Re: [External] Re: cross LPAR priority and cycle stealing

[Vernooij, Kees (ITOPT1) - KLM]

We did some investigation in the past.
AFAIK, there are several tools to manage the CP capacity between LPARs that are 
not in a sysplex:
IBMs Group capacity (Free!) and zCost: do not what you look for.
BMCs tool iCap (it seems to be called TrueSight Capacity Optimization now) 
takes the PI's and Importance of workload into consideration, so this is what 
you are looking for.
zDynacap (from SDS?) does the same.

Grtn,
Kees.

> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
> Behalf Of Pommier, Rex
> Sent: 29 August, 2018 0:04
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: [External] Re: cross LPAR priority and cycle stealing
> 
> That's what I was afraid of, but was hoping.
> 
> Thanks, Martin.
> 
> Rex
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
> Behalf Of Martin Packer
> Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2018 4:13 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: [External] Re: cross LPAR priority and cycle stealing
> 
> 
> 
> Then the two WLMs can’t cooperate - and aren’t even aware of each
> other’s
> 
> state. :-(
> 
> 
> 
> Manual shifting the weights - via BCPii - might be doable.
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers, Martin
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad
> 
> 
> 
> > On 28 Aug 2018, at 22:11, Pommier, Rex 
> wrote:
> 
> >
> 
> > Hi Martin,
> 
> >
> 
> > Sorry, no sysplex.
> 
> >
> 
> > Rex
> 
> >
> 
> > -Original Message-
> 
> > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU]
> On
> 
> Behalf Of Martin Packer
> 
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2018 3:59 PM
> 
> > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> 
> > Subject: [External] Re: cross LPAR priority and cycle stealing
> 
> >
> 
> >
> 
> >
> 
> > Are these LPARs in the same Sysplex? Two beneficial effects if they
> are:
> 
> >
> 
> > 1) You could - with IRD Weight Management - have weights shifted
> between
> 
> > the LPARs.
> 
> >
> 
> > 2) Sysplex PI for important works comes into play.
> 
> >
> 
> > Cheers, Martin
> 
> >
> 
> > Sent from my iPad
> 
> >
> 
> >> On 28 Aug 2018, at 21:52, Pommier, Rex 
> wrote:
> 
> >>
> 
> >> Hello list,
> 
> >>
> 
> >> Hypothetical scenario is a single machine with 2 LPARs on it, each
> LPAR
> 
> > is defined as having 50% of the capacity of the entire machine,
> uncapped
> 
> > across the board.  In this scenario, if both LPAR1 and LPAR2 are
> running
> 
> > flat out, each LPAR will take 50% of the machine.  If one of the LPARs
> is
> 
> > busy and the other isn't doing anything, the busy LPAR will "steal"
> 
> cycles
> 
> > from the not busy one.  That's the easy part.  Here's where my
> thoughts
> 
> get
> 
> > fuzzy.  Is there a way to differentiate between high priority work on
> one
> 
> > LPAR and low priority work on the other LPAR.  Here's what I'd like to
> 
> do:
> 
> > Say I'm running a bunch of production on one LPAR and a bunch of test
> 
> work
> 
> > on the other one.  I'd like to be able to steal cycles from the test
> LPAR
> 
> > and give them to the production one.  I know WLM handles this within
> an
> 
> > LPAR, making sure the high priority work gets the cycles it needs, but
> is
> 
> > there a mechanism where I can do this across multiple LPARs?  If there
> 
> is,
> 
> > can somebody point me to the right place for learning how to configure
> 
> this
> 
> > to happen automatically?
> 
> >>
> 
> >> I have higher and lower priority work alternating between multiple
> LPARs
> 
> > and would like the machine to be able to better balance the workloads
> so
> 
> > that regardless of which LPAR the high priority work is on, it gets
> the
> 
> CPU
> 
> > necessary.
> 
> >>
> 
> >> TIA,
> 
> >>
> 
> >> Rex
> 
> >>
> 
> >>
> 
> >> The information contained in this message is confidential, protected
> 
> from
> 
> > disclosure and may be legally privileged.  If the reader of this
> message
> 
> is
> 
> > not the intended recipient or an employee or agent responsible for
> 
> > delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby
> 
> notified
> 
> > that any disclosure, distribution, copying, or any action taken or
> action
> 
> > omitted in reliance on it, is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.
> 
> If
> 
> > you have received this communication in error, please notify us
> 
> immediately
> 
> > by replying to this message and destroy the material in its entirety,
> 
> > whether in electronic or hard copy format.  Thank you.
> 
> >>
> 
> >> -
> -
> 
> >> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> 
> >> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-
> MAIN
> 
> >> 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
> 
> >
> 
> >
> 
> > --
> 
> >

Re: cross LPAR priority and cycle stealing

[Timothy Sipples]

Mike Schwab wrote:
>Hard cap the test system, soft cap the production system?

There's no particular reason for the soft cap in this scenario, right?

In addition to the other suggestions mentioned, including the most elegant
one (which I like), sometimes it's possible to throttle the demand side in
certain ways. An asymmetrically configured load balancer would do that
pretty well, as one example. (But that wouldn't really be for
production/test splits.)

I suppose, hypothetically, you could configure/run a lowest service class
multi-threaded workload -- SETI@Home? Bitcoin mining? -- in the production
LPAR, then configure the partitions as desired while that workload is
running.


Timothy Sipples
IT Architect Executive, Industry Solutions, IBM Z & LinuxONE
E-Mail: sipp...@sg.ibm.com

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

XCOM logmode table in ISTINCLM

[Jake Anderson]

Hi


Cross posted

Is there anyone who has included XCOM logmode table in ISTINCLM. In which
line under ISTINCLM to be inserted ? Any specific ASMA90 JCL to assemble
the ISTINCLM post modifying the source code ?

Jake

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: SDSF INPUT ON/OFF

[Jesse 1 Robinson]

With a lot of off-list help, I finally got this working. Appears that I skipped 
way too many SHARE What's New in SDSF sessions over the past few years. Here's 
a summary of how to get it working in z/OS 2.1+.

-- Displaying inline SYSIN will work only on the ST(atus) display, not 
O(output) or H(old) display.   
-- If it's not working for you, issue command SET SCREEN   
-- Select 1.   Basic settings and tabular panels  
-- Select   Display the action bar1  1. Yes  
-- On the action bar, click Options   
-- Select 2. Browse and Print...   
-- Select 2  Change include SYSIN to ON (if this OFF, then it's already ON)  
-- Go back to ST display  

At this point you can issue command INPUT ON. When you select a job on the ST 
screen with '?', you will see all JES2 data sets including inline SYSIN. 

Special thanks to Sri Kolusu and Tom Dien. 

.
.
J.O.Skip Robinson
Southern California Edison Company
Electric Dragon Team Paddler 
SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager
323-715-0595 Mobile
626-543-6132 Office ⇐=== NEW
robin...@sce.com


-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf 
Of Paul Gilmartin
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2018 3:25 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: (External):Re: SDSF INPUT ON/OFF

On Tue, 28 Aug 2018 21:01:37 +, Jesse 1 Robinson wrote:

>A colleague noticed that SDSF INPUT ON is not showing a SYSIN DD * data set. 
>It's supposed to, right? OTOH SJ for the job shows everything including inline 
>input. This is z/OS 2.3.
> 
"?" display, not "O" or "H", right?

My observation has been that it shows SYSINs but does not identify them by 
STEPNAME/DDNAME until they've been opened.  I suppose there's a reason, but 
hardly a good one.

-- gil


--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Anyone here exprerienced in JSON parser (assembler)

[David Crayford]

On 29/08/2018 12:28 AM, Tom Ross wrote:

You can't argue with that! Almost as easy as JavaScript:)

let obj =3D JSON.parse('{ "name":"John", "age":30, "city":"New York"}');

Is there a COBOL equivalent to JSON.stringify?

Yes!  It is the JSON GENERATE statement, available in 2016 in COBOL V6.1


Awesome! I'm guessing it uses the same environment as the XML 
parser/generator?


The tricky part comes when the structure of the JSON is unknown and has 
to be traversed by node.


--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: JES2 BSC NJE over FICON

[scott Ford]

Tony,

10-4 copy that Tony

On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 1:06 PM Tony Thigpen  wrote:

> I guess the question is:
>
> Why is it ok for the IOCP, but not ok for the IODEF?
>
> Sounds like someone in the z/os group IODEF programmer did not talk to
> the hardware guys.
>
> Tony Thigpen
>
> Neubert, Kevin wrote on 08/28/2018 12:29 PM:
> > Don't believe FICON supports BCTC.  If ESCON is no longer an option for
> you, believe you'll need to look at the TCP/IP for NJE protocol instead.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Kevin
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU]
> On Behalf Of Tony Thigpen
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2018 9:09 AM
> > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> > Subject: JES2 BSC NJE over FICON
> >
> > I am trying to move my JES2 to RSCS 'NJE over BSC' connect from ESCON to
> FICON.
> >
> > JES2 requires that the device is set up as BCTC.
> >
> > This works on ESCON:
> > CHPID PATH=(CSS(0),C1),SHARED,PARTITION=((HKYPROD,UPHT),(=)),
> >  PCHID=1C1,TYPE=CNC
> > CNTLUNIT CUNUMBR=8200,PATH=((CSS(0),C1)),UNITADD=((00,144)),
> >  CUADD=1,UNIT=SCTC
> > IODEVICE ADDRESS=(8260,016),CUNUMBR=(8200),STADET=Y,
> >  PARTITION=((CSS(0),UPHT)),UNIT=BCTC
> >
> > For FICON, this actually compiles as an IOCP:
> > CHPID PATH=(CSS(0),C1),SHARED,PARTITION=((HKYPROD,UPHT),(=)),
> >  PCHID=17C,TYPE=FC
> > CNTLUNIT CUNUMBR=8200,PATH=((CSS(0),C1)),UNITADD=((00,144)),
> >  CUADD=01,UNIT=FCTC
> > IODEVICE ADDRESS=(8270,016),CUNUMBR=(8200),STADET=Y,UNIT=BCTC,
> >  PARTITION=((CSS(0),HKYPROD))
> >
> > But, when using the HCD panels in z/OS 1.13, it will not let me set the
> IODEVICE to BCTC.
> > CBDA297I Control unit 3200 of type FCTC cannot attach device 3260
> >of type BCTC.
> >
> > What gives?
> >
> > (I did try leaving the IODEF at FCTC and the IOCP at BCTC, but JES2
> grips and will not establish the link.)
> >
> > --
> > Tony Thigpen
> >
> > --
> > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send
> email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
> >
> > --
> > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
> >
> >
>
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>
-- 
Scott Ford
IDMWORKS
z/OS Development

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Zowe for systems programmer ?

[Mike Schwab]

Until your TSO session times out or is cancelled?  15 or 30 minutes or no limit?

I was once asked how to solve a problem where two users updating the
same screen ended up creating invalid keys with some data from each
screen (a base record and one record per text line).  My suggestion
was to place the last update time stamp in hidden fields on the
screen.  When the second update was attempted, the time stamp no
longer matched and the update was not posted.  They didn't like
loosing the update but at least the records didn't have to be fixed by
a programmer.
On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 5:42 PM Andrew Rowley
 wrote:
>
> On 29/08/2018 6:41 AM, Gord Tomlin wrote:
> > It would appear that the answer to your question is here:
> > https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/en/SSLTBW_2.3.0/com.ibm.zos.v2r3.izua700/IZUHPINFO_API_PutWriteDataSet.htm
> >
> >
> > Under "Custom headers":
> >
> > X-IBM-Obtain-ENQ
> > This header is optional; set it to one of the following values to
> > request that a system ENQ be obtained and held after the completion of
> > this request. If not specified, then no ENQs will be held after the
> > completion of this request.
>
> Of course you need to obtain the ENQ when you do the read to start the
> edit session, it looks like the equivalent header exists on GET so
> that's OK.
>
> I wonder how long the ENQ persists if I start editing then close my
> browser, or if I just take a long time to complete the edit? If I close
> my browser and try again to edit I suspect I will be locked out for a
> period of time...
>
> --
> Andrew Rowley
> Black Hill Software
>
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN



-- 
Mike A Schwab, Springfield IL USA
Where do Forest Rangers go to get away from it all?

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: [External] Re: cross LPAR priority and cycle stealing

[Mike Schwab]

Hard cap the test system, soft cap the production system?  Then the
test system can't exceed its percent, even if the CPU is not 100%.
The soft cap would allow the production system to get extra cycles if
the test system isn't using its full share.
On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 4:13 PM Martin Packer  wrote:
>
>
> Then the two WLMs can’t cooperate - and aren’t even aware of each other’s
> state. :-(
>
> Manual shifting the weights - via BCPii - might be doable.
>
> Cheers, Martin
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> > On 28 Aug 2018, at 22:11, Pommier, Rex  wrote:
> >
> > Hi Martin,
> >
> > Sorry, no sysplex.
> >
> > Rex
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
> Behalf Of Martin Packer
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2018 3:59 PM
> > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> > Subject: [External] Re: cross LPAR priority and cycle stealing
> >
> >
> >
> > Are these LPARs in the same Sysplex? Two beneficial effects if they are:
> >
> > 1) You could - with IRD Weight Management - have weights shifted between
> > the LPARs.
> >
> > 2) Sysplex PI for important works comes into play.
> >
> > Cheers, Martin
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> >> On 28 Aug 2018, at 21:52, Pommier, Rex  wrote:
> >>
> >> Hello list,
> >>
> >> Hypothetical scenario is a single machine with 2 LPARs on it, each LPAR
> > is defined as having 50% of the capacity of the entire machine, uncapped
> > across the board.  In this scenario, if both LPAR1 and LPAR2 are running
> > flat out, each LPAR will take 50% of the machine.  If one of the LPARs is
> > busy and the other isn't doing anything, the busy LPAR will "steal"
> cycles
> > from the not busy one.  That's the easy part.  Here's where my thoughts
> get
> > fuzzy.  Is there a way to differentiate between high priority work on one
> > LPAR and low priority work on the other LPAR.  Here's what I'd like to
> do:
> > Say I'm running a bunch of production on one LPAR and a bunch of test
> work
> > on the other one.  I'd like to be able to steal cycles from the test LPAR
> > and give them to the production one.  I know WLM handles this within an
> > LPAR, making sure the high priority work gets the cycles it needs, but is
> > there a mechanism where I can do this across multiple LPARs?  If there
> is,
> > can somebody point me to the right place for learning how to configure
> this
> > to happen automatically?
> >>
> >> I have higher and lower priority work alternating between multiple LPARs
> > and would like the machine to be able to better balance the workloads so
> > that regardless of which LPAR the high priority work is on, it gets the
> CPU
> > necessary.
> >>
> >> TIA,
> >>
> >> Rex
> >>
> >>
> >> The information contained in this message is confidential, protected
> from
> > disclosure and may be legally privileged.  If the reader of this message
> is
> > not the intended recipient or an employee or agent responsible for
> > delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby
> notified
> > that any disclosure, distribution, copying, or any action taken or action
> > omitted in reliance on it, is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.
> If
> > you have received this communication in error, please notify us
> immediately
> > by replying to this message and destroy the material in its entirety,
> > whether in electronic or hard copy format.  Thank you.
> >>
> >> --
> >> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> >> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
> >> 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 lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
> >
> > The information contained in this message is confidential, protected from
> disclosure and may be legally privileged.  If the reader of this message is
> not the intended recipient or an employee or agent responsible for
> delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
> that any disclosure, distribution, copying, or any action taken or action
> omitted in reliance on it, is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.  If
> you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately
> by replying to this message and destroy the material in its entirety,
> whether in electronic or hard copy format.  Thank you.
> >
> >
> > --
> > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO 
> > IBM-MAINUnless stated otherwise above:
> IBM United Kingdom Limited

Re: Zowe for systems programmer ?

[Andrew Rowley]

On 29/08/2018 6:41 AM, Gord Tomlin wrote:

It would appear that the answer to your question is here:
https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/en/SSLTBW_2.3.0/com.ibm.zos.v2r3.izua700/IZUHPINFO_API_PutWriteDataSet.htm 



Under "Custom headers":

X-IBM-Obtain-ENQ
    This header is optional; set it to one of the following values to 
request that a system ENQ be obtained and held after the completion of 
this request. If not specified, then no ENQs will be held after the 
completion of this request.


Of course you need to obtain the ENQ when you do the read to start the 
edit session, it looks like the equivalent header exists on GET so 
that's OK.


I wonder how long the ENQ persists if I start editing then close my 
browser, or if I just take a long time to complete the edit? If I close 
my browser and try again to edit I suspect I will be locked out for a 
period of time...


--
Andrew Rowley
Black Hill Software

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: SDSF INPUT ON/OFF

[Edward Finnell]

Hard to say without more info. PARMS vs RACF. Some stuff was moved to SDSFAUX 
and may require additional measures.


https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/SSLTBW_2.3.0/com.ibm.zos.v2r3.isfa500/resjspp.htm
 
In a message dated 8/28/2018 5:24:50 PM Central Standard Time, 
000433f07816-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu writes:

 
My observation has been that it shows SYSINs but does not identify them by

STEPNAME/DDNAME until they've been opened. I suppose there's a reason,
but hardly a good one.

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: SDSF INPUT ON/OFF

[Paul Gilmartin]

On Tue, 28 Aug 2018 21:01:37 +, Jesse 1 Robinson wrote:

>A colleague noticed that SDSF INPUT ON is not showing a SYSIN DD * data set. 
>It's supposed to, right? OTOH SJ for the job shows everything including inline 
>input. This is z/OS 2.3.
> 
"?" display, not "O" or "H", right?

My observation has been that it shows SYSINs but does not identify them by
STEPNAME/DDNAME until they've been opened.  I suppose there's a reason,
but hardly a good one.

-- gil

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: [External] Re: cross LPAR priority and cycle stealing

[Pommier, Rex]

That's what I was afraid of, but was hoping.  

Thanks, Martin.

Rex

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf 
Of Martin Packer
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2018 4:13 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: [External] Re: cross LPAR priority and cycle stealing



Then the two WLMs can’t cooperate - and aren’t even aware of each other’s

state. :-(



Manual shifting the weights - via BCPii - might be doable.



Cheers, Martin



Sent from my iPad



> On 28 Aug 2018, at 22:11, Pommier, Rex  wrote:

>

> Hi Martin,

>

> Sorry, no sysplex.

>

> Rex

>

> -Original Message-

> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On

Behalf Of Martin Packer

> Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2018 3:59 PM

> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU

> Subject: [External] Re: cross LPAR priority and cycle stealing

>

>

>

> Are these LPARs in the same Sysplex? Two beneficial effects if they are:

>

> 1) You could - with IRD Weight Management - have weights shifted between

> the LPARs.

>

> 2) Sysplex PI for important works comes into play.

>

> Cheers, Martin

>

> Sent from my iPad

>

>> On 28 Aug 2018, at 21:52, Pommier, Rex  wrote:

>>

>> Hello list,

>>

>> Hypothetical scenario is a single machine with 2 LPARs on it, each LPAR

> is defined as having 50% of the capacity of the entire machine, uncapped

> across the board.  In this scenario, if both LPAR1 and LPAR2 are running

> flat out, each LPAR will take 50% of the machine.  If one of the LPARs is

> busy and the other isn't doing anything, the busy LPAR will "steal"

cycles

> from the not busy one.  That's the easy part.  Here's where my thoughts

get

> fuzzy.  Is there a way to differentiate between high priority work on one

> LPAR and low priority work on the other LPAR.  Here's what I'd like to

do:

> Say I'm running a bunch of production on one LPAR and a bunch of test

work

> on the other one.  I'd like to be able to steal cycles from the test LPAR

> and give them to the production one.  I know WLM handles this within an

> LPAR, making sure the high priority work gets the cycles it needs, but is

> there a mechanism where I can do this across multiple LPARs?  If there

is,

> can somebody point me to the right place for learning how to configure

this

> to happen automatically?

>>

>> I have higher and lower priority work alternating between multiple LPARs

> and would like the machine to be able to better balance the workloads so

> that regardless of which LPAR the high priority work is on, it gets the

CPU

> necessary.

>>

>> TIA,

>>

>> Rex

>>

>>

>> The information contained in this message is confidential, protected

from

> disclosure and may be legally privileged.  If the reader of this message

is

> not the intended recipient or an employee or agent responsible for

> delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby

notified

> that any disclosure, distribution, copying, or any action taken or action

> omitted in reliance on it, is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.

If

> you have received this communication in error, please notify us

immediately

> by replying to this message and destroy the material in its entirety,

> whether in electronic or hard copy format.  Thank you.

>>

>> --

>> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,

>> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

>> 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 lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

>

> The information contained in this message is confidential, protected from

disclosure and may be legally privileged.  If the reader of this message is

not the intended recipient or an employee or agent responsible for

delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified

that any disclosure, distribution, copying, or any action taken or action

omitted in reliance on it, is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.  If

you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately

by replying to this message and destroy the material in its entirety,

whether in electronic or hard copy format.  Thank you.

>

>

> --

> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,

> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAINUnless 
> stated otherwise above:

IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 
741598. 

Registered office: PO Box 41, Nor

Re: SDSF INPUT ON/OFF

[Jesse 1 Robinson]

INPUT ? shows either ON or OFF according to the most recent command, but the 
SYSIN data set does not show up either way. 

.
.
J.O.Skip Robinson
Southern California Edison Company
Electric Dragon Team Paddler 
SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager
323-715-0595 Mobile
626-543-6132 Office ⇐=== NEW
robin...@sce.com


-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf 
Of Edward Finnell
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2018 2:09 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: (External):Re: SDSF INPUT ON/OFF

Isn't it an SDSF Parm? WHO will show GROUP.



In a message dated 8/28/2018 4:02:03 PM Central Standard Time, 
jesse1.robin...@sce.com writes:

 
It's supposed to, right? OTOH SJ for the job shows everything including inline 
input. This is z/OS 2.3.


--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: [External] Re: cross LPAR priority and cycle stealing

[Martin Packer]

Then the two WLMs can’t cooperate - and aren’t even aware of each other’s
state. :-(

Manual shifting the weights - via BCPii - might be doable.

Cheers, Martin

Sent from my iPad

> On 28 Aug 2018, at 22:11, Pommier, Rex  wrote:
>
> Hi Martin,
>
> Sorry, no sysplex.
>
> Rex
>
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
Behalf Of Martin Packer
> Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2018 3:59 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: [External] Re: cross LPAR priority and cycle stealing
>
>
>
> Are these LPARs in the same Sysplex? Two beneficial effects if they are:
>
> 1) You could - with IRD Weight Management - have weights shifted between
> the LPARs.
>
> 2) Sysplex PI for important works comes into play.
>
> Cheers, Martin
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
>> On 28 Aug 2018, at 21:52, Pommier, Rex  wrote:
>>
>> Hello list,
>>
>> Hypothetical scenario is a single machine with 2 LPARs on it, each LPAR
> is defined as having 50% of the capacity of the entire machine, uncapped
> across the board.  In this scenario, if both LPAR1 and LPAR2 are running
> flat out, each LPAR will take 50% of the machine.  If one of the LPARs is
> busy and the other isn't doing anything, the busy LPAR will "steal"
cycles
> from the not busy one.  That's the easy part.  Here's where my thoughts
get
> fuzzy.  Is there a way to differentiate between high priority work on one
> LPAR and low priority work on the other LPAR.  Here's what I'd like to
do:
> Say I'm running a bunch of production on one LPAR and a bunch of test
work
> on the other one.  I'd like to be able to steal cycles from the test LPAR
> and give them to the production one.  I know WLM handles this within an
> LPAR, making sure the high priority work gets the cycles it needs, but is
> there a mechanism where I can do this across multiple LPARs?  If there
is,
> can somebody point me to the right place for learning how to configure
this
> to happen automatically?
>>
>> I have higher and lower priority work alternating between multiple LPARs
> and would like the machine to be able to better balance the workloads so
> that regardless of which LPAR the high priority work is on, it gets the
CPU
> necessary.
>>
>> TIA,
>>
>> Rex
>>
>>
>> The information contained in this message is confidential, protected
from
> disclosure and may be legally privileged.  If the reader of this message
is
> not the intended recipient or an employee or agent responsible for
> delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified
> that any disclosure, distribution, copying, or any action taken or action
> omitted in reliance on it, is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.
If
> you have received this communication in error, please notify us
immediately
> by replying to this message and destroy the material in its entirety,
> whether in electronic or hard copy format.  Thank you.
>>
>> --
>> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
>> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>> 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 lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>
> The information contained in this message is confidential, protected from
disclosure and may be legally privileged.  If the reader of this message is
not the intended recipient or an employee or agent responsible for
delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
that any disclosure, distribution, copying, or any action taken or action
omitted in reliance on it, is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.  If
you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately
by replying to this message and destroy the material in its entirety,
whether in electronic or hard copy format.  Thank you.
>
>
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAINUnless 
> 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 lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: [External] Re: cross LPAR priority and cycle stealing

[Pommier, Rex]

Hi Martin,

Sorry, no sysplex.  

Rex

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf 
Of Martin Packer
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2018 3:59 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: [External] Re: cross LPAR priority and cycle stealing



Are these LPARs in the same Sysplex? Two beneficial effects if they are:

1) You could - with IRD Weight Management - have weights shifted between
the LPARs.

2) Sysplex PI for important works comes into play.

Cheers, Martin

Sent from my iPad

> On 28 Aug 2018, at 21:52, Pommier, Rex  wrote:
>
> Hello list,
>
> Hypothetical scenario is a single machine with 2 LPARs on it, each LPAR
is defined as having 50% of the capacity of the entire machine, uncapped
across the board.  In this scenario, if both LPAR1 and LPAR2 are running
flat out, each LPAR will take 50% of the machine.  If one of the LPARs is
busy and the other isn't doing anything, the busy LPAR will "steal" cycles
from the not busy one.  That's the easy part.  Here's where my thoughts get
fuzzy.  Is there a way to differentiate between high priority work on one
LPAR and low priority work on the other LPAR.  Here's what I'd like to do:
Say I'm running a bunch of production on one LPAR and a bunch of test work
on the other one.  I'd like to be able to steal cycles from the test LPAR
and give them to the production one.  I know WLM handles this within an
LPAR, making sure the high priority work gets the cycles it needs, but is
there a mechanism where I can do this across multiple LPARs?  If there is,
can somebody point me to the right place for learning how to configure this
to happen automatically?
>
> I have higher and lower priority work alternating between multiple LPARs
and would like the machine to be able to better balance the workloads so
that regardless of which LPAR the high priority work is on, it gets the CPU
necessary.
>
> TIA,
>
> Rex
>
>
> The information contained in this message is confidential, protected from
disclosure and may be legally privileged.  If the reader of this message is
not the intended recipient or an employee or agent responsible for
delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
that any disclosure, distribution, copying, or any action taken or action
omitted in reliance on it, is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.  If
you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately
by replying to this message and destroy the material in its entirety,
whether in electronic or hard copy format.  Thank you.
>
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>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 lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

The information contained in this message is confidential, protected from 
disclosure and may be legally privileged.  If the reader of this message is not 
the intended recipient or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this 
message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, 
distribution, copying, or any action taken or action omitted in reliance on it, 
is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.  If you have received this 
communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to this 
message and destroy the material in its entirety, whether in electronic or hard 
copy format.  Thank you.


--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: SDSF INPUT ON/OFF

[Edward Finnell]

Isn't it an SDSF Parm? WHO will show GROUP.



In a message dated 8/28/2018 4:02:03 PM Central Standard Time, 
jesse1.robin...@sce.com writes:

 
It's supposed to, right? OTOH SJ for the job shows everything including inline 
input. This is z/OS 2.3.

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

SDSF INPUT ON/OFF

[Jesse 1 Robinson]

A colleague noticed that SDSF INPUT ON is not showing a SYSIN DD * data set. 
It's supposed to, right? OTOH SJ for the job shows everything including inline 
input. This is z/OS 2.3.

.
.
J.O.Skip Robinson
Southern California Edison Company
Electric Dragon Team Paddler
SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager
323-715-0595 Mobile
626-543-6132 Office <= NEW
robin...@sce.com


--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: cross LPAR priority and cycle stealing

[Martin Packer]

Are these LPARs in the same Sysplex? Two beneficial effects if they are:

1) You could - with IRD Weight Management - have weights shifted between
the LPARs.

2) Sysplex PI for important works comes into play.

Cheers, Martin

Sent from my iPad

> On 28 Aug 2018, at 21:52, Pommier, Rex  wrote:
>
> Hello list,
>
> Hypothetical scenario is a single machine with 2 LPARs on it, each LPAR
is defined as having 50% of the capacity of the entire machine, uncapped
across the board.  In this scenario, if both LPAR1 and LPAR2 are running
flat out, each LPAR will take 50% of the machine.  If one of the LPARs is
busy and the other isn't doing anything, the busy LPAR will "steal" cycles
from the not busy one.  That's the easy part.  Here's where my thoughts get
fuzzy.  Is there a way to differentiate between high priority work on one
LPAR and low priority work on the other LPAR.  Here's what I'd like to do:
Say I'm running a bunch of production on one LPAR and a bunch of test work
on the other one.  I'd like to be able to steal cycles from the test LPAR
and give them to the production one.  I know WLM handles this within an
LPAR, making sure the high priority work gets the cycles it needs, but is
there a mechanism where I can do this across multiple LPARs?  If there is,
can somebody point me to the right place for learning how to configure this
to happen automatically?
>
> I have higher and lower priority work alternating between multiple LPARs
and would like the machine to be able to better balance the workloads so
that regardless of which LPAR the high priority work is on, it gets the CPU
necessary.
>
> TIA,
>
> Rex
>
>
> The information contained in this message is confidential, protected from
disclosure and may be legally privileged.  If the reader of this message is
not the intended recipient or an employee or agent responsible for
delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
that any disclosure, distribution, copying, or any action taken or action
omitted in reliance on it, is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.  If
you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately
by replying to this message and destroy the material in its entirety,
whether in electronic or hard copy format.  Thank you.
>
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>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 lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

cross LPAR priority and cycle stealing

[Pommier, Rex]

Hello list,

Hypothetical scenario is a single machine with 2 LPARs on it, each LPAR is 
defined as having 50% of the capacity of the entire machine, uncapped across 
the board.  In this scenario, if both LPAR1 and LPAR2 are running flat out, 
each LPAR will take 50% of the machine.  If one of the LPARs is busy and the 
other isn't doing anything, the busy LPAR will "steal" cycles from the not busy 
one.  That's the easy part.  Here's where my thoughts get fuzzy.  Is there a 
way to differentiate between high priority work on one LPAR and low priority 
work on the other LPAR.  Here's what I'd like to do:  Say I'm running a bunch 
of production on one LPAR and a bunch of test work on the other one.  I'd like 
to be able to steal cycles from the test LPAR and give them to the production 
one.  I know WLM handles this within an LPAR, making sure the high priority 
work gets the cycles it needs, but is there a mechanism where I can do this 
across multiple LPARs?  If there is, can somebody point me to the right place 
for learning how to configure this to happen automatically?

I have higher and lower priority work alternating between multiple LPARs and 
would like the machine to be able to better balance the workloads so that 
regardless of which LPAR the high priority work is on, it gets the CPU 
necessary.

TIA,

Rex


The information contained in this message is confidential, protected from 
disclosure and may be legally privileged.  If the reader of this message is not 
the intended recipient or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this 
message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, 
distribution, copying, or any action taken or action omitted in reliance on it, 
is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.  If you have received this 
communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to this 
message and destroy the material in its entirety, whether in electronic or hard 
copy format.  Thank you.

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Zowe for systems programmer ?

[Gord Tomlin]

On 2018-08-28 16:18, Tom Marchant wrote:

On Fri, 24 Aug 2018 11:25:57 -0400, Matt Hogstrom wrote:


The question about serialization is up to the consumer of the
REST interface.  For instance, if editing a dataset the caller
can request that the ENQ on the dataset be held to keep
others from editing the file.

This still doesn't answer the question. Does Zowe obtain the
ENQ, or is it up to the user whether the ENQ is acquired?


It would appear that the answer to your question is here:
https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/en/SSLTBW_2.3.0/com.ibm.zos.v2r3.izua700/IZUHPINFO_API_PutWriteDataSet.htm

Under "Custom headers":

X-IBM-Obtain-ENQ
This header is optional; set it to one of the following values to 
request that a system ENQ be obtained and held after the completion of 
this request. If not specified, then no ENQs will be held after the 
completion of this request.


EXCL
a SYSDSN/Exclusive ENQ will be held on the data set
SHRW
a SYSDSN/SHR ENQ will be held on the data set, and a 
SPFEDIT/EXCL ENQ will be held on the data set, including the member name 
if this is a request for a PDS member.


A successful response will include an X-IBM-Session-Ref response 
header that can be added as a request header to subsequent requests to 
specify affinity to the TSO address space holding this ENQ.


In other words, "plays well with the other children, iff requested to do 
so."


--

Regards, Gord Tomlin
Action Software International
(a division of Mazda Computer Corporation)
Tel: (905) 470-7113, Fax: (905) 470-6507
Support: https://actionsoftware.com/support/

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Zowe for systems programmer ?

[Tom Marchant]

On Fri, 24 Aug 2018 11:25:57 -0400, Matt Hogstrom wrote:

>The question about serialization is up to the consumer of the 
>REST interface.  For instance, if editing a dataset the caller 
>can request that the ENQ on the dataset be held to keep 
>others from editing the file.

This still doesn't answer the question. Does Zowe obtain the 
ENQ, or is it up to the user whether the ENQ is acquired?

-- 
Tom Marchant

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: zOSMF setup

[John Eells]

Tom Sims wrote:

Greetings.

I am in the process of upgrading a client's zOS 2.1 systems to zOS 2.3, 
which means among the many other challenges, configuring a working 
zOSMF.  It was up for some time on the 2.1 test system, however not 
until the 2.2 repackaging retro-fit was applied.


A sentence I encounter frequently is, "z/OSMF can run on a parallel 
sysplex, monoplex, or XCF local mode environment."  See for example, 
page 4 of the IBM z/OS Management Facility Configuration Guide.


For the last two decades, most of my clients have relied on "basic 
sysplex" for GRS signalling -- not being able or willing to afford a 
parallel sysplex or carve out an LPAR emulating such; it has simply not 
been a part of the strategic plans.  What are the options, then, for 
zOSMF moving forward?  Can the LPARs remain a basic sysplex, with zOSMF, 
say, operating in some sort of basic mode, e.g. on the test system only?





You can certainly set z/OSMF up so that it starts (or autostarts) on one 
system only and does not start on the rest.

--
John Eells
IBM Poughkeepsie
ee...@us.ibm.com

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: JES2 BSC NJE over FICON

[Tony Thigpen]

I guess the question is:

Why is it ok for the IOCP, but not ok for the IODEF?

Sounds like someone in the z/os group IODEF programmer did not talk to 
the hardware guys.


Tony Thigpen

Neubert, Kevin wrote on 08/28/2018 12:29 PM:

Don't believe FICON supports BCTC.  If ESCON is no longer an option for you, 
believe you'll need to look at the TCP/IP for NJE protocol instead.

Regards,

Kevin

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf 
Of Tony Thigpen
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2018 9:09 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: JES2 BSC NJE over FICON

I am trying to move my JES2 to RSCS 'NJE over BSC' connect from ESCON to FICON.

JES2 requires that the device is set up as BCTC.

This works on ESCON:
CHPID PATH=(CSS(0),C1),SHARED,PARTITION=((HKYPROD,UPHT),(=)),
 PCHID=1C1,TYPE=CNC
CNTLUNIT CUNUMBR=8200,PATH=((CSS(0),C1)),UNITADD=((00,144)),
 CUADD=1,UNIT=SCTC
IODEVICE ADDRESS=(8260,016),CUNUMBR=(8200),STADET=Y,
 PARTITION=((CSS(0),UPHT)),UNIT=BCTC

For FICON, this actually compiles as an IOCP:
CHPID PATH=(CSS(0),C1),SHARED,PARTITION=((HKYPROD,UPHT),(=)),
 PCHID=17C,TYPE=FC
CNTLUNIT CUNUMBR=8200,PATH=((CSS(0),C1)),UNITADD=((00,144)),
 CUADD=01,UNIT=FCTC
IODEVICE ADDRESS=(8270,016),CUNUMBR=(8200),STADET=Y,UNIT=BCTC,
 PARTITION=((CSS(0),HKYPROD))

But, when using the HCD panels in z/OS 1.13, it will not let me set the 
IODEVICE to BCTC.
CBDA297I Control unit 3200 of type FCTC cannot attach device 3260
   of type BCTC.

What gives?

(I did try leaving the IODEF at FCTC and the IOCP at BCTC, but JES2 grips and 
will not establish the link.)

--
Tony Thigpen

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to 
lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN




--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Anyone here exprerienced in JSON parser (assembler)

[Tom Ross]

>On 28/08/2018 1:11 AM, Tom Ross wrote:
>>> On 22/08/2018 11:51 PM, Charles Mills wrote:
>>>
 COBOL does not seem like a great choice either to me personally, but so=
>me=3D
 folks, and especially some shops, are most comfortable with COBOL.
>> The JSON PARSE statement in COBOL is the keasiest way to parse JSON ever!
>
>
>You can't argue with that! Almost as easy as JavaScript :)
>
>let obj =3D JSON.parse('{ "name":"John", "age":30, "city":"New York"}');
>
>Is there a COBOL equivalent to JSON.stringify?

Yes!  It is the JSON GENERATE statement, available in 2016 in COBOL V6.1

Cheers,
TomR  >> COBOL is the Language of the Future! <<

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: JES2 BSC NJE over FICON

[Neubert, Kevin]

Don't believe FICON supports BCTC.  If ESCON is no longer an option for you, 
believe you'll need to look at the TCP/IP for NJE protocol instead.

Regards,

Kevin

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf 
Of Tony Thigpen
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2018 9:09 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: JES2 BSC NJE over FICON

I am trying to move my JES2 to RSCS 'NJE over BSC' connect from ESCON to FICON.

JES2 requires that the device is set up as BCTC.

This works on ESCON:
CHPID PATH=(CSS(0),C1),SHARED,PARTITION=((HKYPROD,UPHT),(=)),
PCHID=1C1,TYPE=CNC
CNTLUNIT CUNUMBR=8200,PATH=((CSS(0),C1)),UNITADD=((00,144)),
CUADD=1,UNIT=SCTC
IODEVICE ADDRESS=(8260,016),CUNUMBR=(8200),STADET=Y,
PARTITION=((CSS(0),UPHT)),UNIT=BCTC

For FICON, this actually compiles as an IOCP:
CHPID PATH=(CSS(0),C1),SHARED,PARTITION=((HKYPROD,UPHT),(=)),
PCHID=17C,TYPE=FC
CNTLUNIT CUNUMBR=8200,PATH=((CSS(0),C1)),UNITADD=((00,144)),
CUADD=01,UNIT=FCTC
IODEVICE ADDRESS=(8270,016),CUNUMBR=(8200),STADET=Y,UNIT=BCTC,
PARTITION=((CSS(0),HKYPROD))

But, when using the HCD panels in z/OS 1.13, it will not let me set the 
IODEVICE to BCTC.
CBDA297I Control unit 3200 of type FCTC cannot attach device 3260
  of type BCTC.

What gives?

(I did try leaving the IODEF at FCTC and the IOCP at BCTC, but JES2 grips and 
will not establish the link.)

--
Tony Thigpen

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to 
lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: SMP/E RECEIVE ORDER Certificates

[Nai, Dean]

I ran into the exact problem yesterday and after downloading, installing in 
RACF and adding them to the SHOPZ keyring everything is now working.








On 8/27/18, 9:11 AM, "IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of Jousma, David" 
 wrote:

>So, there are a couple of certs needed.  Obviously, your ShopZ generated cert 
>on the keyring you specify in ORDERSERVER stanza, but then for secured FTP you 
>do need the Digicert keys.   At the behest of Kurt Q awhile back, I started 
>using the "javatruststore" on the downloadkeyring statement in the CLIENT 
>stanza for resolution of these Digicert certs.IBM JAVA support team 
>supplies those certs as part of the JAVA distribution, so nothing to put on 
>any SAF keyrings for that.
>
>javahome="/opt/fitb/java/Jre" classpath="/usr/lpp/smp/classes"
>downloadmethod="ftp"  
>downloadkeyring="javatruststore"> 
>
>-Original Message-
>From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On 
>Behalf Of Ed Jaffe
>Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2018 12:57 PM
>To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
>Subject: SMP/E RECEIVE ORDER Certificates
>
>**CAUTION EXTERNAL EMAIL**
>
>**DO NOT open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or unexpected 
>emails**
>
>We have the DigiCert CA and G2 certificates added to our SMPKEYRING. 
>Nevertheless, last night our RECEIVE ORDER jobs failed with:
>
>GIM69207S ** RECEIVE PROCESSING HAS FAILED BECAUSE THE CONNECTION WITH THE
>  SERVER FAILED. javax.net.ssl.SSLHandshakeException:
>  com.ibm.jsse2.util.h: PKIX path building failed:
>  java.security.cert.CertPathBuilderException:
>  PKIXCertPathBuilderImpl could not build a valid CertPath.; 
> interna
>  cause is: ..java.security.cert.CertPathValidatorException: The
>  certificate issued by CN=GeoTrust Glob GIM20501IRECEIVE 
> PROCESSING IS COMPLETE. THE HIGHEST RETURN CODE WAS 12.
>
>Are we the only ones? Is there something else that must be done other than 
>what's documented in this PDF?
>
>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www-2D03.ibm.com_support_techdocs_atsmastr.nsf_WebIndex_FLASH10884&d=DwIGaQ&c=vYl7KJMDeuM7F-Nqf_hfailBifPmyspo7hrJGlNN7nU&r=Jrkg6Kqkg1RuQHbN9OpjcGoj051_POke_QQnGwsdEE8&m=pSBxq3s3hnKmBtYHcgbSFZ3Vdruo0bksBGWFm2Xn5_U&s=p-RLzoOlqhi_3qTuWMkEKScrVGsBXYrQoqYYNN1mRDI&e=
>
>
>--
>Phoenix Software International
>Edward E. Jaffe
>831 Parkview Drive North
>El Segundo, CA 90245
>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.phoenixsoftware.com_&d=DwIGaQ&c=vYl7KJMDeuM7F-Nqf_hfailBifPmyspo7hrJGlNN7nU&r=Jrkg6Kqkg1RuQHbN9OpjcGoj051_POke_QQnGwsdEE8&m=pSBxq3s3hnKmBtYHcgbSFZ3Vdruo0bksBGWFm2Xn5_U&s=Bzo_ztWDkH3B8uoYWn4AOM3Y1g0qmq4SV5RZs6ltVIs&e=
>
>
>This e-mail message, including any attachments, appended messages and the 
>information contained therein, is for the sole use of the intended 
>recipient(s). If you are not an intended recipient or have otherwise received 
>this email message in error, any use, dissemination, distribution, review, 
>storage or copying of this e-mail message and the information contained 
>therein is strictly prohibited. If you are not an intended recipient, please 
>contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of this email 
>message and do not otherwise utilize or retain this email message or any or 
>all of the information contained therein. Although this email message and any 
>attachments or appended messages are believed to be free of any virus or other 
>defect that might affect any computer system into which it is received and 
>opened, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that it is virus 
>free and no responsibility is accepted by the sender for any loss or damage 
>arising in any way from its opening or use.
>
>--
>For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to 
>lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN **CAUTION EXTERNAL 
>EMAIL**
>
>**DO NOT open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or unexpected 
>emails**
>
>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 subscri

JES2 BSC NJE over FICON

[Tony Thigpen]

I am trying to move my JES2 to RSCS 'NJE over BSC' connect from ESCON to 
FICON.


JES2 requires that the device is set up as BCTC.

This works on ESCON:
CHPID PATH=(CSS(0),C1),SHARED,PARTITION=((HKYPROD,UPHT),(=)),
   PCHID=1C1,TYPE=CNC
CNTLUNIT CUNUMBR=8200,PATH=((CSS(0),C1)),UNITADD=((00,144)),
   CUADD=1,UNIT=SCTC
IODEVICE ADDRESS=(8260,016),CUNUMBR=(8200),STADET=Y,
   PARTITION=((CSS(0),UPHT)),UNIT=BCTC

For FICON, this actually compiles as an IOCP:
CHPID PATH=(CSS(0),C1),SHARED,PARTITION=((HKYPROD,UPHT),(=)),
   PCHID=17C,TYPE=FC
CNTLUNIT CUNUMBR=8200,PATH=((CSS(0),C1)),UNITADD=((00,144)),
   CUADD=01,UNIT=FCTC
IODEVICE ADDRESS=(8270,016),CUNUMBR=(8200),STADET=Y,UNIT=BCTC,
   PARTITION=((CSS(0),HKYPROD))

But, when using the HCD panels in z/OS 1.13, it will not let me set the 
IODEVICE to BCTC.

CBDA297I Control unit 3200 of type FCTC cannot attach device 3260
 of type BCTC.

What gives?

(I did try leaving the IODEF at FCTC and the IOCP at BCTC, but JES2 
grips and will not establish the link.)


--
Tony Thigpen

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: $HASP568 - Connect to a Unkown APPL

[W Mainframe]

Gilson,
Did you set up this major node in vtam tables?
Dan


Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone


On Tuesday, August 28, 2018, 10:14 AM, Gilson Cesar de Oliveira 
 wrote:

Dear list:

  We have configured an NJE connection using the following statements in JES2 
PARM:

APPL(APPL01)  NODE=31 

CONNECT  NODEA=1,MEMBA=1,NODEB=31,MEMBB=1

N(31)  NAME=NODE01,PATHMGR=YES,CONNECT=(YES,30)

 In VTAMLST we have the following definitions:

        VBUILD  TYPE=CDRSC  
          NETWORK NETID=NETB
APPL01    CDRSC  ==> Remote Node

My NETID is NETA
              VBUILD  TYPE=APPL                    
LCLNJE11  APPL    VPACING=5,AUTH=ACQ,          
              DLOGMOD=JESMODE,MODETAB=JES2MODE



I'm receiving the message $HASP568 with the following content:

$HASP568 NODE=NODE01 - AUTOMATIC CONNECT (APPL=NODE01)

and VTAM messages with sense code 087D0001 with the following contents:

IST663I  INIT OTHER REQUEST              FAILED  , SENSE=087D0001  
IST664I  REAL  OLU=NETA.LCLNJE11    ALIAS DLU=NETA.NODE01    

I'd like to know why the connection retry is using node name instead of APPL 
name as defined in JES2 parm ??

We are at z/OS V2R2.

Thanks in advance for any help.

Regards,

Gilson Cesar

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN



--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

zOSMF setup

[Tom Sims]

Greetings.

I am in the process of upgrading a client's zOS 2.1 systems to zOS 2.3, 
which means among the many other challenges, configuring a working 
zOSMF.  It was up for some time on the 2.1 test system, however not 
until the 2.2 repackaging retro-fit was applied.


A sentence I encounter frequently is, "z/OSMF can run on a parallel 
sysplex, monoplex, or XCF local mode environment."  See for example, 
page 4 of the IBM z/OS Management Facility Configuration Guide.


For the last two decades, most of my clients have relied on "basic 
sysplex" for GRS signalling -- not being able or willing to afford a 
parallel sysplex or carve out an LPAR emulating such; it has simply not 
been a part of the strategic plans.  What are the options, then, for 
zOSMF moving forward?  Can the LPARs remain a basic sysplex, with zOSMF, 
say, operating in some sort of basic mode, e.g. on the test system only?


I should say, by the way, that the less fragile CA-CSM software manager 
has worked very well for us since it was rolled out on the test system 
at version 5.  It is not used to deploy, only to upgrade and maintain CA 
program products, which are then rolled to the other systems in the 
basic sysplex through more familiar, traditional means.


Thanks in advance,
Tom Sims
zSystems and other hats.

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Check out GlobalFoundries drops push for next-gen 7nm semiconductor tech

[Paul Gilmartin]

On Tue, 28 Aug 2018 00:01:20 -0400, Edward Finnell wrote:

>https://appleinsider.com/articles/18/08/27/globalfoundries-drops-push-for-next-gen-7nm-semiconductor-tech
> 
>Don't know what this means for Z. Sure there'll be more to come.
> 
As I read, and remember from a few years ago:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GlobalFoundries#Acquisition_of_IBM%27s_chip-manufacturing_unit
... 
Acquisition of IBM's chip-manufacturing unit
In October 2014, GlobalFoundries received US$1.5 billion from IBM to accept 
taking over IBM's
chip-manufacturing business unit, ... As part of the agreement, 
GlobalFoundries will be the sole
provider of IBM's server processor chips for the next 10 years.
...
I wondered then, how can that work?  Who sets the price?  Who sets the quantity?
Who specifies the technology?

-- gil

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

$HASP568 - Connect to a Unkown APPL

[Gilson Cesar de Oliveira]

Dear list:

  We have configured an NJE connection using the following statements in JES2 
PARM:

APPL(APPL01)   NODE=31 

CONNECT  NODEA=1,MEMBA=1,NODEB=31,MEMBB=1

N(31)   NAME=NODE01,PATHMGR=YES,CONNECT=(YES,30)

 In VTAMLST we have the following definitions:

 VBUILD  TYPE=CDRSC  
  NETWORK NETID=NETB
APPL01CDRSC   ==> Remote Node

My NETID is NETA
   VBUILD  TYPE=APPL 
LCLNJE11  APPLVPACING=5,AUTH=ACQ,   
   DLOGMOD=JESMODE,MODETAB=JES2MODE



I'm receiving the message $HASP568 with the following content:

$HASP568 NODE=NODE01 - AUTOMATIC CONNECT (APPL=NODE01)

and VTAM messages with sense code 087D0001 with the following contents:

IST663I  INIT OTHER REQUEST   FAILED  , SENSE=087D0001   
IST664I  REAL  OLU=NETA.LCLNJE11 ALIAS DLU=NETA.NODE01 

I'd like to know why the connection retry is using node name instead of APPL 
name as defined in JES2 parm ??

We are at z/OS V2R2.

Thanks in advance for any help.

Regards,

Gilson Cesar

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN