LPAR mode, so you might be able to use that to adjust the clock for the LPAR, but if your careless, you might set the clock backwards and have duplicate timestamps. As to whether STP is required to enable these functions, I don't know. -- Richard -- 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: the Z/10 and timers.
Richard Peurifoy wrote: Roy Hewitt wrote: Last time we discussed this..(check the archives it comes up quite regularly..) I wondered whether the TOD clock Steering Facility (aka instruction PTFF) is only *fully* valid on machines with STP, (I know you can call the query request form of PTFF without STP as I tried on a z890) as this would enable a z/OS NTP client to work.. well for single monoplex etc.. As I understand this instruction, the steering functions are only available to the basic machine. They can't be used in LPAR mode. Since you can't run a modern machine in anything but LPAR mode, these functions are only usable by the LPAR hypervisor code. The STO (Set TOD Offset) function is listed as may be available in LPAR mode, so you might be able to use that to adjust the clock for the LPAR, but if your careless, you might set the clock backwards and have duplicate timestamps. As to whether STP is required to enable these functions, I don't know. Cheers Richard, made me re-look at Pops, and yes I see the non-query requests are basic only.. except for STO.. cheers Roy -- 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: the Z/10 and timers.
In 494bdb47.6060...@phoenixsoftware.com, on 12/19/2008 at 09:35 AM, Edward Jaffe edja...@phoenixsoftware.com said: Every day, our new HMC gets time from NIST or other atomic clock source via the Internet. When we POR, the SE takes the time from the HMC. So, we're in sync at POR time. But then what? Is there something that steers our z10's TOD clock to re-sync with the HMC each day after it gets updated? Yes - STP. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT ISO position; see http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html 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: the Z/10 and timers.
In listserv%200812191047288494.0...@bama.ua.edu, on 12/19/2008 at 10:47 AM, Arthur Gutowski aguto...@ford.com said: As an NTP Server, I get why STP is a prerequisite, *but* if the z10 (z9) is a client, is STP FC 1021 still required to receive the timing signal from an NTP server versus a dial-out, and WHY? Clock steering. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT ISO position; see http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html 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: the Z/10 and timers.
On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 10:47:28 -0600, Arthur Gutowski wrote: As an NTP Server, I get why STP is a prerequisite, *but* if the z10 (z9) is a client, is STP FC 1021 still required to receive the timing signal from an NTP server versus a dial-out, and WHY? I believe STP is not a prerequisite for an NTP server, and that in fact NTP servers have been available for z/OS since long before the advent of STP. -- 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
the Z/10 and timers.
We are looking at a z/10 BC and was wondering about the STP (feature code 1021). My mission is simple: keep all the clocks synchronized via NTP/SNTP to the tinkertoy farm. Do I need that feature code? Thanks The very best of the season to you, yours, and theirs. NOTICE: This electronic mail message and any files transmitted with it are intended exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is addressed. The message, together with any attachment, may contain confidential and/or privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, printing, saving, copying, disclosure or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please immediately advise the sender by reply email and delete all copies. -- 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: the Z/10 and timers.
- Original Message - From: Hal Merritt hmerr...@jackhenry.com Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 2:34 PM Subject: the Z/10 and timers. We are looking at a z/10 BC and was wondering about the STP (feature code 1021). My mission is simple: keep all the clocks synchronized via NTP/SNTP to the tinkertoy farm. Do I need that feature code? Hal, Yes, and be sure to get the STP client code that can take a time signal from an NTP server. Regards, Tom Conley -- 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: the Z/10 and timers.
Hold it. If you are a single system, single box, you do not need STP. STP is the replacement for Sysplex Timer. You could add it, but it is not cheap, and overkill if a single CEC. There are probably better ways to get NIST time for the mainframe at a cheaper price. Separately, you can run NTP server, to serve time to the tinkertoy farm. _ Dave Jousma Assistant Vice President, Mainframe Services david.jou...@53.com 1830 East Paris, Grand Rapids, MI 49546 MD RSCB1G p 616.653.8429 f 616.653.8497 -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Pinnacle Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 3:35 PM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: Re: the Z/10 and timers. - Original Message - From: Hal Merritt hmerr...@jackhenry.com Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 2:34 PM Subject: the Z/10 and timers. We are looking at a z/10 BC and was wondering about the STP (feature code 1021). My mission is simple: keep all the clocks synchronized via NTP/SNTP to the tinkertoy farm. Do I need that feature code? Hal, Yes, and be sure to get the STP client code that can take a time signal from an NTP server. Regards, Tom Conley This e-mail transmission contains information that is confidential and may be privileged. It is intended only for the addressee(s) named above. If you receive this e-mail in error, please do not read, copy or disseminate it in any manner. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. Please reply to the message immediately by informing the sender that the message was misdirected. After replying, please erase it from your computer system. Your assistance in correcting this error is appreciated. -- 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: the Z/10 and timers.
My scenario: single box, lots of LPARs. I have no need for a SYSPLEX Timer nor do I foresee one. I am running the server and the tinkertoys look to me for their time source. I wish to run the client so that I can set my clock to a secondary or tertiary standard. -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Jousma, David Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 2:41 PM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: Re: the Z/10 and timers. Hold it. If you are a single system, single box, you do not need STP. STP is the replacement for Sysplex Timer. You could add it, but it is not cheap, and overkill if a single CEC. There are probably better ways to get NIST time for the mainframe at a cheaper price. Separately, you can run NTP server, to serve time to the tinkertoy farm. _ Dave Jousma Assistant Vice President, Mainframe Services david.jou...@53.com 1830 East Paris, Grand Rapids, MI 49546 MD RSCB1G p 616.653.8429 f 616.653.8497 -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Pinnacle Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 3:35 PM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: Re: the Z/10 and timers. - Original Message - From: Hal Merritt hmerr...@jackhenry.com Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 2:34 PM Subject: the Z/10 and timers. We are looking at a z/10 BC and was wondering about the STP (feature code 1021). My mission is simple: keep all the clocks synchronized via NTP/SNTP to the tinkertoy farm. Do I need that feature code? Hal, Yes, and be sure to get the STP client code that can take a time signal from an NTP server. Regards, Tom Conley NOTICE: This electronic mail message and any files transmitted with it are intended exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is addressed. The message, together with any attachment, may contain confidential and/or privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, printing, saving, copying, disclosure or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please immediately advise the sender by reply email and delete all copies. -- 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: the Z/10 and timers.
That does not work. Covered here many times. You have to do stuff on your HMC to set time. z/OS cannot get time as a client. How are you getting time today? _ Dave Jousma Assistant Vice President, Mainframe Services david.jou...@53.com 1830 East Paris, Grand Rapids, MI 49546 MD RSCB1G p 616.653.8429 f 616.653.8497 -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Hal Merritt Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 3:50 PM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: Re: the Z/10 and timers. My scenario: single box, lots of LPARs. I have no need for a SYSPLEX Timer nor do I foresee one. I am running the server and the tinkertoys look to me for their time source. I wish to run the client so that I can set my clock to a secondary or tertiary standard. This e-mail transmission contains information that is confidential and may be privileged. It is intended only for the addressee(s) named above. If you receive this e-mail in error, please do not read, copy or disseminate it in any manner. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. Please reply to the message immediately by informing the sender that the message was misdirected. After replying, please erase it from your computer system. Your assistance in correcting this error is appreciated. -- 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: the Z/10 and timers.
I thought I read that while z/os cannot get time as a NTP client, the z/10 box can with some NTP software on the HMC. That, in turn, sets the z/10 clocks and, I think, that percolates up to z/os. There was some discussion on what was required, and I was wondering if the story had changed for the z/10, and, if so, what feature codes I needed. -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Jousma, David Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 3:01 PM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: Re: the Z/10 and timers. That does not work. Covered here many times. You have to do stuff on your HMC to set time. z/OS cannot get time as a client. How are you getting time today? _ Dave Jousma Assistant Vice President, Mainframe Services david.jou...@53.com 1830 East Paris, Grand Rapids, MI 49546 MD RSCB1G p 616.653.8429 f 616.653.8497 -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Hal Merritt Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 3:50 PM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: Re: the Z/10 and timers. My scenario: single box, lots of LPARs. I have no need for a SYSPLEX Timer nor do I foresee one. I am running the server and the tinkertoys look to me for their time source. I wish to run the client so that I can set my clock to a secondary or tertiary standard. This e-mail transmission contains information that is confidential and may be privileged. It is intended only for the addressee(s) named above. If you receive this e-mail in error, please do not read, copy or disseminate it in any manner. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. Please reply to the message immediately by informing the sender that the message was misdirected. After replying, please erase it from your computer system. Your assistance in correcting this error is appreciated. -- 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 NOTICE: This electronic mail message and any files transmitted with it are intended exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is addressed. The message, together with any attachment, may contain confidential and/or privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, printing, saving, copying, disclosure or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please immediately advise the sender by reply email and delete all copies. -- 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: the Z/10 and timers.
If you have a way to set z/OS time from an external server without STP, then please SHARE. AFAIK, STP is the only method. Jousma, David david.jou...@53.com 12/18/2008 3:41 PM Hold it. If you are a single system, single box, you do not need STP. STP is the replacement for Sysplex Timer. You could add it, but it is not cheap, and overkill if a single CEC. There are probably better ways to get NIST time for the mainframe at a cheaper price. Separately, you can run NTP server, to serve time to the tinkertoy farm. _ Dave Jousma Assistant Vice President, Mainframe Services david.jou...@53.com 1830 East Paris, Grand Rapids, MI 49546 MD RSCB1G p 616.653.8429 f 616.653.8497 -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Pinnacle Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 3:35 PM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: Re: the Z/10 and timers. - Original Message - From: Hal Merritt hmerr...@jackhenry.com Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 2:34 PM Subject: the Z/10 and timers. We are looking at a z/10 BC and was wondering about the STP (feature code 1021). My mission is simple: keep all the clocks synchronized via NTP/SNTP to the tinkertoy farm. Do I need that feature code? Hal, Yes, and be sure to get the STP client code that can take a time signal from an NTP server. Regards, Tom Conley This e-mail transmission contains information that is confidential and may be privileged. It is intended only for the addressee(s) named above. If you receive this e-mail in error, please do not read, copy or disseminate it in any manner. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. Please reply to the message immediately by informing the sender that the message was misdirected. After replying, please erase it from your computer system. Your assistance in correcting this error is appreciated. -- 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 CONFIDENTIALITY/EMAIL NOTICE: The material in this transmission contains confidential and privileged information intended only for the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, please be advised that you have received this material in error and that any forwarding, copying, printing, distribution, use or disclosure of the material is strictly prohibited. If you have received this material in error, please (i) do not read it, (ii) reply to the sender that you received the message in error, and (iii) erase or destroy the material. Emails are not secure and can be intercepted, amended, lost or destroyed, or contain viruses. You are deemed to have accepted these risks if you communicate with us by email. 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: the Z/10 and timers.
Hal, Hal Merritt wrote: I thought I read that while z/os cannot get time as a NTP client, the z/10 box can with some NTP software on the HMC. That, in turn, sets the z/10 clocks and, I think, that percolates up to z/os. There was some discussion on what was required, and I was wondering if the story had changed for the z/10, and, if so, what feature codes I needed. it's still STP that you need... why not have a look at the redbook. Server Time Protocol Implementation Guide, SG24-7281-01 (latest draft) http://www.redbooks.ibm.com/redpieces/abstracts/sg247281.html?Open The NTP ability of STP (via the SE) is a version 2 (or is it v3?? ) enhancment to STP.. but bottom line is you still need either Sysplex timer or STP to sync any zSeries to external time source Cheers Roy -- 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
