date:20230306

Shopz is back up and running.

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
Michael Babcock
Sent: יום ב 06 מרץ 2023 19:25
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Shopz

Same here

On Mon, Mar 6, 2023 at 8:23 AM Pommier, Rex  wrote:

> Barbara,
>
> Can you actually log onto ShopZ?  I get the "welcome to ShopZ" and am 
> able to log in, but once logged in is when I get the page not found error.
>
> Rex
>
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On 
> Behalf Of Barbara Nitz
> Sent: יום ב 06 מרץ 2023 10:19
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: Shopz
>
> >Has anyone been able to access shopz since yesterday?
> >Has the address changed?
> I can get to ShopZ at this address
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ibm.com/software/shopzseries/S
> hopzSeries_public.wss__;!!JT0xjr86ZxPthq8!tkINETa0RUlIkxQoWf8y3zQt3HJh
> ZV1YmtRA6d-FLfMylWRm_xRHFBKW2oIMq07JxYOIjIqDRI1qFiOC$
> .
>
> Regards, Barbara
>
> --
> 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
>
>
> The information transmitted is intended solely for the individual or 
> entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or 
> privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or 
> other use of or taking action in reliance upon this information by 
> persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. 
> If you have received this email in error please contact the sender and 
> delete the material from any computer.
>
> --
> 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
>
> --
> 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
>
--
Michael Babcock
OneMain Financial
z/OS Systems Programmer, Lead

--
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: zOSMF

2023-03-06 Thread Seymour J Metz

MVS/SP V1 R3.8? I believe that was the last release that did not require XA or 
better.


--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3


From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of 
David Spiegel [0468385049d1-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu]
Sent: Monday, March 6, 2023 9:46 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: zOSMF

Hi Terri,
"...MVS 1.3.8..." I don't remember 1.3.8. Which year was this?
(I've heard of MVS 3.8 and MVS/SP 1.3, though.)

Regards,
David

On 2023-03-06 20:12, Shaffer, Terri wrote:
> When I worked at Chase bank, We had 117 LPARS and maintenance/clone was a 30 
> minute task. So adding z/OSMF was never even brought up as a consideration.
>
> So while I understand the direction IBM is headed, its adding LOTS of layers 
> to something that sound not be hard.   Running thru screens vs submitting a 
> canned job, is hours vs minutes.
>
> As much as I love my job and starting with MVS 1.3.8 to now z/OS 2.5 and even 
> OS/390, they have added a layer of complexity that eliminated the KISS 
> principle, sadly.
>
> So I have to disagree..
>
> Ms Terri E Shaffer
> Senior Systems Engineer,
> z/OS Support:
> ACIWorldwide - Telecommuter
> H(412-766-2697) C(412-519-2592)
> terri.shaf...@aciworldwide.com
>
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
> Rob Schramm
> Sent: Monday, March 6, 2023 4:27 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: zOSMF
>
> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the 
> content is safe.
>
>
> I think the promise of zosmf is far beyond just a server pack replacement.
> Yeah server pack was great for what it was but when it comes to the grind of 
> installing over and over and over again and the customization the workflow 
> features I believe really hold the promise to fixing what is a continuously 
> pain in the butt situation.  And hopefully they'll continue to make it 
> lighter and lighter.  But the other part is the distribution points and the 
> packaging for distribution.  Yeah I don't really care how it happens whether 
> it's a GUI or not.  But in my view this is steps in the right direction.
>
> I would point you to Ed's presentation on the workflow features that were 
> incorporated to E/JES2 installation.  I really think there's something here.
>
> Just my two cents.
>
> Rob Schramm
>
> On Mon, Mar 6, 2023, 12:06 Michael Babcock  wrote:
>
>> I agree.   We use a permanent maintenance LPAR which is generally not up.
>> With ServerPac, it didn't matter we could select it as the target from our
>> driving system.   With z/OSMF, if run on the driving system, z/OSMF wanted
>> the target up and wanted to communicate with it via z/OSMF.  Not good
>> for us.
>>
>> Further, PSWI uses DSS to restore the datasets and ignores any
>> DATACLAS parameters.  Our OMVS datasets are all EXTADDR so we had to
>> build a REXX EXEC to copy the OMVS datasets to a newly allocated OMVS 
>> dataset with the
>> EXTADDR attribute.   Which by the way, what happens when the ROOT grows
>> beyond 4GB?
>>
>> There were a number of other things we ran into which escape me at the
>> moment.
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 6, 2023 at 10:15 AM Shaffer, Terri <
>> 017d5f778222-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> Randy,
>>>I completely agree, This will be my 40th year working on z/OS and
>>> at least another 7 years to go.
>>>
>>> I find z/OSMF cumbersome.  I prefer to do things close to the source.
>> Not
>>> a tool to add layers of complexity and places to go wrong with yet
>>> more strange messages.
>>>
>>> I installed z/OS 2.5 before they eliminated SERVERPAC.  I then
>>> ordered it again to try it thru z/OSMF, it added a lot more time,
>>> the SSA's, my SMS ACS routines and how things got built added to the
>>> complexity.  Plus
>> there
>>> are many times I would bypass steps in serverpac, that because
>>> z/OSMF is performing what they call checks, think idiot proofing,
>>> makes this even more difficult.
>>>
>>> More to come, but if I find work arounds, I will bypass in the
>>> future
>> what
>>> I can in z/OSMF software installs.
>>>
>>>
>>> Ms Terri E Shaffer
>>> Senior Systems Engineer,
>>> z/OS Support:
>>> ACIWorldwide - Telecommuter
>>> H(412-766-2697) C(412-519-2592)
>>> terri.shaf...@aciworldwide.com
>>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On
>>> Behalf Of Harris Randy - Nashville
>>> Sent: Friday, March 3, 2023 9:03 AM
>>> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
>>> Subject: Re: zOSMF
>>>
>>> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you
>>> know
>> the
>>> content is safe.
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm sure my complaints don't do any good, but I've been doing this
>>> for 25 years (I know many of you a lot longer).
>>> I don't understand why IBM wants to force everyone to use z/OSMF.
>>> Maybe it's an attempt to attract a younger group of System Programmers.
>>> That's fine. However, I

Re: zOSMF

Ok.  go to https://listserv.ua.edu/ , log in,
email list ibm-main (not -archive),
2022-5-3 to 2022-7-1
search for 'z/osmf'
a zIIP gives adequate performance, otherwise takes 90 minutes to start
up, on z/OS 2.5..

On Mon, Mar 6, 2023 at 8:16 PM Shaffer, Terri
<017d5f778222-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
>
> Not exactly sure what you mean by 300?
>
> But for example I never use or logon to z/OSMF and this is it usage since Oct 
> last year, my last IPL
>
> Jobname   REAL  EXCP's  CPU-TIME
> IZUSVR1 , 125T   0.00   0.00   0.00   87 0057   112642169   14774.64
>
> Ms Terri E Shaffer
> Senior Systems Engineer,
> z/OS Support:
> ACIWorldwide – Telecommuter
> H(412-766-2697) C(412-519-2592)
> terri.shaf...@aciworldwide.com
>
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
> Mike Schwab
> Sent: Monday, March 6, 2023 8:44 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: zOSMF
>
> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the 
> content is safe.
>
>
> Did you increase the tasks to 300?  Otherwise the tasks keep swapping in and 
> out.
>
> On Mon, Mar 6, 2023 at 7:40 PM Shaffer, Terri 
> <017d5f778222-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
> >
> > And this doesn't begin to address the CPU MIPS required to even run thru 
> > the screens.
> >
> > When I IPL and z/OSMF starts it takes over the LPAR for a few minutes.  
> > When I logon and try to do anything its slow as molasses.
> >
> > Whereas in ISPF and ServerPAC dialogs I hardly ever left TSO PERIOD 1, 
> > response times.
> >
> > I have no choice but, having a hard time seeing the plus's.
> >
> > Even the migration guide is difficult on a 14" monitor, and because of the 
> > tabs, screen space available its very difficult.
> >
> > When I did my z/OS 2.5, I found the XML and did it manually in an hour or 
> > so.
> >
> > Sorry 
> >
> > Ms Terri E Shaffer
> > Senior Systems Engineer,
> > z/OS Support:
> > ACIWorldwide - Telecommuter
> > H(412-766-2697) C(412-519-2592)
> > terri.shaf...@aciworldwide.com
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On
> > Behalf Of Bill Johnson
> > Sent: Monday, March 6, 2023 8:16 PM
> > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> > Subject: Re: zOSMF
> >
> > EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the 
> > content is safe.
> >
> >
> > I have to agree with this. Once I had my JCL created for just about any 
> > upgrade task, it was simple to make small changes to rerun the same process 
> > for the next upgrade. That goes for zOS, DB2, CICS, IMS, MQ, and most third 
> > party software.
> >
> >
> > Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
> >
> >
> > On Monday, March 6, 2023, 8:12 PM, Shaffer, Terri 
> > <017d5f778222-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
> >
> > When I worked at Chase bank, We had 117 LPARS and maintenance/clone was a 
> > 30 minute task. So adding z/OSMF was never even brought up as a 
> > consideration.
> >
> > So while I understand the direction IBM is headed, its adding LOTS of 
> > layers to something that sound not be hard.  Running thru screens vs 
> > submitting a canned job, is hours vs minutes.
> >
> > As much as I love my job and starting with MVS 1.3.8 to now z/OS 2.5 and 
> > even OS/390, they have added a layer of complexity that eliminated the KISS 
> > principle, sadly.
> >
> > So I have to disagree..
> >
> > Ms Terri E Shaffer
> > Senior Systems Engineer,
> > z/OS Support:
> > ACIWorldwide - Telecommuter
> > H(412-766-2697) C(412-519-2592)
> > terri.shaf...@aciworldwide.com
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On
> > Behalf Of Rob Schramm
> > Sent: Monday, March 6, 2023 4:27 PM
> > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> > Subject: Re: zOSMF
> >
> > EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the 
> > content is safe.
> >
> >
> > I think the promise of zosmf is far beyond just a server pack replacement.
> > Yeah server pack was great for what it was but when it comes to the grind 
> > of installing over and over and over again and the customization the 
> > workflow features I believe really hold the promise to fixing what is a 
> > continuously pain in the butt situation.  And hopefully they'll continue to 
> > make it lighter and lighter.  But the other part is the distribution points 
> > and the packaging for distribution.  Yeah I don't really care how it 
> > happens whether it's a GUI or not.  But in my view this is steps in the 
> > right direction.
> >
> > I would point you to Ed's presentation on the workflow features that were 
> > incorporated to E/JES2 installation.  I really think there's something here.
> >
> > Just my two cents.
> >
> > Rob Schramm
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 6, 2023, 12:06 Michael Babcock  wrote:
> >
> > > I agree.  We use a permanent maintenance LPAR which is generally not up.
> > > With ServerPac, it didn't matter we could select it as the target
>

Re: BMC IAM and DFHSM DATALOSS

2023-03-06 Thread Rob Schramm

Is CICS involved?

Rob

On Mon, Mar 6, 2023, 13:41 Joel C. Ewing  wrote:

> I see two possibilities:
>
> Either IAM is somehow managing to update the file in a way that doesn't
> end up with the changed bit set for the file -- might possibly happen if
> the file is never properly closed by the task that updates it-- maybe if
> the file is opened for update the changed bit only gets set at close if
> some write to the file actually took place..
>
> or
>
> some process is resetting the changed-bit after the file is closed but
> before HSM migration kicks in for the dataset.
>
> I believe there is a DUMPCLASS option to RESET the changed bits on files
> on a full volume DUMP -- on the assumption that you want the changed bit
> to only reflect changes that occurred after that backup dump to avoid
> unneeded dumps for later incremental backups of the same volume.  This
> sounds like something you would definitely NOT want to specify on
> volumes also subject to migration with FSM enabled. If FSM is enabled,
> the changed bit being off tells HSM if it needs to migrate the dataset
> and still has a previously-migrated version of the dataset that was
> recalled but not yet deleted from its migration volume, that all it
> needs to do to migrate is to change the inactive old migrated dataset to
> active status, delete the live dataset, and point it do the old migrated
> copy.  So a sequence of recall dataset, update dataset,
> somehow-not-set-or-reset-change-bit, migrate-with-FSM-enabled is
> guaranteed to lose the updates after the recall.
>
> Recalled, inactive migration versions of datasets on ML2 volumes can
> persist for many weeks depending on the RECYCLE threshold for the ML2
> volumes.
>
>  Joel C. Ewing
>
> On 3/6/23 11:07, Dave Jousma wrote:
> > All,
> >
> > We just learned that we have a problem with IAM (Innovation Access
> Method) the high perf replacement for VSAM.   No idea how long it has been
> going on, and I have tickets open with both BMC and IBM on this.   Seems to
> only affect IAM files, and exists in both z/OS V2.4, and V2.5, and multiple
> versions of IAM.  We are currently at 10.x, but the problem occurs in V9.x
> as well.   We see the problem mostly in our Development space, not in PROD
> (or nothing reported yet, but problem exists there too).  We dont migrate
> much in PROD, and is why we havent had the problem reported there.
> >
> > The scenario here is
> > - existing IAM file gets updates, records added or updated, doesnt
> matter.
> > - file goes unreferenced for 7 days, so HSM migrates
> > - file gets recalled, the updates that were made are gone.
> >
> > In HSM we do have FSM enabled (Fast Subsequent Migration), where if HSM
> is called to migrate the dataset, and it hasnt changed since last
> migration, it just deletes the dataset and reconnects it to the already
> migrated version in HSM.
> >
> > We've learned that turning FSM off circumvents the problem.   IBM tells
> us that "HSM checks the DS1RECAL and DS1IND08 flags in the Format-1 DSCB of
> a data set to determine if a data set is eligible for fast subsequent
> migration. The DS1RECAL flag is used to indicate if a data set has been
> recalled and the DS1IND08 flag is used to indicate if a data set been
> modified since it was last recalled. "
> >
> > IBM doc seems to indicate that OPEN handles setting these bits, BMC
> support says they arent messing with these bits.  I dont know *who* is to
> blame.
> >
> > I'd be curious to hear from other installations that use IAM, has HSM
> with FSM turned on.
> >
> > The recreate scenario is (assumes new test file) with FSM turned on
> > 1 - Allocate test IAM file and add a record easily identifiable
> > 2 - HSM Migrate the file
> > 3 - HSM Recall the file
> > 4 - RECORD ADDED IN #1 is there.
> > 5 - Add another record with new identifiable info
> > 6 - HSM migrate the file.
> > 7 - HSM Restore the file.
> > 8 - Record from #1 is there, record from #4 is not there.
> >
> > With FSM turned off, the dataset gets fresh migration copy every time,
> so the issue is masked.
> >
> > --
> > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>
> --
> Joel C. Ewing
>
> --
> 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: zOSMF

2023-03-06 Thread Rob Schramm

See you are missing the point.

If you have 117 lpars, of course you going to work on making the process
actually work.  Because every minute you save in that process is worth 2
hours. The point is is that for each institution that's done that there's a
bunch that haven't or they've got some jammed together process that breaks
every single time that somebody new touches it.  And it's not standardized
then it's not maintained and it's poorly documented and it's... you know...
ad infinitum ad nauseam.  So for you ... I agree it's probably more of a
pain in the neck.  And there will probably be some sort of compromise
eventually.  But for all the people that have these other processes, I
think the standardization that is going to come from this will ultimately
make this a lot easier. And the dealing with the myriad of ISP software and
IBM non server pack software or stuff that could be on the server pack but
doesn't actually belong there... This should help immeasurably so once
again I will disagree with your disagreement.

Rob

On Mon, Mar 6, 2023, 20:12 Shaffer, Terri <
017d5f778222-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:

> When I worked at Chase bank, We had 117 LPARS and maintenance/clone was a
> 30 minute task. So adding z/OSMF was never even brought up as a
> consideration.
>
> So while I understand the direction IBM is headed, its adding LOTS of
> layers to something that sound not be hard.   Running thru screens vs
> submitting a canned job, is hours vs minutes.
>
> As much as I love my job and starting with MVS 1.3.8 to now z/OS 2.5 and
> even OS/390, they have added a layer of complexity that eliminated the KISS
> principle, sadly.
>
> So I have to disagree..
>
> Ms Terri E Shaffer
> Senior Systems Engineer,
> z/OS Support:
> ACIWorldwide - Telecommuter
> H(412-766-2697) C(412-519-2592)
> terri.shaf...@aciworldwide.com
>
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf
> Of Rob Schramm
> Sent: Monday, March 6, 2023 4:27 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: zOSMF
>
> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the
> content is safe.
>
>
> I think the promise of zosmf is far beyond just a server pack replacement.
> Yeah server pack was great for what it was but when it comes to the grind
> of installing over and over and over again and the customization the
> workflow features I believe really hold the promise to fixing what is a
> continuously pain in the butt situation.  And hopefully they'll continue to
> make it lighter and lighter.  But the other part is the distribution points
> and the packaging for distribution.  Yeah I don't really care how it
> happens whether it's a GUI or not.  But in my view this is steps in the
> right direction.
>
> I would point you to Ed's presentation on the workflow features that were
> incorporated to E/JES2 installation.  I really think there's something here.
>
> Just my two cents.
>
> Rob Schramm
>
> On Mon, Mar 6, 2023, 12:06 Michael Babcock  wrote:
>
> > I agree.   We use a permanent maintenance LPAR which is generally not up.
> > With ServerPac, it didn't matter we could select it as the target from
> our
> > driving system.   With z/OSMF, if run on the driving system, z/OSMF
> wanted
> > the target up and wanted to communicate with it via z/OSMF.  Not good
> > for us.
> >
> > Further, PSWI uses DSS to restore the datasets and ignores any
> > DATACLAS parameters.  Our OMVS datasets are all EXTADDR so we had to
> > build a REXX EXEC to copy the OMVS datasets to a newly allocated OMVS
> dataset with the
> > EXTADDR attribute.   Which by the way, what happens when the ROOT grows
> > beyond 4GB?
> >
> > There were a number of other things we ran into which escape me at the
> > moment.
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 6, 2023 at 10:15 AM Shaffer, Terri <
> > 017d5f778222-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > Randy,
> > >   I completely agree, This will be my 40th year working on z/OS and
> > > at least another 7 years to go.
> > >
> > > I find z/OSMF cumbersome.  I prefer to do things close to the source.
> > Not
> > > a tool to add layers of complexity and places to go wrong with yet
> > > more strange messages.
> > >
> > > I installed z/OS 2.5 before they eliminated SERVERPAC.  I then
> > > ordered it again to try it thru z/OSMF, it added a lot more time,
> > > the SSA's, my SMS ACS routines and how things got built added to the
> > > complexity.  Plus
> > there
> > > are many times I would bypass steps in serverpac, that because
> > > z/OSMF is performing what they call checks, think idiot proofing,
> > > makes this even more difficult.
> > >
> > > More to come, but if I find work arounds, I will bypass in the
> > > future
> > what
> > > I can in z/OSMF software installs.
> > >
> > >
> > > Ms Terri E Shaffer
> > > Senior Systems Engineer,
> > > z/OS Support:
> > > ACIWorldwide - Telecommuter
> > > H(412-766-2697) C(412-519-2592)
> > > terri.shaf...@aciworldwide.com
> > >
> > > -

Re: zOSMF

2023-03-06 Thread David Spiegel


Hi Terri,
"...MVS 1.3.8..." I don't remember 1.3.8. Which year was this?
(I've heard of MVS 3.8 and MVS/SP 1.3, though.)

Regards,
David

On 2023-03-06 20:12, Shaffer, Terri wrote:

When I worked at Chase bank, We had 117 LPARS and maintenance/clone was a 30 
minute task. So adding z/OSMF was never even brought up as a consideration.

So while I understand the direction IBM is headed, its adding LOTS of layers to 
something that sound not be hard.   Running thru screens vs submitting a canned 
job, is hours vs minutes.

As much as I love my job and starting with MVS 1.3.8 to now z/OS 2.5 and even 
OS/390, they have added a layer of complexity that eliminated the KISS 
principle, sadly.

So I have to disagree..

Ms Terri E Shaffer
Senior Systems Engineer,
z/OS Support:
ACIWorldwide - Telecommuter
H(412-766-2697) C(412-519-2592)
terri.shaf...@aciworldwide.com

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of Rob 
Schramm
Sent: Monday, March 6, 2023 4:27 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: zOSMF

EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the 
content is safe.


I think the promise of zosmf is far beyond just a server pack replacement.
Yeah server pack was great for what it was but when it comes to the grind of 
installing over and over and over again and the customization the workflow 
features I believe really hold the promise to fixing what is a continuously 
pain in the butt situation.  And hopefully they'll continue to make it lighter 
and lighter.  But the other part is the distribution points and the packaging 
for distribution.  Yeah I don't really care how it happens whether it's a GUI 
or not.  But in my view this is steps in the right direction.

I would point you to Ed's presentation on the workflow features that were 
incorporated to E/JES2 installation.  I really think there's something here.

Just my two cents.

Rob Schramm

On Mon, Mar 6, 2023, 12:06 Michael Babcock  wrote:


I agree.   We use a permanent maintenance LPAR which is generally not up.
With ServerPac, it didn't matter we could select it as the target from our
driving system.   With z/OSMF, if run on the driving system, z/OSMF wanted
the target up and wanted to communicate with it via z/OSMF.  Not good
for us.

Further, PSWI uses DSS to restore the datasets and ignores any
DATACLAS parameters.  Our OMVS datasets are all EXTADDR so we had to
build a REXX EXEC to copy the OMVS datasets to a newly allocated OMVS dataset 
with the
EXTADDR attribute.   Which by the way, what happens when the ROOT grows
beyond 4GB?

There were a number of other things we ran into which escape me at the
moment.

On Mon, Mar 6, 2023 at 10:15 AM Shaffer, Terri <
017d5f778222-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:


Randy,
   I completely agree, This will be my 40th year working on z/OS and
at least another 7 years to go.

I find z/OSMF cumbersome.  I prefer to do things close to the source.

Not

a tool to add layers of complexity and places to go wrong with yet
more strange messages.

I installed z/OS 2.5 before they eliminated SERVERPAC.  I then
ordered it again to try it thru z/OSMF, it added a lot more time,
the SSA's, my SMS ACS routines and how things got built added to the
complexity.  Plus

there

are many times I would bypass steps in serverpac, that because
z/OSMF is performing what they call checks, think idiot proofing,
makes this even more difficult.

More to come, but if I find work arounds, I will bypass in the
future

what

I can in z/OSMF software installs.


Ms Terri E Shaffer
Senior Systems Engineer,
z/OS Support:
ACIWorldwide - Telecommuter
H(412-766-2697) C(412-519-2592)
terri.shaf...@aciworldwide.com

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On
Behalf Of Harris Randy - Nashville
Sent: Friday, March 3, 2023 9:03 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: zOSMF

EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you
know

the

content is safe.


I'm sure my complaints don't do any good, but I've been doing this
for 25 years (I know many of you a lot longer).
I don't understand why IBM wants to force everyone to use z/OSMF.
Maybe it's an attempt to attract a younger group of System Programmers.
That's fine. However, I am not a GUI fan. I like the green screen.
Serverpac works great. I am running into issues trying to learn z/OSMF.
It's a waste of my time when I already know how to use Serverpac.

Randy Harris
P 615-344-3244
C 662-401-8552
james.harr...@hcahealthcare.com

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On
Behalf Of rpinion865
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2023 9:37 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: {EXTERNAL} zOSMF

CAUTION! This email originated from outside of our organization. DO
NOT CLICK links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender
and know the content is safe.

Running zOSMF under z/OS 2.4. In attempting to load the Portable
Software Instance, retrieving the contents from

Re: zOSMF

Not exactly sure what you mean by 300?

But for example I never use or logon to z/OSMF and this is it usage since Oct 
last year, my last IPL

Jobname   REAL  EXCP's  CPU-TIME
IZUSVR1 , 125T   0.00   0.00   0.00   87 0057   112642169   14774.64

Ms Terri E Shaffer
Senior Systems Engineer,
z/OS Support:
ACIWorldwide – Telecommuter
H(412-766-2697) C(412-519-2592)
terri.shaf...@aciworldwide.com

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
Mike Schwab
Sent: Monday, March 6, 2023 8:44 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: zOSMF

EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the 
content is safe.


Did you increase the tasks to 300?  Otherwise the tasks keep swapping in and 
out.

On Mon, Mar 6, 2023 at 7:40 PM Shaffer, Terri 
<017d5f778222-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
>
> And this doesn't begin to address the CPU MIPS required to even run thru the 
> screens.
>
> When I IPL and z/OSMF starts it takes over the LPAR for a few minutes.  When 
> I logon and try to do anything its slow as molasses.
>
> Whereas in ISPF and ServerPAC dialogs I hardly ever left TSO PERIOD 1, 
> response times.
>
> I have no choice but, having a hard time seeing the plus's.
>
> Even the migration guide is difficult on a 14" monitor, and because of the 
> tabs, screen space available its very difficult.
>
> When I did my z/OS 2.5, I found the XML and did it manually in an hour or so.
>
> Sorry 
>
> Ms Terri E Shaffer
> Senior Systems Engineer,
> z/OS Support:
> ACIWorldwide - Telecommuter
> H(412-766-2697) C(412-519-2592)
> terri.shaf...@aciworldwide.com
>
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On
> Behalf Of Bill Johnson
> Sent: Monday, March 6, 2023 8:16 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: zOSMF
>
> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the 
> content is safe.
>
>
> I have to agree with this. Once I had my JCL created for just about any 
> upgrade task, it was simple to make small changes to rerun the same process 
> for the next upgrade. That goes for zOS, DB2, CICS, IMS, MQ, and most third 
> party software.
>
>
> Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
>
>
> On Monday, March 6, 2023, 8:12 PM, Shaffer, Terri 
> <017d5f778222-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
>
> When I worked at Chase bank, We had 117 LPARS and maintenance/clone was a 30 
> minute task. So adding z/OSMF was never even brought up as a consideration.
>
> So while I understand the direction IBM is headed, its adding LOTS of layers 
> to something that sound not be hard.  Running thru screens vs submitting a 
> canned job, is hours vs minutes.
>
> As much as I love my job and starting with MVS 1.3.8 to now z/OS 2.5 and even 
> OS/390, they have added a layer of complexity that eliminated the KISS 
> principle, sadly.
>
> So I have to disagree..
>
> Ms Terri E Shaffer
> Senior Systems Engineer,
> z/OS Support:
> ACIWorldwide - Telecommuter
> H(412-766-2697) C(412-519-2592)
> terri.shaf...@aciworldwide.com
>
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On
> Behalf Of Rob Schramm
> Sent: Monday, March 6, 2023 4:27 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: zOSMF
>
> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the 
> content is safe.
>
>
> I think the promise of zosmf is far beyond just a server pack replacement.
> Yeah server pack was great for what it was but when it comes to the grind of 
> installing over and over and over again and the customization the workflow 
> features I believe really hold the promise to fixing what is a continuously 
> pain in the butt situation.  And hopefully they'll continue to make it 
> lighter and lighter.  But the other part is the distribution points and the 
> packaging for distribution.  Yeah I don't really care how it happens whether 
> it's a GUI or not.  But in my view this is steps in the right direction.
>
> I would point you to Ed's presentation on the workflow features that were 
> incorporated to E/JES2 installation.  I really think there's something here.
>
> Just my two cents.
>
> Rob Schramm
>
> On Mon, Mar 6, 2023, 12:06 Michael Babcock  wrote:
>
> > I agree.  We use a permanent maintenance LPAR which is generally not up.
> > With ServerPac, it didn't matter we could select it as the target
> > from our driving system.  With z/OSMF, if run on the driving system,
> > z/OSMF wanted the target up and wanted to communicate with it via z/OSMF.
> > Not good for us.
> >
> > Further, PSWI uses DSS to restore the datasets and ignores any
> > DATACLAS parameters.  Our OMVS datasets are all EXTADDR so we had to
> > build a REXX EXEC to copy the OMVS datasets to a newly allocated
> > OMVS dataset with the EXTADDR attribute.  Which by the way, what
> > happens when the ROOT grows beyond 4GB?
> >
> > There were a number of other things we ran into which escape me at
> > the moment.

Re: zOSMF

Did you increase the tasks to 300?  Otherwise the tasks keep swapping
in and out.

On Mon, Mar 6, 2023 at 7:40 PM Shaffer, Terri
<017d5f778222-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
>
> And this doesn't begin to address the CPU MIPS required to even run thru the 
> screens.
>
> When I IPL and z/OSMF starts it takes over the LPAR for a few minutes.  When 
> I logon and try to do anything its slow as molasses.
>
> Whereas in ISPF and ServerPAC dialogs I hardly ever left TSO PERIOD 1, 
> response times.
>
> I have no choice but, having a hard time seeing the plus's.
>
> Even the migration guide is difficult on a 14" monitor, and because of the 
> tabs, screen space available its very difficult.
>
> When I did my z/OS 2.5, I found the XML and did it manually in an hour or so.
>
> Sorry 
>
> Ms Terri E Shaffer
> Senior Systems Engineer,
> z/OS Support:
> ACIWorldwide - Telecommuter
> H(412-766-2697) C(412-519-2592)
> terri.shaf...@aciworldwide.com
>
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
> Bill Johnson
> Sent: Monday, March 6, 2023 8:16 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: zOSMF
>
> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the 
> content is safe.
>
>
> I have to agree with this. Once I had my JCL created for just about any 
> upgrade task, it was simple to make small changes to rerun the same process 
> for the next upgrade. That goes for zOS, DB2, CICS, IMS, MQ, and most third 
> party software.
>
>
> Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
>
>
> On Monday, March 6, 2023, 8:12 PM, Shaffer, Terri 
> <017d5f778222-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
>
> When I worked at Chase bank, We had 117 LPARS and maintenance/clone was a 30 
> minute task. So adding z/OSMF was never even brought up as a consideration.
>
> So while I understand the direction IBM is headed, its adding LOTS of layers 
> to something that sound not be hard.  Running thru screens vs submitting a 
> canned job, is hours vs minutes.
>
> As much as I love my job and starting with MVS 1.3.8 to now z/OS 2.5 and even 
> OS/390, they have added a layer of complexity that eliminated the KISS 
> principle, sadly.
>
> So I have to disagree..
>
> Ms Terri E Shaffer
> Senior Systems Engineer,
> z/OS Support:
> ACIWorldwide - Telecommuter
> H(412-766-2697) C(412-519-2592)
> terri.shaf...@aciworldwide.com
>
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
> Rob Schramm
> Sent: Monday, March 6, 2023 4:27 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: zOSMF
>
> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the 
> content is safe.
>
>
> I think the promise of zosmf is far beyond just a server pack replacement.
> Yeah server pack was great for what it was but when it comes to the grind of 
> installing over and over and over again and the customization the workflow 
> features I believe really hold the promise to fixing what is a continuously 
> pain in the butt situation.  And hopefully they'll continue to make it 
> lighter and lighter.  But the other part is the distribution points and the 
> packaging for distribution.  Yeah I don't really care how it happens whether 
> it's a GUI or not.  But in my view this is steps in the right direction.
>
> I would point you to Ed's presentation on the workflow features that were 
> incorporated to E/JES2 installation.  I really think there's something here.
>
> Just my two cents.
>
> Rob Schramm
>
> On Mon, Mar 6, 2023, 12:06 Michael Babcock  wrote:
>
> > I agree.  We use a permanent maintenance LPAR which is generally not up.
> > With ServerPac, it didn't matter we could select it as the target from
> > our driving system.  With z/OSMF, if run on the driving system, z/OSMF
> > wanted the target up and wanted to communicate with it via z/OSMF.
> > Not good for us.
> >
> > Further, PSWI uses DSS to restore the datasets and ignores any
> > DATACLAS parameters.  Our OMVS datasets are all EXTADDR so we had to
> > build a REXX EXEC to copy the OMVS datasets to a newly allocated OMVS
> > dataset with the EXTADDR attribute.  Which by the way, what happens
> > when the ROOT grows beyond 4GB?
> >
> > There were a number of other things we ran into which escape me at the
> > moment.
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 6, 2023 at 10:15 AM Shaffer, Terri <
> > 017d5f778222-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > Randy,
> > >  I completely agree, This will be my 40th year working on z/OS and
> > >at least another 7 years to go.
> > >
> > > I find z/OSMF cumbersome.  I prefer to do things close to the source.
> > Not
> > > a tool to add layers of complexity and places to go wrong with yet
> > > more strange messages.
> > >
> > > I installed z/OS 2.5 before they eliminated SERVERPAC.  I then
> > > ordered it again to try it thru z/OSMF, it added a lot more time,
> > > the SSA's, my SMS ACS routines and how things got built added to the
> > > complexity.  Plus
> > there
> > > are many tim

Re: zOSMF

And this doesn't begin to address the CPU MIPS required to even run thru the 
screens.

When I IPL and z/OSMF starts it takes over the LPAR for a few minutes.  When I 
logon and try to do anything its slow as molasses.

Whereas in ISPF and ServerPAC dialogs I hardly ever left TSO PERIOD 1, response 
times.

I have no choice but, having a hard time seeing the plus's.

Even the migration guide is difficult on a 14" monitor, and because of the 
tabs, screen space available its very difficult.

When I did my z/OS 2.5, I found the XML and did it manually in an hour or so.

Sorry 

Ms Terri E Shaffer
Senior Systems Engineer,
z/OS Support:
ACIWorldwide - Telecommuter
H(412-766-2697) C(412-519-2592)
terri.shaf...@aciworldwide.com

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
Bill Johnson
Sent: Monday, March 6, 2023 8:16 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: zOSMF

EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the 
content is safe.

I have to agree with this. Once I had my JCL created for just about any upgrade 
task, it was simple to make small changes to rerun the same process for the 
next upgrade. That goes for zOS, DB2, CICS, IMS, MQ, and most third party 
software.

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

On Monday, March 6, 2023, 8:12 PM, Shaffer, Terri 
<017d5f778222-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:

When I worked at Chase bank, We had 117 LPARS and maintenance/clone was a 30 
minute task. So adding z/OSMF was never even brought up as a consideration.

So while I understand the direction IBM is headed, its adding LOTS of layers to 
something that sound not be hard.  Running thru screens vs submitting a canned 
job, is hours vs minutes.

As much as I love my job and starting with MVS 1.3.8 to now z/OS 2.5 and even 
OS/390, they have added a layer of complexity that eliminated the KISS 
principle, sadly.

So I have to disagree..

Ms Terri E Shaffer
Senior Systems Engineer,
z/OS Support:
ACIWorldwide - Telecommuter
H(412-766-2697) C(412-519-2592)
terri.shaf...@aciworldwide.com

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of Rob 
Schramm
Sent: Monday, March 6, 2023 4:27 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: zOSMF

EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the 
content is safe.

I think the promise of zosmf is far beyond just a server pack replacement.
Yeah server pack was great for what it was but when it comes to the grind of 
installing over and over and over again and the customization the workflow 
features I believe really hold the promise to fixing what is a continuously 
pain in the butt situation.  And hopefully they'll continue to make it lighter 
and lighter.  But the other part is the distribution points and the packaging 
for distribution.  Yeah I don't really care how it happens whether it's a GUI 
or not.  But in my view this is steps in the right direction.

I would point you to Ed's presentation on the workflow features that were 
incorporated to E/JES2 installation.  I really think there's something here.

Just my two cents.

Rob Schramm

On Mon, Mar 6, 2023, 12:06 Michael Babcock  wrote:

> I agree.  We use a permanent maintenance LPAR which is generally not up.
> With ServerPac, it didn't matter we could select it as the target from
> our driving system.  With z/OSMF, if run on the driving system, z/OSMF
> wanted the target up and wanted to communicate with it via z/OSMF.
> Not good for us.
>
> Further, PSWI uses DSS to restore the datasets and ignores any
> DATACLAS parameters.  Our OMVS datasets are all EXTADDR so we had to
> build a REXX EXEC to copy the OMVS datasets to a newly allocated OMVS
> dataset with the EXTADDR attribute.  Which by the way, what happens
> when the ROOT grows beyond 4GB?
>
> There were a number of other things we ran into which escape me at the
> moment.
>
> On Mon, Mar 6, 2023 at 10:15 AM Shaffer, Terri <
> 017d5f778222-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
>
> > Randy,
> >  I completely agree, This will be my 40th year working on z/OS and
> >at least another 7 years to go.
> >
> > I find z/OSMF cumbersome.  I prefer to do things close to the source.
> Not
> > a tool to add layers of complexity and places to go wrong with yet
> > more strange messages.
> >
> > I installed z/OS 2.5 before they eliminated SERVERPAC.  I then
> > ordered it again to try it thru z/OSMF, it added a lot more time,
> > the SSA's, my SMS ACS routines and how things got built added to the
> > complexity.  Plus
> there
> > are many times I would bypass steps in serverpac, that because
> > z/OSMF is performing what they call checks, think idiot proofing,
> > makes this even more difficult.
> >
> > More to come, but if I find work arounds, I will bypass in the
> > future
> what
> > I can in z/OSMF software installs.
> >
> >
> > Ms Terri E Shaffer
> > Senior Systems Engineer,
> > z/OS Support:
> > ACIWorldwide - Telecommuter
> > H(412-766-2697) C(4

Re: zOSMF

2023-03-06 Thread Harris Randy - Nashville

I have no problem with a new process if some want to use it. My whole point is 
why take the option away from those who prefer to continue to use it. I like 
serverpac.

Randy Harris
Consulting System Programmer
HCA Healthcare

From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  on behalf of 
Bill Johnson <0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu>
Sent: Monday, March 6, 2023 7:16:29 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU 
Subject: {EXTERNAL} Re: zOSMF

CAUTION! This email originated from outside of our organization. DO NOT CLICK 
links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content 
is safe.

I have to agree with this. Once I had my JCL created for just about any upgrade 
task, it was simple to make small changes to rerun the same process for the 
next upgrade. That goes for zOS, DB2, CICS, IMS, MQ, and most third party 
software.

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

On Monday, March 6, 2023, 8:12 PM, Shaffer, Terri 
<017d5f778222-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:

When I worked at Chase bank, We had 117 LPARS and maintenance/clone was a 30 
minute task. So adding z/OSMF was never even brought up as a consideration.

So while I understand the direction IBM is headed, its adding LOTS of layers to 
something that sound not be hard.  Running thru screens vs submitting a canned 
job, is hours vs minutes.

As much as I love my job and starting with MVS 1.3.8 to now z/OS 2.5 and even 
OS/390, they have added a layer of complexity that eliminated the KISS 
principle, sadly.

So I have to disagree..

Ms Terri E Shaffer
Senior Systems Engineer,
z/OS Support:
ACIWorldwide - Telecommuter
H(412-766-2697) C(412-519-2592)
terri.shaf...@aciworldwide.com

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of Rob 
Schramm
Sent: Monday, March 6, 2023 4:27 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: zOSMF

EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the 
content is safe.

I think the promise of zosmf is far beyond just a server pack replacement.
Yeah server pack was great for what it was but when it comes to the grind of 
installing over and over and over again and the customization the workflow 
features I believe really hold the promise to fixing what is a continuously 
pain in the butt situation.  And hopefully they'll continue to make it lighter 
and lighter.  But the other part is the distribution points and the packaging 
for distribution.  Yeah I don't really care how it happens whether it's a GUI 
or not.  But in my view this is steps in the right direction.

I would point you to Ed's presentation on the workflow features that were 
incorporated to E/JES2 installation.  I really think there's something here.

Just my two cents.

Rob Schramm

On Mon, Mar 6, 2023, 12:06 Michael Babcock  wrote:

> I agree.  We use a permanent maintenance LPAR which is generally not up.
> With ServerPac, it didn't matter we could select it as the target from our
> driving system.  With z/OSMF, if run on the driving system, z/OSMF wanted
> the target up and wanted to communicate with it via z/OSMF.  Not good
> for us.
>
> Further, PSWI uses DSS to restore the datasets and ignores any
> DATACLAS parameters.  Our OMVS datasets are all EXTADDR so we had to
> build a REXX EXEC to copy the OMVS datasets to a newly allocated OMVS dataset 
> with the
> EXTADDR attribute.  Which by the way, what happens when the ROOT grows
> beyond 4GB?
>
> There were a number of other things we ran into which escape me at the
> moment.
>
> On Mon, Mar 6, 2023 at 10:15 AM Shaffer, Terri <
> 017d5f778222-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
>
> > Randy,
> >  I completely agree, This will be my 40th year working on z/OS and
> > at least another 7 years to go.
> >
> > I find z/OSMF cumbersome.  I prefer to do things close to the source.
> Not
> > a tool to add layers of complexity and places to go wrong with yet
> > more strange messages.
> >
> > I installed z/OS 2.5 before they eliminated SERVERPAC.  I then
> > ordered it again to try it thru z/OSMF, it added a lot more time,
> > the SSA's, my SMS ACS routines and how things got built added to the
> > complexity.  Plus
> there
> > are many times I would bypass steps in serverpac, that because
> > z/OSMF is performing what they call checks, think idiot proofing,
> > makes this even more difficult.
> >
> > More to come, but if I find work arounds, I will bypass in the
> > future
> what
> > I can in z/OSMF software installs.
> >
> >
> > Ms Terri E Shaffer
> > Senior Systems Engineer,
> > z/OS Support:
> > ACIWorldwide - Telecommuter
> > H(412-766-2697) C(412-519-2592)
> > terri.shaf...@aciworldwide.com
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On
> > Behalf Of Harris Randy - Nashville
> > Sent: Friday, March 3, 2023 9:03 AM
> > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> > Subject: Re: zOSMF
> >
> > EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you
> > know
> the
> > c

Re: zOSMF

2023-03-06 Thread Bill Johnson

I have to agree with this. Once I had my JCL created for just about any upgrade 
task, it was simple to make small changes to rerun the same process for the 
next upgrade. That goes for zOS, DB2, CICS, IMS, MQ, and most third party 
software.

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

On Monday, March 6, 2023, 8:12 PM, Shaffer, Terri 
<017d5f778222-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:

When I worked at Chase bank, We had 117 LPARS and maintenance/clone was a 30 
minute task. So adding z/OSMF was never even brought up as a consideration.

So while I understand the direction IBM is headed, its adding LOTS of layers to 
something that sound not be hard.  Running thru screens vs submitting a canned 
job, is hours vs minutes.

As much as I love my job and starting with MVS 1.3.8 to now z/OS 2.5 and even 
OS/390, they have added a layer of complexity that eliminated the KISS 
principle, sadly.

So I have to disagree..

Ms Terri E Shaffer
Senior Systems Engineer,
z/OS Support:
ACIWorldwide - Telecommuter
H(412-766-2697) C(412-519-2592)
terri.shaf...@aciworldwide.com

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of Rob 
Schramm
Sent: Monday, March 6, 2023 4:27 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: zOSMF

EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the 
content is safe.

I think the promise of zosmf is far beyond just a server pack replacement.
Yeah server pack was great for what it was but when it comes to the grind of 
installing over and over and over again and the customization the workflow 
features I believe really hold the promise to fixing what is a continuously 
pain in the butt situation.  And hopefully they'll continue to make it lighter 
and lighter.  But the other part is the distribution points and the packaging 
for distribution.  Yeah I don't really care how it happens whether it's a GUI 
or not.  But in my view this is steps in the right direction.

I would point you to Ed's presentation on the workflow features that were 
incorporated to E/JES2 installation.  I really think there's something here.

Just my two cents.

Rob Schramm

On Mon, Mar 6, 2023, 12:06 Michael Babcock  wrote:

> I agree.  We use a permanent maintenance LPAR which is generally not up.
> With ServerPac, it didn't matter we could select it as the target from our
> driving system.  With z/OSMF, if run on the driving system, z/OSMF wanted
> the target up and wanted to communicate with it via z/OSMF.  Not good
> for us.
>
> Further, PSWI uses DSS to restore the datasets and ignores any
> DATACLAS parameters.  Our OMVS datasets are all EXTADDR so we had to
> build a REXX EXEC to copy the OMVS datasets to a newly allocated OMVS dataset 
> with the
> EXTADDR attribute.  Which by the way, what happens when the ROOT grows
> beyond 4GB?
>
> There were a number of other things we ran into which escape me at the
> moment.
>
> On Mon, Mar 6, 2023 at 10:15 AM Shaffer, Terri <
> 017d5f778222-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
>
> > Randy,
> >  I completely agree, This will be my 40th year working on z/OS and
> > at least another 7 years to go.
> >
> > I find z/OSMF cumbersome.  I prefer to do things close to the source.
> Not
> > a tool to add layers of complexity and places to go wrong with yet
> > more strange messages.
> >
> > I installed z/OS 2.5 before they eliminated SERVERPAC.  I then
> > ordered it again to try it thru z/OSMF, it added a lot more time,
> > the SSA's, my SMS ACS routines and how things got built added to the
> > complexity.  Plus
> there
> > are many times I would bypass steps in serverpac, that because
> > z/OSMF is performing what they call checks, think idiot proofing,
> > makes this even more difficult.
> >
> > More to come, but if I find work arounds, I will bypass in the
> > future
> what
> > I can in z/OSMF software installs.
> >
> >
> > Ms Terri E Shaffer
> > Senior Systems Engineer,
> > z/OS Support:
> > ACIWorldwide - Telecommuter
> > H(412-766-2697) C(412-519-2592)
> > terri.shaf...@aciworldwide.com
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On
> > Behalf Of Harris Randy - Nashville
> > Sent: Friday, March 3, 2023 9:03 AM
> > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> > Subject: Re: zOSMF
> >
> > EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you
> > know
> the
> > content is safe.
> >
> >
> > I'm sure my complaints don't do any good, but I've been doing this
> > for 25 years (I know many of you a lot longer).
> > I don't understand why IBM wants to force everyone to use z/OSMF.
> > Maybe it's an attempt to attract a younger group of System Programmers.
> > That's fine. However, I am not a GUI fan. I like the green screen.
> > Serverpac works great. I am running into issues trying to learn z/OSMF.
> > It's a waste of my time when I already know how to use Serverpac.
> >
> > Randy Harris
> > P 615-344-3244
> > C 662-401-8552
> > james.harr...@hcahealthcare.com
> >
> > -Original Message-
> >

Re: zOSMF

When I worked at Chase bank, We had 117 LPARS and maintenance/clone was a 30 
minute task. So adding z/OSMF was never even brought up as a consideration.

So while I understand the direction IBM is headed, its adding LOTS of layers to 
something that sound not be hard.   Running thru screens vs submitting a canned 
job, is hours vs minutes.

As much as I love my job and starting with MVS 1.3.8 to now z/OS 2.5 and even 
OS/390, they have added a layer of complexity that eliminated the KISS 
principle, sadly.

So I have to disagree..

Ms Terri E Shaffer
Senior Systems Engineer,
z/OS Support:
ACIWorldwide - Telecommuter
H(412-766-2697) C(412-519-2592)
terri.shaf...@aciworldwide.com

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of Rob 
Schramm
Sent: Monday, March 6, 2023 4:27 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: zOSMF

EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the 
content is safe.


I think the promise of zosmf is far beyond just a server pack replacement.
Yeah server pack was great for what it was but when it comes to the grind of 
installing over and over and over again and the customization the workflow 
features I believe really hold the promise to fixing what is a continuously 
pain in the butt situation.  And hopefully they'll continue to make it lighter 
and lighter.  But the other part is the distribution points and the packaging 
for distribution.  Yeah I don't really care how it happens whether it's a GUI 
or not.  But in my view this is steps in the right direction.

I would point you to Ed's presentation on the workflow features that were 
incorporated to E/JES2 installation.  I really think there's something here.

Just my two cents.

Rob Schramm

On Mon, Mar 6, 2023, 12:06 Michael Babcock  wrote:

> I agree.   We use a permanent maintenance LPAR which is generally not up.
> With ServerPac, it didn't matter we could select it as the target from our
> driving system.   With z/OSMF, if run on the driving system, z/OSMF wanted
> the target up and wanted to communicate with it via z/OSMF.  Not good
> for us.
>
> Further, PSWI uses DSS to restore the datasets and ignores any
> DATACLAS parameters.  Our OMVS datasets are all EXTADDR so we had to
> build a REXX EXEC to copy the OMVS datasets to a newly allocated OMVS dataset 
> with the
> EXTADDR attribute.   Which by the way, what happens when the ROOT grows
> beyond 4GB?
>
> There were a number of other things we ran into which escape me at the
> moment.
>
> On Mon, Mar 6, 2023 at 10:15 AM Shaffer, Terri <
> 017d5f778222-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
>
> > Randy,
> >   I completely agree, This will be my 40th year working on z/OS and
> > at least another 7 years to go.
> >
> > I find z/OSMF cumbersome.  I prefer to do things close to the source.
> Not
> > a tool to add layers of complexity and places to go wrong with yet
> > more strange messages.
> >
> > I installed z/OS 2.5 before they eliminated SERVERPAC.  I then
> > ordered it again to try it thru z/OSMF, it added a lot more time,
> > the SSA's, my SMS ACS routines and how things got built added to the
> > complexity.  Plus
> there
> > are many times I would bypass steps in serverpac, that because
> > z/OSMF is performing what they call checks, think idiot proofing,
> > makes this even more difficult.
> >
> > More to come, but if I find work arounds, I will bypass in the
> > future
> what
> > I can in z/OSMF software installs.
> >
> >
> > Ms Terri E Shaffer
> > Senior Systems Engineer,
> > z/OS Support:
> > ACIWorldwide - Telecommuter
> > H(412-766-2697) C(412-519-2592)
> > terri.shaf...@aciworldwide.com
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On
> > Behalf Of Harris Randy - Nashville
> > Sent: Friday, March 3, 2023 9:03 AM
> > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> > Subject: Re: zOSMF
> >
> > EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you
> > know
> the
> > content is safe.
> >
> >
> > I'm sure my complaints don't do any good, but I've been doing this
> > for 25 years (I know many of you a lot longer).
> > I don't understand why IBM wants to force everyone to use z/OSMF.
> > Maybe it's an attempt to attract a younger group of System Programmers.
> > That's fine. However, I am not a GUI fan. I like the green screen.
> > Serverpac works great. I am running into issues trying to learn z/OSMF.
> > It's a waste of my time when I already know how to use Serverpac.
> >
> > Randy Harris
> > P 615-344-3244
> > C 662-401-8552
> > james.harr...@hcahealthcare.com
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On
> > Behalf Of rpinion865
> > Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2023 9:37 AM
> > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> > Subject: {EXTERNAL} zOSMF
> >
> > CAUTION! This email originated from outside of our organization. DO
> > NOT CLICK links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender
> > and know the content is safe.
> >
> > Running zOSMF und

Re: Running a Coupling Facility using a CP for a test Parallel Sysplex 0 anyh gotcha's?

2023-03-06 Thread Laurence Chiu

This is very helpful, thanks. Plus I have the document which is an IBM
official document.

On Tue, Mar 7, 2023 at 10:07 AM Attila Fogarasi  wrote:

> Perhaps your outsourcer will accept recommendations by IBM in an official
> apar, see https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/apar/II09294
> This says in part "If you can accept slower response times or occasional
> slower
>
>   response times and the load is not too great, CFs in shared
>   LPs may be a viable alternative to running CFs with DEDICATED
>   CP resources."
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 7, 2023 at 12:04 AM Allan Staller <
> 0387911dea17-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
>
> > Classification: Confidential
> >
> > The "spare" ICF engine on the "A" box could be shared between *your*
> > test/production sysplexes.
> >
> > HTH
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf
> > Of Laurence Chiu
> > Sent: Friday, March 3, 2023 9:34 PM
> > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> > Subject: Running a Coupling Facility using a CP for a test Parallel
> > Sysplex 0 anyh gotcha's?
> >
> > [CAUTION: This Email is from outside the Organization. Unless you trust
> > the sender, Don't click links or open attachments as it may be a Phishing
> > email, which can steal your Information and compromise your Computer.]
> >
> > The situation.
> >
> > We share a couple of Z13's with another (larger client). Z13 B is where
> we
> > run our development LPARs and Z13 A is production.
> >
> > For critical business reasons an online application on our production
> LPAR
> > needs to be highly available and that means in a parallel sysplex.  But
> our
> > outsourcer has told us it cannot be done for the following reasons
> because
> > there are no spare ICF engines on the host B - all are being used by
> other
> > CF instances, either to support production Sysplexes or development ones
> > (not ours).
> >
> > Host A does potentially have a spare ICF engine we could use to support a
> > production parallel Sysplex but good practice does recommend you create a
> > test one first of course.
> >
> > I then asked the question, if host A has a spare ICF engine, can't it be
> > used to support a CF to be used by the test Sysplex on B. I was advised
> > this was not possible since there are no spare connections between host A
> > and Host B (Infiniband possibly) so the Sysplex on B could not actually
> > communicate with the CF on A.
> >
> > Our requirement for the Sysplex is primarily to be able to share a VSAM
> > dataset which is hit every time a transaction comes in with a peak of
> about
> > 99tps. So we would need VSAM RLS to share the dataset records between the
> > two application instances. There is no DB2, CICS or IMS so I think the
> only
> > structures in the CF are those to support VSAM RLS, maybe some XCF
> > structures and core systems.
> >
> > Knowing that we would only bring up the test sysplex to make sure
> > transactions routed correctly across the two LPARs and most of the time
> we
> > would have one member of the Sysplex off, I suggested that the test CF
> > could be built using a CP.  To this suggestion I received the following
> > (anti) advice
> > - there would be MSU costs (we don't care since we think the MIPS load on
> > the CF would be low). Plus we would ask that the CF be defined with
> Dynamic
> > Coupling Facility Dispatch and set DYNDISP=THIN. Since that CF is going
> to
> > be idling most of the time, MSU consumption is not going to be a major
> cost.
> > - it's strongly recommended not to do this by IBM. Yet when I read this
> > document
> >
> >
> >
> https://apc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ibm.com%2Fdownloads%2Fcas%2FJZB2E38Q&data=05%7C01%7Callan.staller%40HCL.COM%7C1962ff1c13d7410924a708db1c617020%7C189de737c93a4f5a8b686f4ca9941912%7C0%7C0%7C638134977066659942%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=78DxD9grmMmrALQNItds2OaQ6Eyuv43mGVh5%2BoeqQnk%3D&reserved=0
> > the option is discussed in great detail and the only negatives are the
> > incurring of MSU costs and some performance degradation if both a z/OS
> and
> > CF LPAR are trying to use the same CP at the same time.  But this can be
> > managed.
> >
> > - that a CF running on a CP would need a dedicated CP engine and there
> are
> > no spare engines in host B. That totally flies against the information I
> > have read from IBM docs.
> >
> > Of course for production the CF on host A would be configured to use an
> > ICF engine (or share one)
> >
> > Finally, while I accepted the argument at the time there were no
> > connections between Host A and Host B, further reading suggests that you
> do
> > not need to dedicate channels for communications but use XCF or by using
> > Infiniband sub channels or sharing the same physical link with more than
> > one Sysplex. Then the issue of running the CF on a CP goes away since I
> can
> > ask for two CF's to be defined on host A, on

Re: Running a Coupling Facility using a CP for a test Parallel Sysplex 0 anyh gotcha's?

2023-03-06 Thread Laurence Chiu

That is what I suggested and I was told there were no spare "connections"
between the two hosts but they didn't elaborate. I have been asked if those
connections are ICA-SR or IFB and reading the manual linked in this thread,
I think they are IFB since that is what is supported on the Z13's.  If that
is the case then it seems they can be shared but I have no way of knowing
what the actual connections are.

On Tue, Mar 7, 2023 at 2:04 AM Allan Staller <
0387911dea17-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:

> Classification: Confidential
>
> The "spare" ICF engine on the "A" box could be shared between *your*
> test/production sysplexes.
>
> HTH
>
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf
> Of Laurence Chiu
> Sent: Friday, March 3, 2023 9:34 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Running a Coupling Facility using a CP for a test Parallel
> Sysplex 0 anyh gotcha's?
>
> [CAUTION: This Email is from outside the Organization. Unless you trust
> the sender, Don't click links or open attachments as it may be a Phishing
> email, which can steal your Information and compromise your Computer.]
>
> The situation.
>
> We share a couple of Z13's with another (larger client). Z13 B is where we
> run our development LPARs and Z13 A is production.
>
> For critical business reasons an online application on our production LPAR
> needs to be highly available and that means in a parallel sysplex.  But our
> outsourcer has told us it cannot be done for the following reasons because
> there are no spare ICF engines on the host B - all are being used by other
> CF instances, either to support production Sysplexes or development ones
> (not ours).
>
> Host A does potentially have a spare ICF engine we could use to support a
> production parallel Sysplex but good practice does recommend you create a
> test one first of course.
>
> I then asked the question, if host A has a spare ICF engine, can't it be
> used to support a CF to be used by the test Sysplex on B. I was advised
> this was not possible since there are no spare connections between host A
> and Host B (Infiniband possibly) so the Sysplex on B could not actually
> communicate with the CF on A.
>
> Our requirement for the Sysplex is primarily to be able to share a VSAM
> dataset which is hit every time a transaction comes in with a peak of about
> 99tps. So we would need VSAM RLS to share the dataset records between the
> two application instances. There is no DB2, CICS or IMS so I think the only
> structures in the CF are those to support VSAM RLS, maybe some XCF
> structures and core systems.
>
> Knowing that we would only bring up the test sysplex to make sure
> transactions routed correctly across the two LPARs and most of the time we
> would have one member of the Sysplex off, I suggested that the test CF
> could be built using a CP.  To this suggestion I received the following
> (anti) advice
> - there would be MSU costs (we don't care since we think the MIPS load on
> the CF would be low). Plus we would ask that the CF be defined with Dynamic
> Coupling Facility Dispatch and set DYNDISP=THIN. Since that CF is going to
> be idling most of the time, MSU consumption is not going to be a major cost.
> - it's strongly recommended not to do this by IBM. Yet when I read this
> document
>
>
> https://apc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ibm.com%2Fdownloads%2Fcas%2FJZB2E38Q&data=05%7C01%7Callan.staller%40HCL.COM%7C1962ff1c13d7410924a708db1c617020%7C189de737c93a4f5a8b686f4ca9941912%7C0%7C0%7C638134977066659942%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=78DxD9grmMmrALQNItds2OaQ6Eyuv43mGVh5%2BoeqQnk%3D&reserved=0
> the option is discussed in great detail and the only negatives are the
> incurring of MSU costs and some performance degradation if both a z/OS and
> CF LPAR are trying to use the same CP at the same time.  But this can be
> managed.
>
> - that a CF running on a CP would need a dedicated CP engine and there are
> no spare engines in host B. That totally flies against the information I
> have read from IBM docs.
>
> Of course for production the CF on host A would be configured to use an
> ICF engine (or share one)
>
> Finally, while I accepted the argument at the time there were no
> connections between Host A and Host B, further reading suggests that you do
> not need to dedicate channels for communications but use XCF or by using
> Infiniband sub channels or sharing the same physical link with more than
> one Sysplex. Then the issue of running the CF on a CP goes away since I can
> ask for two CF's to be defined on host A, one for production and one for
> test and DCFC ensures that that production CF is not impacted by the
> development one.
>
> A lot to digest here but I really want to have some authoritative data in
> order to refute most of the comments being our outsourcer.
>
> Thanks
>
> -

Re: Running a Coupling Facility using a CP for a test Parallel Sysplex 0 anyh gotcha's?

ICF Thin interrupts introduced at level 19 for z12+
https://www.ibm.com/downloads/cas/JZB2E38Q

On Mon, Mar 6, 2023 at 3:36 PM Gibney, Dave
<03b5261cfd78-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
>
> Does an OOS z13 support ICF thin provisioning with nterrupts?
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On
> > Behalf Of Mike Schwab
> > Sent: Monday, March 6, 2023 1:12 PM
> > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> > Subject: Re: Running a Coupling Facility using a CP for a test Parallel 
> > Sysplex 0
> > anyh gotcha's?
> >
> > And this was long before Thin ICF provisioning on a CP with interrupts.
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 6, 2023 at 3:07 PM Attila Fogarasi  wrote:
> > >
> > > Perhaps your outsourcer will accept recommendations by IBM in an official
> > > apar, see
> > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/apar/II
> > 09294__;!!JmPEgBY0HMszNaDT!pc-N5jQe_vQoNsN9-04ykQN3SVPA3--
> > zfrRMvdLg48EaghVAdve13YxtLv7URiG7JmKVX-gL1XSkd75g6Li7Hg$
> > > This says in part "If you can accept slower response times or occasional
> > > slower
> > >
> > >   response times and the load is not too great, CFs in shared
> > >   LPs may be a viable alternative to running CFs with DEDICATED
> > >   CP resources."
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Mar 7, 2023 at 12:04 AM Allan Staller <
> > > 0387911dea17-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Classification: Confidential
> > > >
> > > > The "spare" ICF engine on the "A" box could be shared between *your*
> > > > test/production sysplexes.
> > > >
> > > > HTH
> > > >
> > > > -Original Message-
> > > > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List 
> > On Behalf
> > > > Of Laurence Chiu
> > > > Sent: Friday, March 3, 2023 9:34 PM
> > > > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> > > > Subject: Running a Coupling Facility using a CP for a test Parallel
> > > > Sysplex 0 anyh gotcha's?
> > > >
> > > > [CAUTION: This Email is from outside the Organization. Unless you trust
> > > > the sender, Don't click links or open attachments as it may be a 
> > > > Phishing
> > > > email, which can steal your Information and compromise your
> > Computer.]
> > > >
> > > > The situation.
> > > >
> > > > We share a couple of Z13's with another (larger client). Z13 B is where 
> > > > we
> > > > run our development LPARs and Z13 A is production.
> > > >
> > > > For critical business reasons an online application on our production 
> > > > LPAR
> > > > needs to be highly available and that means in a parallel sysplex.  But 
> > > > our
> > > > outsourcer has told us it cannot be done for the following reasons
> > because
> > > > there are no spare ICF engines on the host B - all are being used by 
> > > > other
> > > > CF instances, either to support production Sysplexes or development
> > ones
> > > > (not ours).
> > > >
> > > > Host A does potentially have a spare ICF engine we could use to support 
> > > > a
> > > > production parallel Sysplex but good practice does recommend you
> > create a
> > > > test one first of course.
> > > >
> > > > I then asked the question, if host A has a spare ICF engine, can't it be
> > > > used to support a CF to be used by the test Sysplex on B. I was advised
> > > > this was not possible since there are no spare connections between host
> > A
> > > > and Host B (Infiniband possibly) so the Sysplex on B could not actually
> > > > communicate with the CF on A.
> > > >
> > > > Our requirement for the Sysplex is primarily to be able to share a VSAM
> > > > dataset which is hit every time a transaction comes in with a peak of
> > about
> > > > 99tps. So we would need VSAM RLS to share the dataset records
> > between the
> > > > two application instances. There is no DB2, CICS or IMS so I think the 
> > > > only
> > > > structures in the CF are those to support VSAM RLS, maybe some XCF
> > > > structures and core systems.
> > > >
> > > > Knowing that we would only bring up the test sysplex to make sure
> > > > transactions routed correctly across the two LPARs and most of the time
> > we
> > > > would have one member of the Sysplex off, I suggested that the test CF
> > > > could be built using a CP.  To this suggestion I received the following
> > > > (anti) advice
> > > > - there would be MSU costs (we don't care since we think the MIPS load
> > on
> > > > the CF would be low). Plus we would ask that the CF be defined with
> > Dynamic
> > > > Coupling Facility Dispatch and set DYNDISP=THIN. Since that CF is going 
> > > > to
> > > > be idling most of the time, MSU consumption is not going to be a major
> > cost.
> > > > - it's strongly recommended not to do this by IBM. Yet when I read this
> > > > document
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://apc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.co
> > m/?url=https*3A*2F*2Fwww.ibm.com*2Fdownloads*2Fcas*2FJZB2E38Q&d
> > ata=05*7C01*7Callan.staller*40HCL.COM*7C1962ff1c13d7410924a708db1c61
> > 7020*7C189de737c93a4f5a8b686f4ca9941912*7C0*7C0*7C6381349770666599
> > 42*7CUnknown*7

Re: Running a Coupling Facility using a CP for a test Parallel Sysplex 0 anyh gotcha's?

2023-03-06 Thread Gibney, Dave

Does an OOS z13 support ICF thin provisioning with nterrupts?

> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On
> Behalf Of Mike Schwab
> Sent: Monday, March 6, 2023 1:12 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: Running a Coupling Facility using a CP for a test Parallel 
> Sysplex 0
> anyh gotcha's?
> 
> And this was long before Thin ICF provisioning on a CP with interrupts.
> 
> On Mon, Mar 6, 2023 at 3:07 PM Attila Fogarasi  wrote:
> >
> > Perhaps your outsourcer will accept recommendations by IBM in an official
> > apar, see
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/apar/II
> 09294__;!!JmPEgBY0HMszNaDT!pc-N5jQe_vQoNsN9-04ykQN3SVPA3--
> zfrRMvdLg48EaghVAdve13YxtLv7URiG7JmKVX-gL1XSkd75g6Li7Hg$
> > This says in part "If you can accept slower response times or occasional
> > slower
> >
> >   response times and the load is not too great, CFs in shared
> >   LPs may be a viable alternative to running CFs with DEDICATED
> >   CP resources."
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 7, 2023 at 12:04 AM Allan Staller <
> > 0387911dea17-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > Classification: Confidential
> > >
> > > The "spare" ICF engine on the "A" box could be shared between *your*
> > > test/production sysplexes.
> > >
> > > HTH
> > >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List 
> On Behalf
> > > Of Laurence Chiu
> > > Sent: Friday, March 3, 2023 9:34 PM
> > > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> > > Subject: Running a Coupling Facility using a CP for a test Parallel
> > > Sysplex 0 anyh gotcha's?
> > >
> > > [CAUTION: This Email is from outside the Organization. Unless you trust
> > > the sender, Don't click links or open attachments as it may be a Phishing
> > > email, which can steal your Information and compromise your
> Computer.]
> > >
> > > The situation.
> > >
> > > We share a couple of Z13's with another (larger client). Z13 B is where we
> > > run our development LPARs and Z13 A is production.
> > >
> > > For critical business reasons an online application on our production LPAR
> > > needs to be highly available and that means in a parallel sysplex.  But 
> > > our
> > > outsourcer has told us it cannot be done for the following reasons
> because
> > > there are no spare ICF engines on the host B - all are being used by other
> > > CF instances, either to support production Sysplexes or development
> ones
> > > (not ours).
> > >
> > > Host A does potentially have a spare ICF engine we could use to support a
> > > production parallel Sysplex but good practice does recommend you
> create a
> > > test one first of course.
> > >
> > > I then asked the question, if host A has a spare ICF engine, can't it be
> > > used to support a CF to be used by the test Sysplex on B. I was advised
> > > this was not possible since there are no spare connections between host
> A
> > > and Host B (Infiniband possibly) so the Sysplex on B could not actually
> > > communicate with the CF on A.
> > >
> > > Our requirement for the Sysplex is primarily to be able to share a VSAM
> > > dataset which is hit every time a transaction comes in with a peak of
> about
> > > 99tps. So we would need VSAM RLS to share the dataset records
> between the
> > > two application instances. There is no DB2, CICS or IMS so I think the 
> > > only
> > > structures in the CF are those to support VSAM RLS, maybe some XCF
> > > structures and core systems.
> > >
> > > Knowing that we would only bring up the test sysplex to make sure
> > > transactions routed correctly across the two LPARs and most of the time
> we
> > > would have one member of the Sysplex off, I suggested that the test CF
> > > could be built using a CP.  To this suggestion I received the following
> > > (anti) advice
> > > - there would be MSU costs (we don't care since we think the MIPS load
> on
> > > the CF would be low). Plus we would ask that the CF be defined with
> Dynamic
> > > Coupling Facility Dispatch and set DYNDISP=THIN. Since that CF is going to
> > > be idling most of the time, MSU consumption is not going to be a major
> cost.
> > > - it's strongly recommended not to do this by IBM. Yet when I read this
> > > document
> > >
> > >
> > >
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://apc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.co
> m/?url=https*3A*2F*2Fwww.ibm.com*2Fdownloads*2Fcas*2FJZB2E38Q&d
> ata=05*7C01*7Callan.staller*40HCL.COM*7C1962ff1c13d7410924a708db1c61
> 7020*7C189de737c93a4f5a8b686f4ca9941912*7C0*7C0*7C6381349770666599
> 42*7CUnknown*7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzI
> iLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0*3D*7C3000*7C*7C*7C&sdata=78DxD9grm
> MmrALQNItds2OaQ6Eyuv43mGVh5*2BoeqQnk*3D&reserved=0__;JSUlJSUlJ
> SUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSU!!JmPEgBY0HMszNaDT!pc-N5jQe_vQoNsN9-
> 04ykQN3SVPA3--zfrRMvdLg48EaghVAdve13YxtLv7URiG7JmKVX-
> gL1XSkd74tramVcA$
> > > the option is discussed in great detail and the only negatives are the
> > > incurring of MSU costs and some performance degradation if both a z/OS
>

Re: zOSMF

2023-03-06 Thread Rob Schramm

I think the promise of zosmf is far beyond just a server pack replacement.
Yeah server pack was great for what it was but when it comes to the grind
of installing over and over and over again and the customization the
workflow features I believe really hold the promise to fixing what is a
continuously pain in the butt situation.  And hopefully they'll continue to
make it lighter and lighter.  But the other part is the distribution points
and the packaging for distribution.  Yeah I don't really care how it
happens whether it's a GUI or not.  But in my view this is steps in the
right direction.

I would point you to Ed's presentation on the workflow features that were
incorporated to E/JES2 installation.  I really think there's something here.

Just my two cents.

Rob Schramm

On Mon, Mar 6, 2023, 12:06 Michael Babcock  wrote:

> I agree.   We use a permanent maintenance LPAR which is generally not up.
> With ServerPac, it didn’t matter we could select it as the target from our
> driving system.   With z/OSMF, if run on the driving system, z/OSMF wanted
> the target up and wanted to communicate with it via z/OSMF.  Not good for
> us.
>
> Further, PSWI uses DSS to restore the datasets and ignores any DATACLAS
> parameters.  Our OMVS datasets are all EXTADDR so we had to build a REXX
> EXEC to copy the OMVS datasets to a newly allocated OMVS dataset with the
> EXTADDR attribute.   Which by the way, what happens when the ROOT grows
> beyond 4GB?
>
> There were a number of other things we ran into which escape me at the
> moment.
>
> On Mon, Mar 6, 2023 at 10:15 AM Shaffer, Terri <
> 017d5f778222-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
>
> > Randy,
> >   I completely agree, This will be my 40th year working on z/OS and at
> > least another 7 years to go.
> >
> > I find z/OSMF cumbersome.  I prefer to do things close to the source.
> Not
> > a tool to add layers of complexity and places to go wrong with yet more
> > strange messages.
> >
> > I installed z/OS 2.5 before they eliminated SERVERPAC.  I then ordered it
> > again to try it thru z/OSMF, it added a lot more time,  the SSA's, my SMS
> > ACS routines and how things got built added to the complexity.  Plus
> there
> > are many times I would bypass steps in serverpac, that because z/OSMF is
> > performing what they call checks, think idiot proofing, makes this even
> > more difficult.
> >
> > More to come, but if I find work arounds, I will bypass in the future
> what
> > I can in z/OSMF software installs.
> >
> >
> > Ms Terri E Shaffer
> > Senior Systems Engineer,
> > z/OS Support:
> > ACIWorldwide - Telecommuter
> > H(412-766-2697) C(412-519-2592)
> > terri.shaf...@aciworldwide.com
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf
> > Of Harris Randy - Nashville
> > Sent: Friday, March 3, 2023 9:03 AM
> > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> > Subject: Re: zOSMF
> >
> > EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know
> the
> > content is safe.
> >
> >
> > I'm sure my complaints don't do any good, but I've been doing this for 25
> > years (I know many of you a lot longer).
> > I don't understand why IBM wants to force everyone to use z/OSMF.
> > Maybe it's an attempt to attract a younger group of System Programmers.
> > That's fine. However, I am not a GUI fan. I like the green screen.
> > Serverpac works great. I am running into issues trying to learn z/OSMF.
> > It's a waste of my time when I already know how to use Serverpac.
> >
> > Randy Harris
> > P 615-344-3244
> > C 662-401-8552
> > james.harr...@hcahealthcare.com
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf
> > Of rpinion865
> > Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2023 9:37 AM
> > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> > Subject: {EXTERNAL} zOSMF
> >
> > CAUTION! This email originated from outside of our organization. DO NOT
> > CLICK links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know
> > the content is safe.
> >
> > Running zOSMF under z/OS 2.4. In attempting to load the Portable Software
> > Instance, retrieving the contents from the directory, that was used when
> > the order was retrieved to our system, I get the following error.
> >
> > An error was found in file "/u/pinionr/TDMF/IZUD00DF.json". Error: "The
> > file contains data that is not supported by the current level of z/OSMF.
> > The version = 8."IZUD277E Feb 16, 2023, 10:14:02 AM
> >
> > I have no idea how to proceed. If I need to apply maintenance to zOSMF,
> > how would I be able to proceed?
> >
> > Sent with [Proton Mail](
> >
> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.com%2Fv3%2F__https%3A%2F%2Fproton.me%2F__%3B!!LgPfcEISpGU!vlU0iqbugIfvV7HijMEm4JcqCCtIGOVes01SZ-URq4XEkFMGC84ma_3q1ruW8IaDqiRE%24&data=05%7C01%7Cterri.shaffer%40ACIWORLDWIDE.COM%7C7c6559691d4f400dd02408db1bf16baa%7Cd1b7f1185cb24d4e85a382e07efb07e9%7C1%7C0%7C638134495951840874%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLC

Re: Running a Coupling Facility using a CP for a test Parallel Sysplex 0 anyh gotcha's?

And this was long before Thin ICF provisioning on a CP with interrupts.

On Mon, Mar 6, 2023 at 3:07 PM Attila Fogarasi  wrote:
>
> Perhaps your outsourcer will accept recommendations by IBM in an official
> apar, see https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/apar/II09294
> This says in part "If you can accept slower response times or occasional
> slower
>
>   response times and the load is not too great, CFs in shared
>   LPs may be a viable alternative to running CFs with DEDICATED
>   CP resources."
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 7, 2023 at 12:04 AM Allan Staller <
> 0387911dea17-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
>
> > Classification: Confidential
> >
> > The "spare" ICF engine on the "A" box could be shared between *your*
> > test/production sysplexes.
> >
> > HTH
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf
> > Of Laurence Chiu
> > Sent: Friday, March 3, 2023 9:34 PM
> > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> > Subject: Running a Coupling Facility using a CP for a test Parallel
> > Sysplex 0 anyh gotcha's?
> >
> > [CAUTION: This Email is from outside the Organization. Unless you trust
> > the sender, Don't click links or open attachments as it may be a Phishing
> > email, which can steal your Information and compromise your Computer.]
> >
> > The situation.
> >
> > We share a couple of Z13's with another (larger client). Z13 B is where we
> > run our development LPARs and Z13 A is production.
> >
> > For critical business reasons an online application on our production LPAR
> > needs to be highly available and that means in a parallel sysplex.  But our
> > outsourcer has told us it cannot be done for the following reasons because
> > there are no spare ICF engines on the host B - all are being used by other
> > CF instances, either to support production Sysplexes or development ones
> > (not ours).
> >
> > Host A does potentially have a spare ICF engine we could use to support a
> > production parallel Sysplex but good practice does recommend you create a
> > test one first of course.
> >
> > I then asked the question, if host A has a spare ICF engine, can't it be
> > used to support a CF to be used by the test Sysplex on B. I was advised
> > this was not possible since there are no spare connections between host A
> > and Host B (Infiniband possibly) so the Sysplex on B could not actually
> > communicate with the CF on A.
> >
> > Our requirement for the Sysplex is primarily to be able to share a VSAM
> > dataset which is hit every time a transaction comes in with a peak of about
> > 99tps. So we would need VSAM RLS to share the dataset records between the
> > two application instances. There is no DB2, CICS or IMS so I think the only
> > structures in the CF are those to support VSAM RLS, maybe some XCF
> > structures and core systems.
> >
> > Knowing that we would only bring up the test sysplex to make sure
> > transactions routed correctly across the two LPARs and most of the time we
> > would have one member of the Sysplex off, I suggested that the test CF
> > could be built using a CP.  To this suggestion I received the following
> > (anti) advice
> > - there would be MSU costs (we don't care since we think the MIPS load on
> > the CF would be low). Plus we would ask that the CF be defined with Dynamic
> > Coupling Facility Dispatch and set DYNDISP=THIN. Since that CF is going to
> > be idling most of the time, MSU consumption is not going to be a major cost.
> > - it's strongly recommended not to do this by IBM. Yet when I read this
> > document
> >
> >
> > https://apc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ibm.com%2Fdownloads%2Fcas%2FJZB2E38Q&data=05%7C01%7Callan.staller%40HCL.COM%7C1962ff1c13d7410924a708db1c617020%7C189de737c93a4f5a8b686f4ca9941912%7C0%7C0%7C638134977066659942%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=78DxD9grmMmrALQNItds2OaQ6Eyuv43mGVh5%2BoeqQnk%3D&reserved=0
> > the option is discussed in great detail and the only negatives are the
> > incurring of MSU costs and some performance degradation if both a z/OS and
> > CF LPAR are trying to use the same CP at the same time.  But this can be
> > managed.
> >
> > - that a CF running on a CP would need a dedicated CP engine and there are
> > no spare engines in host B. That totally flies against the information I
> > have read from IBM docs.
> >
> > Of course for production the CF on host A would be configured to use an
> > ICF engine (or share one)
> >
> > Finally, while I accepted the argument at the time there were no
> > connections between Host A and Host B, further reading suggests that you do
> > not need to dedicate channels for communications but use XCF or by using
> > Infiniband sub channels or sharing the same physical link with more than
> > one Sysplex. Then the issue of running the CF on a CP goes away since I can
> > ask for two CF's to be defined on host A, one for production and one for
> > test and DCFC ens

Re: Running a Coupling Facility using a CP for a test Parallel Sysplex 0 anyh gotcha's?

2023-03-06 Thread Attila Fogarasi

Perhaps your outsourcer will accept recommendations by IBM in an official
apar, see https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/apar/II09294
This says in part "If you can accept slower response times or occasional
slower

  response times and the load is not too great, CFs in shared
  LPs may be a viable alternative to running CFs with DEDICATED
  CP resources."


On Tue, Mar 7, 2023 at 12:04 AM Allan Staller <
0387911dea17-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:

> Classification: Confidential
>
> The "spare" ICF engine on the "A" box could be shared between *your*
> test/production sysplexes.
>
> HTH
>
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf
> Of Laurence Chiu
> Sent: Friday, March 3, 2023 9:34 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Running a Coupling Facility using a CP for a test Parallel
> Sysplex 0 anyh gotcha's?
>
> [CAUTION: This Email is from outside the Organization. Unless you trust
> the sender, Don't click links or open attachments as it may be a Phishing
> email, which can steal your Information and compromise your Computer.]
>
> The situation.
>
> We share a couple of Z13's with another (larger client). Z13 B is where we
> run our development LPARs and Z13 A is production.
>
> For critical business reasons an online application on our production LPAR
> needs to be highly available and that means in a parallel sysplex.  But our
> outsourcer has told us it cannot be done for the following reasons because
> there are no spare ICF engines on the host B - all are being used by other
> CF instances, either to support production Sysplexes or development ones
> (not ours).
>
> Host A does potentially have a spare ICF engine we could use to support a
> production parallel Sysplex but good practice does recommend you create a
> test one first of course.
>
> I then asked the question, if host A has a spare ICF engine, can't it be
> used to support a CF to be used by the test Sysplex on B. I was advised
> this was not possible since there are no spare connections between host A
> and Host B (Infiniband possibly) so the Sysplex on B could not actually
> communicate with the CF on A.
>
> Our requirement for the Sysplex is primarily to be able to share a VSAM
> dataset which is hit every time a transaction comes in with a peak of about
> 99tps. So we would need VSAM RLS to share the dataset records between the
> two application instances. There is no DB2, CICS or IMS so I think the only
> structures in the CF are those to support VSAM RLS, maybe some XCF
> structures and core systems.
>
> Knowing that we would only bring up the test sysplex to make sure
> transactions routed correctly across the two LPARs and most of the time we
> would have one member of the Sysplex off, I suggested that the test CF
> could be built using a CP.  To this suggestion I received the following
> (anti) advice
> - there would be MSU costs (we don't care since we think the MIPS load on
> the CF would be low). Plus we would ask that the CF be defined with Dynamic
> Coupling Facility Dispatch and set DYNDISP=THIN. Since that CF is going to
> be idling most of the time, MSU consumption is not going to be a major cost.
> - it's strongly recommended not to do this by IBM. Yet when I read this
> document
>
>
> https://apc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ibm.com%2Fdownloads%2Fcas%2FJZB2E38Q&data=05%7C01%7Callan.staller%40HCL.COM%7C1962ff1c13d7410924a708db1c617020%7C189de737c93a4f5a8b686f4ca9941912%7C0%7C0%7C638134977066659942%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=78DxD9grmMmrALQNItds2OaQ6Eyuv43mGVh5%2BoeqQnk%3D&reserved=0
> the option is discussed in great detail and the only negatives are the
> incurring of MSU costs and some performance degradation if both a z/OS and
> CF LPAR are trying to use the same CP at the same time.  But this can be
> managed.
>
> - that a CF running on a CP would need a dedicated CP engine and there are
> no spare engines in host B. That totally flies against the information I
> have read from IBM docs.
>
> Of course for production the CF on host A would be configured to use an
> ICF engine (or share one)
>
> Finally, while I accepted the argument at the time there were no
> connections between Host A and Host B, further reading suggests that you do
> not need to dedicate channels for communications but use XCF or by using
> Infiniband sub channels or sharing the same physical link with more than
> one Sysplex. Then the issue of running the CF on a CP goes away since I can
> ask for two CF's to be defined on host A, one for production and one for
> test and DCFC ensures that that production CF is not impacted by the
> development one.
>
> A lot to digest here but I really want to have some authoritative data in
> order to refute most of the comments being our outsourcer.
>
> Thanks
>
> --
> For IBM-MAIN sub

Re: Time of last Power On Reset

2023-03-06 Thread Jim Elliott

Found it. POR shows up in the Audit log on the HMC.

Jim

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

Re: Time of last Power On Reset

2023-03-06 Thread Jim Elliott

Michael:

I think that is just the HMC. I had already found that (Shutdown or Restart) in 
the tasks performed log, but everything else in that log seems to be HMC 
related. 

Jim

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

Re: BMC IAM and DFHSM DATALOSS

2023-03-06 Thread Joel C. Ewing


I see two possibilities:

Either IAM is somehow managing to update the file in a way that doesn't 
end up with the changed bit set for the file -- might possibly happen if 
the file is never properly closed by the task that updates it-- maybe if 
the file is opened for update the changed bit only gets set at close if 
some write to the file actually took place..


or

some process is resetting the changed-bit after the file is closed but 
before HSM migration kicks in for the dataset.


I believe there is a DUMPCLASS option to RESET the changed bits on files 
on a full volume DUMP -- on the assumption that you want the changed bit 
to only reflect changes that occurred after that backup dump to avoid 
unneeded dumps for later incremental backups of the same volume.  This 
sounds like something you would definitely NOT want to specify on 
volumes also subject to migration with FSM enabled. If FSM is enabled, 
the changed bit being off tells HSM if it needs to migrate the dataset 
and still has a previously-migrated version of the dataset that was 
recalled but not yet deleted from its migration volume, that all it 
needs to do to migrate is to change the inactive old migrated dataset to 
active status, delete the live dataset, and point it do the old migrated 
copy.  So a sequence of recall dataset, update dataset, 
somehow-not-set-or-reset-change-bit, migrate-with-FSM-enabled is 
guaranteed to lose the updates after the recall.


Recalled, inactive migration versions of datasets on ML2 volumes can 
persist for many weeks depending on the RECYCLE threshold for the ML2 
volumes.


    Joel C. Ewing

On 3/6/23 11:07, Dave Jousma wrote:

All,

We just learned that we have a problem with IAM (Innovation Access Method) the 
high perf replacement for VSAM.   No idea how long it has been going on, and I 
have tickets open with both BMC and IBM on this.   Seems to only affect IAM 
files, and exists in both z/OS V2.4, and V2.5, and multiple versions of IAM.  
We are currently at 10.x, but the problem occurs in V9.x as well.   We see the 
problem mostly in our Development space, not in PROD (or nothing reported yet, 
but problem exists there too).  We dont migrate much in PROD, and is why we 
havent had the problem reported there.

The scenario here is
- existing IAM file gets updates, records added or updated, doesnt matter.
- file goes unreferenced for 7 days, so HSM migrates
- file gets recalled, the updates that were made are gone.

In HSM we do have FSM enabled (Fast Subsequent Migration), where if HSM is 
called to migrate the dataset, and it hasnt changed since last migration, it 
just deletes the dataset and reconnects it to the already migrated version in 
HSM.

We've learned that turning FSM off circumvents the problem.   IBM tells us that "HSM 
checks the DS1RECAL and DS1IND08 flags in the Format-1 DSCB of a data set to determine if 
a data set is eligible for fast subsequent migration. The DS1RECAL flag is used to 
indicate if a data set has been recalled and the DS1IND08 flag is used to indicate if a 
data set been modified since it was last recalled. "

IBM doc seems to indicate that OPEN handles setting these bits, BMC support 
says they arent messing with these bits.  I dont know *who* is to blame.

I'd be curious to hear from other installations that use IAM, has HSM with FSM 
turned on.

The recreate scenario is (assumes new test file) with FSM turned on
1 - Allocate test IAM file and add a record easily identifiable
2 - HSM Migrate the file
3 - HSM Recall the file
4 - RECORD ADDED IN #1 is there.
5 - Add another record with new identifiable info
6 - HSM migrate the file.
7 - HSM Restore the file.
8 - Record from #1 is there, record from #4 is not there.

With FSM turned off, the dataset gets fresh migration copy every time, so the 
issue is masked.

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


--
Joel C. Ewing

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

Re: Ad TCP/Socket programs in REXX (Re: Mainframe REXX (Re: Badmouthing Rexx and ooRexx - again (Re: zOSMF and zOWE for non-mainframers

2023-03-06 Thread Rony G. Flatscher

On 06.03.2023 02:43, David Crayford wrote:
I'm sure your BSF4ooRexx is a really nice library. But it's moot point talking about it on this
forum because ooRexx has not been ported to z/OS, I'm sorry to say that I think it probably never
will be.

That would be unfortunate and actually a little bit unprofessional if other non-IBM-invented and
great software gets ported to it. OTOH seeing the FUDding towards ooRexx it is not a surprise,
keeping everyone in the wait-and-see room (the purpose of FUD marketing).

Unless, of course, there is a REXX enthusiast who has the time and skills to do the port. I can
tell you from experience, it's not easy.

Your experience stems from the days where ooRexx was coded to be 32-bit only, with quite a few hacks
from its history at IBM (written originally at a time where C++ was not yet standardized, every
company had its own C++ (pre-)compiler, then the need to have it run on OS/2, AIX, Windows and the
like).

In the meantime the kernel got totally rewritten and the build system changed from autotools to
CMake, making it possible to create ports of ooRexx with any bitness and operating system targets
quickly.

So I assume that anyone who ported software from the Unix world to z/OS would have the necessary
skills to create a proof of concept port of ooRexx to z/OS. It would add a lot of new and additional
features for REXX programmers.

I also wonder what will happen to ooRexx once Rick McGuire retires? Is there a big enough
community to keep it going?

Again FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubts): make its future doubtful should anyone think of porting it
to z/OS?

Seriously, ooRexx is open-source so no one can pull it from the market such that any investment in
it is strategically safe. The current set of features add already a lot of wealth of help and
flexibility to the REXX table, there would be no need to add new ones to keep ooRexx an extremely
improved over classic REXX tool forever.

Back to your doubts: yes, there are plenty of highly skilled programmers in the ooRexx community to
take on maintenance and even add new features if deemed necessary (one of the ooRexx developers has
even an experimental branch of ooRexx where he tests all sort of interesting features).

So, there is no reason to doubt the future of ooRexx. It is a safe investment.

FWIW, the Python Py4J and JPype (and others) libraries are similar to BSF4ooRexx and both run on
z/OS. Note: you will need access to the xlclang/xlclang++ libraries to install those packages as
PyPi doesn't have binaries for z/OS.

https://talvi.net/posts/a-brief-overview-of-python-java-bridges-in-2020.html

Thank you for that interesting link. The only implementation of a Java bridge there that adheres to
the Java standard (this should go without saying that everyone should adhere to!), i.e. the Java
scripting framework as defined in the javax.script package is Jython.

As such only Jython can be used as a scripting language from the Java side, if Java programmers want
to run a Python script from their application using the Java scripting framework. E.g. you can use
Jython for event handling in JavaFX, but none of the other Python-Java bridge attempts which is
unfortunate.

All other bridges just ignore the Java scripting framework standard and whatever the respective
author felt was right for himself turned into the infrastructure one has to learn in order to become
able to use a particular Java bridge. Such an approach is quite ignorant and hence dilletantic
despite the talent that people may show. Also one can tell the fascination of new Java-related
projects like GraalVM (which is not ready for prime time for quite some time) without caring for
business (professional) deployments of Java.

So the only candidate for a valid Python-Java bridge would be Jython. [Let me add that
ooRexx+BSF4ooRexx is faster by comparison (comparing loading and dispatching scripts on the same
machine in the same Java runtime environment).]

Comparing the ooRexx-Java bridge (BSF4ooRexx): it is fully implemented in both directions from
ooRexx to Java and from Java to ooRexx: you can send ooRexx messages to Java objects (including
arguments meant for the targeted Java method) that cause the appropriate Java method to be invoked
on the targeted Java object; vice versa: you can invoke Java methods on the ooRexx proxy object on
the Java side which will cause the proxied ooRexx object to receive a genuine ooRexx message
accompanied with all Java arguments going with it.

BSF4ooRexx even allows you to implement abstract Java methods in ooRexx, wich
is actually very easy! :)

We use ReactorNetty for Java TCP servers [1]. Although it's far more common these days to use a
layer 7 protocol such as HTTP(S) using a framework like Spring to do all the heavy lifting. It
would be interesting to see how BSF4ooRexx could use ReactorNetty and if there would be any
benefit over just using Java or Kotlin.

Re: Time of last Power On Reset

Oops, sorry that may not be it.  I assumed it meant the CEC but I think it
was just the HMC.

On Mon, Mar 6, 2023 at 11:22 AM Michael Babcock 
wrote:

> I believe it’s in HMC Management, audit and log management,   First select
> the TASKS PERFORMED LOG, then select the limit date and time, go back to
> the year you installed the CEC.   Make sure you select a date in the
> calendar pop up, then select ok.   Once you see the date selected, then hit
> okay.   I believe it shows up as POWER OFF OR RESTART.   You can use CRTL-F
> to find power.   The last one you find should be it.
>
> On Mon, Mar 6, 2023 at 9:36 AM Jim Elliott  wrote:
>
>> Is there a way to find on the HMC (or SE) the date and time of the last
>> Power-On Reset of a system?
>>
>> Jim Elliott
>> Senior IT Consultant - GlassHouse Systems Inc.
>>
>> --
>> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
>> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>>
> --
> Michael Babcock
> OneMain Financial
> z/OS Systems Programmer, Lead
>
-- 
Michael Babcock
OneMain Financial
z/OS Systems Programmer, Lead

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

Re: Shopz

Same here

On Mon, Mar 6, 2023 at 8:23 AM Pommier, Rex  wrote:

> Barbara,
>
> Can you actually log onto ShopZ?  I get the "welcome to ShopZ" and am able
> to log in, but once logged in is when I get the page not found error.
>
> Rex
>
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf
> Of Barbara Nitz
> Sent: יום ב 06 מרץ 2023 10:19
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: Shopz
>
> >Has anyone been able to access shopz since yesterday?
> >Has the address changed?
> I can get to ShopZ at this address
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ibm.com/software/shopzseries/ShopzSeries_public.wss__;!!JT0xjr86ZxPthq8!tkINETa0RUlIkxQoWf8y3zQt3HJhZV1YmtRA6d-FLfMylWRm_xRHFBKW2oIMq07JxYOIjIqDRI1qFiOC$
> .
>
> Regards, Barbara
>
> --
> 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
>
>
> The information transmitted is intended solely for the individual or
> entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or
> privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use
> of or taking action in reliance upon this information by persons or
> entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have
> received this email in error please contact the sender and delete the
> material from any computer.
>
> --
> 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
>
> --
> 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
>
-- 
Michael Babcock
OneMain Financial
z/OS Systems Programmer, Lead

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

Re: Time of last Power On Reset

I believe it’s in HMC Management, audit and log management,   First select
the TASKS PERFORMED LOG, then select the limit date and time, go back to
the year you installed the CEC.   Make sure you select a date in the
calendar pop up, then select ok.   Once you see the date selected, then hit
okay.   I believe it shows up as POWER OFF OR RESTART.   You can use CRTL-F
to find power.   The last one you find should be it.

On Mon, Mar 6, 2023 at 9:36 AM Jim Elliott  wrote:

> Is there a way to find on the HMC (or SE) the date and time of the last
> Power-On Reset of a system?
>
> Jim Elliott
> Senior IT Consultant - GlassHouse Systems Inc.
>
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>
-- 
Michael Babcock
OneMain Financial
z/OS Systems Programmer, Lead

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

Re: BMC IAM and DFHSM DATALOSS

Try VTOC backups after Recall 3 and update 5 and restore 7 and compare.

On Mon, Mar 6, 2023 at 11:08 AM Dave Jousma
<01a0403c5dc1-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
>
> All,
>
> We just learned that we have a problem with IAM (Innovation Access Method) 
> the high perf replacement for VSAM.   No idea how long it has been going on, 
> and I have tickets open with both BMC and IBM on this.   Seems to only affect 
> IAM files, and exists in both z/OS V2.4, and V2.5, and multiple versions of 
> IAM.  We are currently at 10.x, but the problem occurs in V9.x as well.   We 
> see the problem mostly in our Development space, not in PROD (or nothing 
> reported yet, but problem exists there too).  We dont migrate much in PROD, 
> and is why we havent had the problem reported there.
>
> The scenario here is
> - existing IAM file gets updates, records added or updated, doesnt matter.
> - file goes unreferenced for 7 days, so HSM migrates
> - file gets recalled, the updates that were made are gone.
>
> In HSM we do have FSM enabled (Fast Subsequent Migration), where if HSM is 
> called to migrate the dataset, and it hasnt changed since last migration, it 
> just deletes the dataset and reconnects it to the already migrated version in 
> HSM.
>
> We've learned that turning FSM off circumvents the problem.   IBM tells us 
> that "HSM checks the DS1RECAL and DS1IND08 flags in the Format-1 DSCB of a 
> data set to determine if a data set is eligible for fast subsequent 
> migration. The DS1RECAL flag is used to indicate if a data set has been 
> recalled and the DS1IND08 flag is used to indicate if a data set been 
> modified since it was last recalled. "
>
> IBM doc seems to indicate that OPEN handles setting these bits, BMC support 
> says they arent messing with these bits.  I dont know *who* is to blame.
>
> I'd be curious to hear from other installations that use IAM, has HSM with 
> FSM turned on.
>
> The recreate scenario is (assumes new test file) with FSM turned on
> 1 - Allocate test IAM file and add a record easily identifiable
> 2 - HSM Migrate the file
> 3 - HSM Recall the file
> 4 - RECORD ADDED IN #1 is there.
> 5 - Add another record with new identifiable info
> 6 - HSM migrate the file.
> 7 - HSM Restore the file.
> 8 - Record from #1 is there, record from #4 is not there.
>
> With FSM turned off, the dataset gets fresh migration copy every time, so the 
> issue is masked.
>
> --
> 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

BMC IAM and DFHSM DATALOSS

2023-03-06 Thread Dave Jousma

All,

We just learned that we have a problem with IAM (Innovation Access Method) the 
high perf replacement for VSAM.   No idea how long it has been going on, and I 
have tickets open with both BMC and IBM on this.   Seems to only affect IAM 
files, and exists in both z/OS V2.4, and V2.5, and multiple versions of IAM.  
We are currently at 10.x, but the problem occurs in V9.x as well.   We see the 
problem mostly in our Development space, not in PROD (or nothing reported yet, 
but problem exists there too).  We dont migrate much in PROD, and is why we 
havent had the problem reported there.

The scenario here is 
- existing IAM file gets updates, records added or updated, doesnt matter.
- file goes unreferenced for 7 days, so HSM migrates
- file gets recalled, the updates that were made are gone.

In HSM we do have FSM enabled (Fast Subsequent Migration), where if HSM is 
called to migrate the dataset, and it hasnt changed since last migration, it 
just deletes the dataset and reconnects it to the already migrated version in 
HSM.

We've learned that turning FSM off circumvents the problem.   IBM tells us that 
"HSM checks the DS1RECAL and DS1IND08 flags in the Format-1 DSCB of a data set 
to determine if a data set is eligible for fast subsequent migration. The 
DS1RECAL flag is used to indicate if a data set has been recalled and the 
DS1IND08 flag is used to indicate if a data set been modified since it was last 
recalled. "

IBM doc seems to indicate that OPEN handles setting these bits, BMC support 
says they arent messing with these bits.  I dont know *who* is to blame.

I'd be curious to hear from other installations that use IAM, has HSM with FSM 
turned on.   

The recreate scenario is (assumes new test file) with FSM turned on
1 - Allocate test IAM file and add a record easily identifiable
2 - HSM Migrate the file
3 - HSM Recall the file
4 - RECORD ADDED IN #1 is there.
5 - Add another record with new identifiable info
6 - HSM migrate the file.
7 - HSM Restore the file.
8 - Record from #1 is there, record from #4 is not there.

With FSM turned off, the dataset gets fresh migration copy every time, so the 
issue is masked.

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

Re: zOSMF

I agree.   We use a permanent maintenance LPAR which is generally not up.
With ServerPac, it didn’t matter we could select it as the target from our
driving system.   With z/OSMF, if run on the driving system, z/OSMF wanted
the target up and wanted to communicate with it via z/OSMF.  Not good for
us.

Further, PSWI uses DSS to restore the datasets and ignores any DATACLAS
parameters.  Our OMVS datasets are all EXTADDR so we had to build a REXX
EXEC to copy the OMVS datasets to a newly allocated OMVS dataset with the
EXTADDR attribute.   Which by the way, what happens when the ROOT grows
beyond 4GB?

There were a number of other things we ran into which escape me at the
moment.

On Mon, Mar 6, 2023 at 10:15 AM Shaffer, Terri <
017d5f778222-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:

> Randy,
>   I completely agree, This will be my 40th year working on z/OS and at
> least another 7 years to go.
>
> I find z/OSMF cumbersome.  I prefer to do things close to the source.  Not
> a tool to add layers of complexity and places to go wrong with yet more
> strange messages.
>
> I installed z/OS 2.5 before they eliminated SERVERPAC.  I then ordered it
> again to try it thru z/OSMF, it added a lot more time,  the SSA's, my SMS
> ACS routines and how things got built added to the complexity.  Plus there
> are many times I would bypass steps in serverpac, that because z/OSMF is
> performing what they call checks, think idiot proofing, makes this even
> more difficult.
>
> More to come, but if I find work arounds, I will bypass in the future what
> I can in z/OSMF software installs.
>
>
> Ms Terri E Shaffer
> Senior Systems Engineer,
> z/OS Support:
> ACIWorldwide - Telecommuter
> H(412-766-2697) C(412-519-2592)
> terri.shaf...@aciworldwide.com
>
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf
> Of Harris Randy - Nashville
> Sent: Friday, March 3, 2023 9:03 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: zOSMF
>
> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the
> content is safe.
>
>
> I'm sure my complaints don't do any good, but I've been doing this for 25
> years (I know many of you a lot longer).
> I don't understand why IBM wants to force everyone to use z/OSMF.
> Maybe it's an attempt to attract a younger group of System Programmers.
> That's fine. However, I am not a GUI fan. I like the green screen.
> Serverpac works great. I am running into issues trying to learn z/OSMF.
> It's a waste of my time when I already know how to use Serverpac.
>
> Randy Harris
> P 615-344-3244
> C 662-401-8552
> james.harr...@hcahealthcare.com
>
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf
> Of rpinion865
> Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2023 9:37 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: {EXTERNAL} zOSMF
>
> CAUTION! This email originated from outside of our organization. DO NOT
> CLICK links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know
> the content is safe.
>
> Running zOSMF under z/OS 2.4. In attempting to load the Portable Software
> Instance, retrieving the contents from the directory, that was used when
> the order was retrieved to our system, I get the following error.
>
> An error was found in file "/u/pinionr/TDMF/IZUD00DF.json". Error: "The
> file contains data that is not supported by the current level of z/OSMF.
> The version = 8."IZUD277E Feb 16, 2023, 10:14:02 AM
>
> I have no idea how to proceed. If I need to apply maintenance to zOSMF,
> how would I be able to proceed?
>
> Sent with [Proton Mail](
> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.com%2Fv3%2F__https%3A%2F%2Fproton.me%2F__%3B!!LgPfcEISpGU!vlU0iqbugIfvV7HijMEm4JcqCCtIGOVes01SZ-URq4XEkFMGC84ma_3q1ruW8IaDqiRE%24&data=05%7C01%7Cterri.shaffer%40ACIWORLDWIDE.COM%7C7c6559691d4f400dd02408db1bf16baa%7Cd1b7f1185cb24d4e85a382e07efb07e9%7C1%7C0%7C638134495951840874%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=frZbhW%2Fe88DA%2ByIeH1r7X4qhEDYZ36MicX6PONjb12k%3D&reserved=0
> ) secure email.
>
> --
> 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
> 
>  [https://go.aciworldwide.com/rs/030-ROK-804/images/aci-footer.jpg] <
> http://www.aciworldwide.com>
> This email message and any attachments may contain confidential,
> proprietary or non-public information. The information is intended solely
> for the designated recipient(s). If an addressing or transmission error has
> misdirected this email, please notify the sender immediately and destroy
> this email. Any review, dissemin

Re: ZFS File System Recall, Hanging OMVS

We use CA-DISK and I believe ours is set to not migrate.

On Mon, Mar 6, 2023 at 10:28 AM Mark Jacobs <
0224d287a4b1-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:

> This past weekend we experienced a somewhat unusual problem, with
> unexpected side effects. Wondering if anyone else has seen this before. We
> have an open case with IBM support too.
>
> - OMVS attempted to recall a migrated user zFS file system on a system
> where we're not running DFSMSHSM.
> - We didn't realize this for quite a while, 20-30 minutes or so.
> - OMVS services on other systems in the sysplex became severally degraded
> until we answered the outstanding WTOR to cancel the recall.
> - Several VTAM address spaces in the sysplex lost their connection to the
> ISTGENERIC coupling facility structure.
> - We didn't observe anything else going on other than the disconnection to
> ISTGENERIC and OMVS degradation elsewhere in the sysplex.
>
> Mark Jacobs
>
> Sent from [ProtonMail](https://protonmail.com), Swiss-based encrypted
> email.
>
> GPG Public Key -
> https://api.protonmail.ch/pks/lookup?op=get&search=markjac...@protonmail.com
>
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>
-- 
Michael Babcock
OneMain Financial
z/OS Systems Programmer, Lead

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

ZFS File System Recall, Hanging OMVS

2023-03-06 Thread Mark Jacobs

This past weekend we experienced a somewhat unusual problem, with unexpected 
side effects. Wondering if anyone else has seen this before. We have an open 
case with IBM support too.

- OMVS attempted to recall a migrated user zFS file system on a system where 
we're not running DFSMSHSM.
- We didn't realize this for quite a while, 20-30 minutes or so.
- OMVS services on other systems in the sysplex became severally degraded until 
we answered the outstanding WTOR to cancel the recall.
- Several VTAM address spaces in the sysplex lost their connection to the 
ISTGENERIC coupling facility structure.
- We didn't observe anything else going on other than the disconnection to 
ISTGENERIC and OMVS degradation elsewhere in the sysplex.

Mark Jacobs

Sent from [ProtonMail](https://protonmail.com), Swiss-based encrypted email.

GPG Public Key - 
https://api.protonmail.ch/pks/lookup?op=get&search=markjac...@protonmail.com

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

Re: zOSMF

Randy,
  I completely agree, This will be my 40th year working on z/OS and at least 
another 7 years to go.

I find z/OSMF cumbersome.  I prefer to do things close to the source.  Not a 
tool to add layers of complexity and places to go wrong with yet more strange 
messages.

I installed z/OS 2.5 before they eliminated SERVERPAC.  I then ordered it again 
to try it thru z/OSMF, it added a lot more time,  the SSA's, my SMS ACS 
routines and how things got built added to the complexity.  Plus there are many 
times I would bypass steps in serverpac, that because z/OSMF is performing what 
they call checks, think idiot proofing, makes this even more difficult.

More to come, but if I find work arounds, I will bypass in the future what I 
can in z/OSMF software installs.


Ms Terri E Shaffer
Senior Systems Engineer,
z/OS Support:
ACIWorldwide - Telecommuter
H(412-766-2697) C(412-519-2592)
terri.shaf...@aciworldwide.com

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
Harris Randy - Nashville
Sent: Friday, March 3, 2023 9:03 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: zOSMF

EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the 
content is safe.


I'm sure my complaints don't do any good, but I've been doing this for 25 years 
(I know many of you a lot longer).
I don't understand why IBM wants to force everyone to use z/OSMF.
Maybe it's an attempt to attract a younger group of System Programmers.
That's fine. However, I am not a GUI fan. I like the green screen.
Serverpac works great. I am running into issues trying to learn z/OSMF.
It's a waste of my time when I already know how to use Serverpac.

Randy Harris
P 615-344-3244
C 662-401-8552
james.harr...@hcahealthcare.com

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
rpinion865
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2023 9:37 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: {EXTERNAL} zOSMF

CAUTION! This email originated from outside of our organization. DO NOT CLICK 
links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content 
is safe.

Running zOSMF under z/OS 2.4. In attempting to load the Portable Software 
Instance, retrieving the contents from the directory, that was used when the 
order was retrieved to our system, I get the following error.

An error was found in file "/u/pinionr/TDMF/IZUD00DF.json". Error: "The file 
contains data that is not supported by the current level of z/OSMF. The version 
= 8."IZUD277E Feb 16, 2023, 10:14:02 AM

I have no idea how to proceed. If I need to apply maintenance to zOSMF, how 
would I be able to proceed?

Sent with [Proton 
Mail](https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.com%2Fv3%2F__https%3A%2F%2Fproton.me%2F__%3B!!LgPfcEISpGU!vlU0iqbugIfvV7HijMEm4JcqCCtIGOVes01SZ-URq4XEkFMGC84ma_3q1ruW8IaDqiRE%24&data=05%7C01%7Cterri.shaffer%40ACIWORLDWIDE.COM%7C7c6559691d4f400dd02408db1bf16baa%7Cd1b7f1185cb24d4e85a382e07efb07e9%7C1%7C0%7C638134495951840874%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=frZbhW%2Fe88DA%2ByIeH1r7X4qhEDYZ36MicX6PONjb12k%3D&reserved=0
 ) secure email.

--
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

 [https://go.aciworldwide.com/rs/030-ROK-804/images/aci-footer.jpg] 

This email message and any attachments may contain confidential, proprietary or 
non-public information. The information is intended solely for the designated 
recipient(s). If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this 
email, please notify the sender immediately and destroy this email. Any review, 
dissemination, use or reliance upon this information by unintended recipients 
is prohibited. Any opinions expressed in this email are those of the author 
personally.

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

Time of last Power On Reset

2023-03-06 Thread Jim Elliott

Is there a way to find on the HMC (or SE) the date and time of the last
Power-On Reset of a system?

Jim Elliott
Senior IT Consultant - GlassHouse Systems Inc.

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

Re: BookManager

2023-03-06 Thread Schmitt, Michael

If you had the original source of the documents, you could format to PostScript 
(DEV(PSA), then convert the PostScript to PDF using Adobe Acrobat or 
equivalent. You'd need to download the BookMaster fonts.

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
Roger Bolan
Sent: Friday, March 3, 2023 5:51 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: BookManager

The BookManager format (on z/OS at least) is a special output format from
the DCF (Document Composition Facility) SCRIPT command.  With OS/390
Softcopy Print you could print from the BookManager books but I never
thought the results were really great.  If you have the original source
text which will be in BookMaster, Starter GML, or just Script commands
format, I would start from there.

If it were me, and I had the original source for the documents I would
reformat them with DCF using the BookMaster profile and macro library (if
you still have it around), or the Starter Set GML profile and macro
library.  I would output to a DEV(AFPA) or DEV(AFP2A) format and then use
the afpxpdf transform that comes with the "IBM Print Transforms from
AFP" product that works with the Infoprint Server component of z/OS to
transform the AFP format to PDF.

If going from the BookManager format is your only option, the results are
going to be not as nice and more work.  If you can only convert a topic at
a time to PDF then maybe you could assemble them back into a PDF book with
Adobe Acrobat.  I don't have any experience with that.
--Roger

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

Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Z15 EOM

2023-03-06 Thread Pommier, Rex

John,

Naah, it'll be the "z16-mm" short for mini-me.  

Rex

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
John McKown
Sent: Friday, March 3, 2023 2:53 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Z15 EOM

Next is z2024-08, if it's GA in August 2024.

On Friday, March 3, 2023, Radoslaw Skorupka < 
0471ebeac275-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
> Well, nomenclature change is the only constant thing.
> We had z900 and z800
> Then we had z990 and z890
> Then we had z9-109 and we expected z8... but they announced z9BC and
renamed z9-109 to z9EC.
> Then we had z10EC and z10BC
> So we expected z11, but we got z196. And z114. They clarified it is 1 
> for
first, 96 for # CPs...
> Then EC12. And BC12.
> So next generation was neither EC13 nor z9xxxEC but simply z13. With 
> no
EC. Then z13s arrived.
> So next was z14 and we expected... but got z14 ZR1 - why ZR1? Why not
R4:'#$3 ???
> Nevermind z15 arrived. So we were guessing: z15s? z15BC? z15 ZR1? No! 
> z15
T02. Obviously big machine was z15 T01.  Well... no. It wasn't quite obvious.
> Now we have z16. Ooops! z16 A01.
> Let me guess the name of small z16: maybe z16 A02? No! No way! It must 
> be
something unexpected.
>
>
> Fine print: z196 was indeed 96-cp one. 80 for customer and SAPs, and
spares. And z114 has 14 processors: 10 for OS and 2 SAPs and 2 spares. Of 
course it is about maximum quantities.
>
> --
> Radoslaw Skorupka
> Lodz, Poland
>
>
>
> W dniu 02.03.2023 o 18:33, Mike Shorkend pisze:
>>
>> I still use the BC/EC nomenclature for lack of a better one.
>> It comes down to the number of CPs you can have. The z15-T01("EC") 
>> has up to 190 general processors while the z15-T02("BC") is limited 
>> to 6. It
goes
>> back to the number of possible drawers on the CEC.
>>
>> Traditionally, the BC machines have many more sub capacity settings 
>> compared with EC. You can dial the processors from A  to Z , so 26 
>> different capacity settings per CP.
>> The EC machines have much less granularity
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 2 Mar 2023 at 19:13, Pommier, Rex 
wrote:
>>
>>> IBM dropped the EC/BC nomenclature, much to my chagrin.  I'm 
>>> guessing
I'm
>>> not the only one that still refers to the big one as the EC and the
smaller
>>> sibling as the BC, even though IBM doesn't.
>>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On 
>>> Behalf Of Tom Brennan
>>> Sent: Thursday, March 2, 2023 10:04 AM
>>> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
>>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Z15 EOM
>>>
>>> Didn't IBM drop the BC vs. EC notation a while ago?  I've been 
>>> calling them water-cooled vs. air-cooled.  The number of frames is 
>>> obviously confusing, along with air-cooled model numbers T02 and A01 
>>> (and I assume
>>> A02 on the way) which look like speed/cp settings.
>>>
>>> On 3/2/2023 6:43 AM, P H wrote:

 The slide 91 is NOT the z16 'mid-range/business class' system.
Depending
>>>
>>> on the configuration the z16 'high end' system, as announced, comes 
>>> in
1,
>>> 2, 3 or 4 racks.l!

 Sent from Outlook for
 Android 
 From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  on 
 behalf of Joe Monk 
 Sent: Thursday, March 2, 2023 7:29:14 PM
 To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU 
 Subject: Re: Z15 EOM

 "The one rack z16 (aka Business Class) has not yet been announced,"

 It already exists. See slide 91.

 https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://ibm-zcouncil.com/wp-content/upl
 oad
 s/2022/05/z16-Technical-Overview-50M-KennyStine.pdf__;!!KjMRP1Ixj6e
 LE0 
 Fj!rA4k_tOBFRImng4OTWTF2Hcov3uCOXypF3klop9mtSWE7jN-yDuynqSA1Rcxkxy6
 kwV
 1zTq-yFwZSFklSYEm_rc$
>
> --
> 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

--
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 electron

Re: Shopz

I opened an issue with IBM, and they said they're having a problem with shopz. 

Gadi

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
Lopez, Sharon
Sent: יום ב 06 מרץ 2023 15:57
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Shopz

It isn't working for me either.  Is there a new address?

Thanks.
Sharon

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
Gadi Ben-Avi
Sent: Monday, March 6, 2023 3:27 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Shopz

Thanks,
For some reason, it isn't working for me.
Gadi

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
Barbara Nitz
Sent: יום ב 06 מרץ 2023 10:19
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Shopz

>Has anyone been able to access shopz since yesterday?
>Has the address changed?
I can get to ShopZ at this address 
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ibm.com/software/shopzseries/ShopzSeries_public.wss__;!!JT0xjr86ZxPthq8!tkINETa0RUlIkxQoWf8y3zQt3HJhZV1YmtRA6d-FLfMylWRm_xRHFBKW2oIMq07JxYOIjIqDRI1qFiOC$
 .

Regards, Barbara

--
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

The information transmitted is intended solely for the individual or entity to 
which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. 
Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of or taking action in 
reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended 
recipient is prohibited. If you have received this email in error please 
contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.

--
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: Shopz

2023-03-06 Thread Pommier, Rex

Barbara,

Can you actually log onto ShopZ?  I get the "welcome to ShopZ" and am able to 
log in, but once logged in is when I get the page not found error.

Rex

From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
Barbara Nitz
Sent: יום ב 06 מרץ 2023 10:19
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Shopz

>Has anyone been able to access shopz since yesterday?
>Has the address changed?
I can get to ShopZ at this address 
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ibm.com/software/shopzseries/ShopzSeries_public.wss__;!!JT0xjr86ZxPthq8!tkINETa0RUlIkxQoWf8y3zQt3HJhZV1YmtRA6d-FLfMylWRm_xRHFBKW2oIMq07JxYOIjIqDRI1qFiOC$
 .

Regards, Barbara

--
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


The information transmitted is intended solely for the individual or entity to 
which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. 
Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of or taking action in 
reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended 
recipient is prohibited. If you have received this email in error please 
contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.

--
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

--
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: Shopz

2023-03-06 Thread Schmutzok, Mike (US - Georgia)

Fails for me also.

MIke

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
Lopez, Sharon
Sent: Monday, March 6, 2023 8:57 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Shopz

  ⚠ EXTERNAL MESSAGE – Think Before You Click



It isn't working for me either.  Is there a new address?

Thanks.
Sharon

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
Gadi Ben-Avi
Sent: Monday, March 6, 2023 3:27 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Shopz

Thanks,
For some reason, it isn't working for me.
Gadi

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
Barbara Nitz
Sent: יום ב 06 מרץ 2023 10:19
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Shopz

>Has anyone been able to access shopz since yesterday?
>Has the address changed?
I can get to ShopZ at this address 
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ibm.com/software/shopzseries/ShopzSeries_public.wss__;!!JT0xjr86ZxPthq8!tkINETa0RUlIkxQoWf8y3zQt3HJhZV1YmtRA6d-FLfMylWRm_xRHFBKW2oIMq07JxYOIjIqDRI1qFiOC$
 .

Regards, Barbara

--
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


The information transmitted is intended solely for the individual or entity to 
which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. 
Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of or taking action in 
reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended 
recipient is prohibited. If you have received this email in error please 
contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.

--
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: Shopz

2023-03-06 Thread Lopez, Sharon

It isn't working for me either.  Is there a new address?

Thanks.
Sharon

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
Gadi Ben-Avi
Sent: Monday, March 6, 2023 3:27 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Shopz

Thanks,
For some reason, it isn't working for me.
Gadi

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
Barbara Nitz
Sent: יום ב 06 מרץ 2023 10:19
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Shopz

>Has anyone been able to access shopz since yesterday?
>Has the address changed?
I can get to ShopZ at this address 
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ibm.com/software/shopzseries/ShopzSeries_public.wss__;!!JT0xjr86ZxPthq8!tkINETa0RUlIkxQoWf8y3zQt3HJhZV1YmtRA6d-FLfMylWRm_xRHFBKW2oIMq07JxYOIjIqDRI1qFiOC$
 .

Regards, Barbara

--
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

The information transmitted is intended solely for the individual or entity to 
which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. 
Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of or taking action in 
reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended 
recipient is prohibited. If you have received this email in error please 
contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.

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

Re: Running a Coupling Facility using a CP for a test Parallel Sysplex 0 anyh gotcha's?

2023-03-06 Thread Allan Staller

Classification: Confidential

The "spare" ICF engine on the "A" box could be shared between *your* 
test/production sysplexes.

HTH

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
Laurence Chiu
Sent: Friday, March 3, 2023 9:34 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Running a Coupling Facility using a CP for a test Parallel Sysplex 0 
anyh gotcha's?

[CAUTION: This Email is from outside the Organization. Unless you trust the 
sender, Don't click links or open attachments as it may be a Phishing email, 
which can steal your Information and compromise your Computer.]

The situation.

We share a couple of Z13's with another (larger client). Z13 B is where we run 
our development LPARs and Z13 A is production.

For critical business reasons an online application on our production LPAR 
needs to be highly available and that means in a parallel sysplex.  But our 
outsourcer has told us it cannot be done for the following reasons because 
there are no spare ICF engines on the host B - all are being used by other CF 
instances, either to support production Sysplexes or development ones (not 
ours).

Host A does potentially have a spare ICF engine we could use to support a 
production parallel Sysplex but good practice does recommend you create a test 
one first of course.

I then asked the question, if host A has a spare ICF engine, can't it be used 
to support a CF to be used by the test Sysplex on B. I was advised this was not 
possible since there are no spare connections between host A and Host B 
(Infiniband possibly) so the Sysplex on B could not actually communicate with 
the CF on A.

Our requirement for the Sysplex is primarily to be able to share a VSAM dataset 
which is hit every time a transaction comes in with a peak of about 99tps. So 
we would need VSAM RLS to share the dataset records between the two application 
instances. There is no DB2, CICS or IMS so I think the only structures in the 
CF are those to support VSAM RLS, maybe some XCF structures and core systems.

Knowing that we would only bring up the test sysplex to make sure transactions 
routed correctly across the two LPARs and most of the time we would have one 
member of the Sysplex off, I suggested that the test CF could be built using a 
CP.  To this suggestion I received the following
(anti) advice
- there would be MSU costs (we don't care since we think the MIPS load on the 
CF would be low). Plus we would ask that the CF be defined with Dynamic 
Coupling Facility Dispatch and set DYNDISP=THIN. Since that CF is going to be 
idling most of the time, MSU consumption is not going to be a major cost.
- it's strongly recommended not to do this by IBM. Yet when I read this document

https://apc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ibm.com%2Fdownloads%2Fcas%2FJZB2E38Q&data=05%7C01%7Callan.staller%40HCL.COM%7C1962ff1c13d7410924a708db1c617020%7C189de737c93a4f5a8b686f4ca9941912%7C0%7C0%7C638134977066659942%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=78DxD9grmMmrALQNItds2OaQ6Eyuv43mGVh5%2BoeqQnk%3D&reserved=0
the option is discussed in great detail and the only negatives are the 
incurring of MSU costs and some performance degradation if both a z/OS and CF 
LPAR are trying to use the same CP at the same time.  But this can be managed.

- that a CF running on a CP would need a dedicated CP engine and there are no 
spare engines in host B. That totally flies against the information I have read 
from IBM docs.

Of course for production the CF on host A would be configured to use an ICF 
engine (or share one)

Finally, while I accepted the argument at the time there were no connections 
between Host A and Host B, further reading suggests that you do not need to 
dedicate channels for communications but use XCF or by using Infiniband sub 
channels or sharing the same physical link with more than one Sysplex. Then the 
issue of running the CF on a CP goes away since I can ask for two CF's to be 
defined on host A, one for production and one for test and DCFC ensures that 
that production CF is not impacted by the development one.

A lot to digest here but I really want to have some authoritative data in order 
to refute most of the comments being our outsourcer.

Thanks

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

The contents of this e-mail and any attachment(s) are confidential and intended 
for the named recipient(s) only. E-mail transmission is not guaranteed to be 
secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, 
destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or may contain viruses in transmission. 
The e mail and its contents (with or without referred errors) shall therefore 
not attach any liabilit

Re: BookManager

2023-03-06 Thread Colin Paice

I blogged  Copying pages out of PDF files to make mini books.  This uses pdftk
package  on Linux to
extract pages from  pdf - and appending pdf documents into a big document.

On Sun, 5 Mar 2023 at 21:19, Seymour J Metz  wrote:

> AFAIK, IBM used the BookManager BUILD tag set, which is a superset of
> BookMaster. Note that the PC versions of BookManager BUILD were totally
> different and did not support Script input.
>
>
> --
> Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
> http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
>
> 
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf
> of Roger Bolan [rogerbo...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, March 3, 2023 6:51 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: BookManager
>
> The BookManager format (on z/OS at least) is a special output format from
> the DCF (Document Composition Facility) SCRIPT command.  With OS/390
> Softcopy Print you could print from the BookManager books but I never
> thought the results were really great.  If you have the original source
> text which will be in BookMaster, Starter GML, or just Script commands
> format, I would start from there.
>
> If it were me, and I had the original source for the documents I would
> reformat them with DCF using the BookMaster profile and macro library (if
> you still have it around), or the Starter Set GML profile and macro
> library.  I would output to a DEV(AFPA) or DEV(AFP2A) format and then use
> the afpxpdf transform that comes with the "IBM Print Transforms from
> AFP" product that works with the Infoprint Server component of z/OS to
> transform the AFP format to PDF.
>
> If going from the BookManager format is your only option, the results are
> going to be not as nice and more work.  If you can only convert a topic at
> a time to PDF then maybe you could assemble them back into a PDF book with
> Adobe Acrobat.  I don't have any experience with that.
> --Roger
>
> On Fri, Mar 3, 2023 at 2:04 PM Dave Wade  wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 28 Feb 2023 18:59:09 +0100, Bernd Oppolzer <
> > bernd.oppol...@t-online.de> wrote:
> >
> > >What is the preferred way to convert BookMgr books to PDF?
> > >
> > >My customer has some home-written BookMgr books, which they cannot
> access
> > >after the z/OS migration (BookMgr support was dropped with z/OS 2.4).
> > >
> > >We managed to transfer the books to Windows (and OS/2, BTW), where we
> can
> > >at least look at the books. Now I would like to convert the books to
> PDFs.
> > >But the free Softcopy Reader refuses to print more than one (selected)
> > >topic
> > >or ranges of topics; if you try to do this using the print menu
> > >(selected or range),
> > >the output is always empty.
> > >
> > >Is this a bug - or: is printing larger portions of text not allowed in
> > >the free version?
> > >What are the options?
> > >
> >
> > The old "ILRWIN" product will let you print an entire book, but I think
> > its a16 bit application..
> > So:-
> >
> > 1. Find a machine with a 32-bit copy of Windows installed and the 16-bit
> > DVM installed.
> >  > you run 16-bit app in 64-bit windows here:-
> >
> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fotya128%2Fwinevdm%2Freleases%2Ftag%2Fv0.8.0&data=05%7C01%7Csmetz3%40gmu.edu%7C6943f52e36c842e5e10208db1c423d12%7C9e857255df574c47a0c00546460380cb%7C0%7C0%7C638134843053542272%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=54C8LC4IRUycWvMyCj5MjYxozYd%2F5U9fNZUmPJ%2BB%2BTk%3D&reserved=0
> >
> >
> > 2. Find an old documentation CD or similar with the old "Book Manager
> Read
> > for Windows".
> > I found a copy on the PCOMMS 5.4 CD in the \win\install\ilrwin folder.
> >
> > 3. Open the book and print using a PDF print driver. Microsoft include
> one
> > with recent Windows.
> > FOXIT PDF viewer has one for older windows.
> >
> > I hope this is helpfull
> >
> > Dave
> >
> > >Thanks for all suggestions,
> > >kind regards
> > >
> > >Bernd
> > >
> >
> > --
> > 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
>

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

Re: Shopz

Thanks,
For some reason, it isn't working for me.
Gadi

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
Barbara Nitz
Sent: יום ב 06 מרץ 2023 10:19
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Shopz

>Has anyone been able to access shopz since yesterday?
>Has the address changed?
I can get to ShopZ at this address 
https://www.ibm.com/software/shopzseries/ShopzSeries_public.wss. 

Regards, Barbara

--
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: Shopz

2023-03-06 Thread Barbara Nitz

>Has anyone been able to access shopz since yesterday?
>Has the address changed?
I can get to ShopZ at this address 
https://www.ibm.com/software/shopzseries/ShopzSeries_public.wss. 

Regards, Barbara

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

Shopz