Re: Serverpac installs January 2022 and beyond - Requests
On 7/25/2021 10:01 PM, Brian Westerman wrote: Running on a VM on a 400mip box doesn't count, no. The information provided to me was that the "smallest" box that had been tested by IBM is a 400+mip one, so the answer is "no", none of those count. I'm frankly kind of astonished that it never occurred to IBM to test on the smallest box they sell for z/OS use, one would think that would have occurred to "someone". z/OSMF has been used and tested extensively on zPDT and zD by various ISVs and others. One of z/OSMF's biggest proponents is Watson & Walker. The last time I saw them live at SHARE, Frank Kyne mentioned at the bottom of slide 40 of https://watsonwalker.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/2020-09-100-Whats-New-in-Parmlib.pdf that running ZFS inside OMVS took minutes off z/OSMF startup time on their zPDT. Until Frank mentioned it, I did not even know running ZFS that way was an option... -- Phoenix Software International Edward E. Jaffe 831 Parkview Drive North El Segundo, CA 90245 https://www.phoenixsoftware.com/ 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
Re: Serverpac installs January 2022 and beyond - Requests
Running on a VM on a 400mip box doesn't count, no. The information provided to me was that the "smallest" box that had been tested by IBM is a 400+mip one, so the answer is "no", none of those count. I'm frankly kind of astonished that it never occurred to IBM to test on the smallest box they sell for z/OS use, one would think that would have occurred to "someone". Working on something for a long time doesn't make it okay to provide only a 2 month "window" to install for those small sites. I still don't understand why IBM didn't just say that they will provide 2.5 with both installation methods and starting with the next release, move to z/OSMF only. It seems unrealistic to provide it for 3 months only. On Sun, 25 Jul 2021 12:56:05 -0300, Clark Morris wrote: >[Default] On 25 Jul 2021 06:42:01 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main >mwa...@us.ibm.com (Marna WALLE) wrote: > >>Brian, >>Concerning small environments, does having z/OS (and z/OS V2.5) available to >>all participating ISVs count as part of our early programs? Whereby they >>could use z/OS V2.5 and z/OSMF in their own environment, or use it as a z/VM >>guest? Does it count that these same ISVs, who can run in their own very >>small environments on their own purchased HW, have had z/OSMF for quite a >>while and we've delivered PTFs to help with the performance in those >>environments because of their z/OSMF feedback? Does it count that any early >>customer in the z/OS V2.5 release program can and do have small sandbox >>systems, on which they perform their installation and service work? Does >>having the function testing for z/OS V2.5 across all the z/OS Development >>labs as z/VM guests count, with these environments sometimes being smaller >>than a zPDT? > >I am wondering if some of the problem is the inappropriate default. I >remember putting a zap on a console display module so that the default >was 1 not 100 when a display unit command was issued.. The result of >displaying 100 device statuses on a 1052 (deserving of the >sledgehammer award) bouncing ball console printer was painful. This >lasted from MVT well into MVS and was the subject of a requirement. If >it takes 300 concurrent threads to run the default of 100 qualifies >for being inappropriate. Also someone whose talent is improving >systems performance may be needed. I was the type of person who would >not have designed a good system but I could in many cases drastically >improve the performance of an existing systems, preferably in COBOL >although I did a speed up a couple of assembler programs. > >Clark Morris > >> >>I do understand that you are unhappy with the choice of using z/OSMF for z/OS >>V2.5 after Jan 2022. I'm not sure there's anymore I can offer. We have been >>moving in this direction for a very long time. >> >>-Marna WALLE >>z/OS System Installation and Upgrade >>IBM Poughkeepsie >> >>-- >>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
D U o a 1052 was Re: Serverpac installs January 2022 and beyond - Requests
[Default] On 25 Jul 2021 14:56:33 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main sme...@gmu.edu (Seymour J Metz) wrote: >Did you ever see a 1052-7, or even a 3210, on an MVS system? Admiitedly the D >U message flood is a nuisance even on a 3270, but every shop that I saw used >3066 and 3270 for consoles, with hardcopy on syslog and no keyboard-printer >consoles. Was anybody here on a S/370 that used a 3210 or 3215 as an MCS >console? This was a 1052 on a 360/65. As I recall we graduated to a 3287 on our 4341. Clark Morris -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Serverpac installs January 2022 and beyond - Requests
On 25/07/2021 11:41 pm, Marna WALLE wrote: Concerning small environments, does having z/OS (and z/OS V2.5) available to all participating ISVs count as part of our early programs? Whereby they could use z/OS V2.5 and z/OSMF in their own environment, or use it as a z/VM guest? If you are comparing to the Dallas RDP systems, I would not call them small. My Dallas system is about 20 times the capacity of the smallest z15 IBM sells. The systems Brian has described also sound about 5% of the capacity of the RDP system, and I have customers with production workloads on similar systems. By the LSPR ratings, the largest systems are well over 1000 times the capacity of the smallest systems. That makes the smallest systems very, very small. (Was system recovery boost created so you could start z/OSMF on these small systems?) -- 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: Serverpac installs January 2022 and beyond - Requests
Did you ever see a 1052-7, or even a 3210, on an MVS system? Admiitedly the D U message flood is a nuisance even on a 3270, but every shop that I saw used 3066 and 3270 for consoles, with hardcopy on syslog and no keyboard-printer consoles. Was anybody here on a S/370 that used a 3210 or 3215 as an MCS console? -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of Clark Morris [03b2c618bdfc-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu] Sent: Sunday, July 25, 2021 11:56 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Serverpac installs January 2022 and beyond - Requests [Default] On 25 Jul 2021 06:42:01 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main mwa...@us.ibm.com (Marna WALLE) wrote: >Brian, >Concerning small environments, does having z/OS (and z/OS V2.5) available to >all participating ISVs count as part of our early programs? Whereby they >could use z/OS V2.5 and z/OSMF in their own environment, or use it as a z/VM >guest? Does it count that these same ISVs, who can run in their own very >small environments on their own purchased HW, have had z/OSMF for quite a >while and we've delivered PTFs to help with the performance in those >environments because of their z/OSMF feedback? Does it count that any early >customer in the z/OS V2.5 release program can and do have small sandbox >systems, on which they perform their installation and service work? Does >having the function testing for z/OS V2.5 across all the z/OS Development labs >as z/VM guests count, with these environments sometimes being smaller than a >zPDT? I am wondering if some of the problem is the inappropriate default. I remember putting a zap on a console display module so that the default was 1 not 100 when a display unit command was issued.. The result of displaying 100 device statuses on a 1052 (deserving of the sledgehammer award) bouncing ball console printer was painful. This lasted from MVT well into MVS and was the subject of a requirement. If it takes 300 concurrent threads to run the default of 100 qualifies for being inappropriate. Also someone whose talent is improving systems performance may be needed. I was the type of person who would not have designed a good system but I could in many cases drastically improve the performance of an existing systems, preferably in COBOL although I did a speed up a couple of assembler programs. Clark Morris > >I do understand that you are unhappy with the choice of using z/OSMF for z/OS >V2.5 after Jan 2022. I'm not sure there's anymore I can offer. We have been >moving in this direction for a very long time. > >-Marna WALLE >z/OS System Installation and Upgrade >IBM Poughkeepsie > >-- >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: Serverpac installs January 2022 and beyond - Requests
This might get more interest if they called it rent a system, rather than cloud. Cloud has many negative images for z/OS people. On Sun, 25 Jul 2021 at 14:23, Ed Jaffe wrote: > On 7/24/2021 11:14 PM, Mike Schwab wrote: > > You can rent an account on a dallas (or other) center machine and run > > real production. > > > https://assets.toolbox.com/research/make-your-mainframe-environment-more-agile-and-responsive-with-ibms-zcloud-47582 > > -- > Phoenix Software International > Edward E. Jaffe > 831 Parkview Drive North > El Segundo, CA 90245 > https://www.phoenixsoftware.com/ > > > > > 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 > -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Mixing C/C++ with LE-conforming IBM HLASM
Gil, Are your questions because you want to use the utilities, or just pedagogical? :-) -l l4 is compatible with FILEDATA=RECORD, and I think predates it. It sounds like your issue is that we didn't use the IBM terminology? Unicode conversion errors (UTF-8) print an error to stderr and exits <> 0 support for tagging is currently limited to what is documented: getpds has an option for tagging output zFS files. Adding a processing option to putpds to respect tags is a reasonable thing to want. Kirk Wolf Dovetailed Technologies http://dovetail.com On 7/24/21 3:24 PM, Paul Gilmartin wrote: On Sat, 24 Jul 2021 12:01:09 -0500, Kirk Wolf wrote: Sorry for joining this thread late. You are correct Larry - the z/OS C library has very little help for PDS processing. I wrote an RFE in 2015, but I don't expect to want it anymore if/when IBM responds :-) https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/rfe/execute?use_case=viewRfe_ID=80811 We recently released two new shell command utilities in Co:Z which have all sorts of options for loading/unloading PDS/PDSEs to/from zFS files. Nice. Why is the "//" required? It might be presumed. But it leaves syntactic leeway for future extension to UNIX<->UNIX copy. https://www.dovetail.com/docs/zos-utilities/dsp-ref_getpds.html There's no "-l record" option. That format, provided by allocation is seldom used, but needed to support files containing a line-separator as data. (Is this "l4", not mentioned in the list of option values?) https://dovetail.com/docs/zos-utilities/dsp-ref_putpds.html is -i l4 or FILE DATA(RECORD) supported? If the -l or -s option is omitted, are the tag values of the source files individually respected? (pax does some of this, however poorly.) JCL respects the FILEDATA of a tagged source file (undocumented) How are UNICODE conversion errors treated/reported? Thanks, gil -- 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: Serverpac installs January 2022 and beyond - Requests
[Default] On 25 Jul 2021 06:42:01 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main mwa...@us.ibm.com (Marna WALLE) wrote: >Brian, >Concerning small environments, does having z/OS (and z/OS V2.5) available to >all participating ISVs count as part of our early programs? Whereby they >could use z/OS V2.5 and z/OSMF in their own environment, or use it as a z/VM >guest? Does it count that these same ISVs, who can run in their own very >small environments on their own purchased HW, have had z/OSMF for quite a >while and we've delivered PTFs to help with the performance in those >environments because of their z/OSMF feedback? Does it count that any early >customer in the z/OS V2.5 release program can and do have small sandbox >systems, on which they perform their installation and service work? Does >having the function testing for z/OS V2.5 across all the z/OS Development labs >as z/VM guests count, with these environments sometimes being smaller than a >zPDT? I am wondering if some of the problem is the inappropriate default. I remember putting a zap on a console display module so that the default was 1 not 100 when a display unit command was issued.. The result of displaying 100 device statuses on a 1052 (deserving of the sledgehammer award) bouncing ball console printer was painful. This lasted from MVT well into MVS and was the subject of a requirement. If it takes 300 concurrent threads to run the default of 100 qualifies for being inappropriate. Also someone whose talent is improving systems performance may be needed. I was the type of person who would not have designed a good system but I could in many cases drastically improve the performance of an existing systems, preferably in COBOL although I did a speed up a couple of assembler programs. Clark Morris > >I do understand that you are unhappy with the choice of using z/OSMF for z/OS >V2.5 after Jan 2022. I'm not sure there's anymore I can offer. We have been >moving in this direction for a very long time. > >-Marna WALLE >z/OS System Installation and Upgrade >IBM Poughkeepsie > >-- >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: Serverpac installs January 2022 and beyond - Requests
Brian, Concerning small environments, does having z/OS (and z/OS V2.5) available to all participating ISVs count as part of our early programs? Whereby they could use z/OS V2.5 and z/OSMF in their own environment, or use it as a z/VM guest? Does it count that these same ISVs, who can run in their own very small environments on their own purchased HW, have had z/OSMF for quite a while and we've delivered PTFs to help with the performance in those environments because of their z/OSMF feedback? Does it count that any early customer in the z/OS V2.5 release program can and do have small sandbox systems, on which they perform their installation and service work? Does having the function testing for z/OS V2.5 across all the z/OS Development labs as z/VM guests count, with these environments sometimes being smaller than a zPDT? I do understand that you are unhappy with the choice of using z/OSMF for z/OS V2.5 after Jan 2022. I'm not sure there's anymore I can offer. We have been moving in this direction for a very long time. -Marna WALLE z/OS System Installation and Upgrade IBM Poughkeepsie -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Serverpac installs January 2022 and beyond - Requests
On 7/24/2021 11:14 PM, Mike Schwab wrote: You can rent an account on a dallas (or other) center machine and run real production. https://assets.toolbox.com/research/make-your-mainframe-environment-more-agile-and-responsive-with-ibms-zcloud-47582 -- Phoenix Software International Edward E. Jaffe 831 Parkview Drive North El Segundo, CA 90245 https://www.phoenixsoftware.com/ 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
Re: Serverpac installs January 2022 and beyond - Requests
You can rent an account on a dallas (or other) center machine and run real production. On Sun, Jul 25, 2021 at 12:50 AM kekronbekron <02dee3fcae33-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > > I realized as much. > However, that's one way for IBM to build a bridge. > zSMB or something. > Instead of leaving no option but to get out-of-support older machines (and > h/w support from other companies), or getting more MSUs and such... > IBM could instead sell software-only small machine. > Comparing Mac Pro to a full-on z15, IBM could offer a Mac mini or Macbook Air. > Business class model will be more like MacBook Pro or something. > > - KB > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > > On Sunday, July 25th, 2021 at 10:24 AM, Brian Westerman > wrote: > > > Unfortunately, you can't run a production system on a zPDT, it's not > > allowed under the agreement with IBM. > > > > On Sat, 24 Jul 2021 05:41:56 +, kekronbekron > > kekronbek...@protonmail.com wrote: > > > > > And therein begins a new line where some company offers services to move > > > small machine workloads to zPDT. > > > > > > Or whatever... > > > > > > - KB > > > > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > > > > > > On Saturday, July 24th, 2021 at 9:51 AM, Brian Westerman > > > brian_wester...@syzygyinc.com wrote: > > > > > > > Did you think to have even ONE of those early sites be one with a small > > > > processor (single CPU) like a low end single CPU z/13, z14 or z15? Most > > > > likely you didn't and that's very sad. A good percentage of "new" > > > > clients that IBM has added over the past 5 to 8 years are in that boat > > > > and IBM has decided to set sail without them. > > > > > > > > I have no doubt that the early customers represented vast swaths of > > > > geographies and industries, but how low did you guys dip to test with a > > > > "small" site. The ones IBM called strategic so that they would not go > > > > to Open Systems and instead go with a small box and z/OS? > > > > > > > > It's very disappointing. Not all of the people IBM is ignoring have > > > > access to large and small boxes like I do, if you have a small box and > > > > want to upgrade after January to 2.5 from say 2.3, they will not be > > > > able to do it without beefing up their machine or coming to someone > > > > like us to do it for them. I'm not complaining about the business that > > > > IBM is pushing my way, but I think it's sad that IBM appears to care > > > > very little about the damage (via frustration) they are about to do. > > > > Some will buy an upgraded box, but many will simply drop their > > > > mainframe path in favor of some other direction (away from z/OS). > > > > > > > > Brian > > > > > > > > On Fri, 23 Jul 2021 15:24:10 -0500, Marna WALLE mwa...@us.ibm.com wrote: > > > > > > > > > Brian, > > > > > > > > > > > > Some of the problem here is that you are telling me what "will" > > > > > > > be there, but I don't have anything that actually shows that or > > > > > > > even implies it for z/OSMF for z/OS. I don't even have the > > > > > > > workflows to verify anything. > > > > > > > > > > For the z/OS Workflows that you haven't seen yet, they are Workflow > > > > > steps that are submitting the same JCL jobs that you used to submit > > > > > through the ISPF interface and should be familiar with today. > > > > > Meaning, instead of using an ISPF panel to submit the job, you will > > > > > now submit those same jobs from the z/OSMF Workflow interface. That > > > > > is the difference. The jobs remain the same, in probably 99.99% of > > > > > the cases. They are being converted from ISPF JCL skeletons > > > > > (SCPPSENU) to z/OSMF Workflow JCL templates (XML). So yes, you > > > > > haven't seen them in their XML format, but you certainly have seen > > > > > them when they were JCL skeletons. And remember, every single > > > > > Workflow step JCL that is submitted is able to be edited from z/OSMF, > > > > > just like it was with the CustomPac dialog. > > > > > > > > > > Might there be a conversion error to XML? Yes, of course that is > > > > > possible. But that is why we have my second comment below... > > > > > > > > > > > > People won't have much time between Late September and January to > > > > > > > discover and correct all of the bugs. > > > > > > > > > > For each z/OS new release, and V2.5 more than ever, there are early > > > > > customer programs. The release level early program for z/OS V2.5 has > > > > > its main focus on the installation of and upgrade to z/OS V2.5. We > > > > > understood that the installation process would be different and > > > > > wanted as much exposure, testing, and validation in customer > > > > > environments before it GAs. We have early customers that represent > > > > > many different industries and geographies. Each of these customers > > > > > has installed with a z/OS V2.5 z/OSMF ServerPac. Not a single one of > > > > > them used the old ISPF ServerPac. > > > >
