Re: z/OSMF
On 27/06/2023 3:07 pm, Timothy Sipples wrote: IBM doesn't require anyone to order/configure less than 200 MSUs (PCIs) of general purpose processor capacity. If you want to order a configuration like that go for it! Of course you can choose to configure larger machines, but these smallest configurations make no sense. They only exist due to software pricing. They are too small to seriously consider for any modern work, including it seems advances in z/OS itself i.e. z/OSMF. I mean, yes, ISVs and IBM can write software to run on them but why should they be so limited? Why not take advantage of advances that have happened on other platforms? You can't buy e.g. Intel systems with performance limited to the same as 20 years ago. If IBM made the smallest orderable system comparable to e.g. small-mid Intel systems customers would actually have some capacity to move new work to z/OS. Obviously software pricing would have to be adjusted so customers could afford it. I guess that's why IBM don't do it - no-one can figure out what to do with the pricing increments between 13-200 MSU. here's the current minimum orderable machine configuration (latest model) for z/OS and VSEn: * IBM z16 A02 (or AGZ for rack mount) * Capacity Model A01 * Base CP capacity: 105 PCIs (13 MSUs) I don't have access to this type of system to test, but it would be very interesting to run my Java CICS SMF reporting on this system and compare to a Raspberry Pi. I would have a small wager on the Raspberry Pi. Add just 1 zIIP and you get ~1,900 PCIs of full-time zIIP capacity with 2 processor threads (SMT2). You can add as many zIIPs as you wish up to the physical capacity of the machine. 1 zIIP is obviously much better for Java, but if we were to compare it to e.g. my laptop, my money would be on the laptop. -- Andrew Rowley Black Hill Software -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: z/OSMF
200 MSU was much more than we needed. Maybe 20 or so at our peaks. And the z/OS and ISV charges at 200 levels would have been intolerable. > -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On > Behalf Of Timothy Sipples > Sent: Monday, June 26, 2023 10:08 PM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: Re: z/OSMF > > [EXTERNAL EMAIL] > > Andrew Rowley wrote: > >I've said it before but I'll say it again - to avoid embarrassment > >alongside 5 year old laptops or perhaps even a Raspberry Pi, IBM needs > >to figure out how to bring the smallest z/OS systems up to a modern > >configuration - I would suggest minimum 4 processors and 200 MSU. > > IBM doesn't require anyone to order/configure less than 200 MSUs (PCIs) of > general purpose processor capacity. If you want to order a configuration like > that go for it! > > Bearing in mind that VSEn is important and also exists, and IBM really ought > to > be building machines that also cater to VSEn customers, here's the current > minimum orderable machine configuration (latest model) for z/OS and VSEn: > > * IBM z16 A02 (or AGZ for rack mount) > * Capacity Model A01 > * Base CP capacity: 105 PCIs (13 MSUs) > * z/OS System Recovery Boosted capacity (standard/no additional charge): > 1,982 PCIs > * 64GB of usable memory (plus HSA) > > Add just 1 zIIP and you get ~1,900 PCIs of full-time zIIP capacity with 2 > processor threads (SMT2). You can add as many zIIPs as you wish up to the > physical capacity of the machine. > > Capacity Model A01 continues to be zELC eligible on the full capacity. Even > though it has 105 PCIs (plus System Recovery Boost, plus more and far better > on chip accelerators, plus optional zIIPs) it still qualifies for the same > software > licensing tier that the ~26 PCIs IBM z890 Model 110 did 19 years ago. > > I don't see any problem here. If 105 PCIs/13 MSUs (plus a zIIP I suggest) is > all > you need for your z/OS computing, well OK then! That model is available, and > (in most countries) you can get a nifty rack mounted form factor if you'd > like. If > you need more, OK, that's available too. > > Here's the recent history of minimum orderable/configurable CP capacity (all > Capacity Models A01): > > IBM z16 A02/AGZ: 105 PCIs* > IBM z15 T02: 98 PCIs** > IBM z14 ZR1: 88 PCIs > IBM z13s: 80 PCIs > IBM zBC12: 50 PCIs > IBM z114: 26 PCIs > > * System Recovery Boost capacity: 1,982 PCIs > ** System Recovery Boost capacity: 1,761 PCIs > > The z114 was announced in 2011 and the z16 A02/AGZ in 2023. Over that > period IBM increased the minimum orderable CP capacity by ~12.4% per year > (compounded), plus SRB. > > - > Timothy Sipples > Senior Architect > Digital Assets, Industry Solutions, and Cybersecurity IBM zSystems/LinuxONE, > Asia-Pacific sipp...@sg.ibm.com > > > -- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to > lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: JAVA started tasks?
CICS also has a Java domain that is started as a resident part. René. > On 23 Jun 2023, at 20:45, Bill Giannelli wrote: > > Does JAVA have any started tasks on z/OS? > We have a task that the vendor says needs JAVA "up" first. > thanks > Bill > > -- > 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: z/OSMF
On 27/06/2023 5:40 pm, Gibney, Dave wrote: 200 MSU was much more than we needed. Maybe 20 or so at our peaks. And the z/OS and ISV charges at 200 levels would have been intolerable. That's why I keep qualifying it with ISVs would have to adjust their pricing. While the smallest system is 13 MSU they have no reason to do that, but if the smallest available system was 200 MSU I think they would be forced to adjust. If you are using 100% of a 20 MSU system, z/OS is just an expensive system that can't do much more than run the stuff still around from the 90s. If you are using 20 MSU of a 200 MSU system, it's an expensive system hugely underutilized, and maybe people start asking what work can be moved there, how to make better use of the data it contains etc? -- Andrew Rowley Black Hill Software -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: z/OSMF
A long time ago, when the only computers available were mainframes, IBM and ISV pricing strategy may have made a lot of sense. When I first started working on IT, four decades ago, around here there were a few dozen of places running IBM MVS, VSE and VM. Today, after bank and insurance consolidation, plus outsourcing, there are very, very few remaining. And where before you could only rely on big iron to run your loads, today there are several much cheaper alternatives being aggressively offered. It seems to me that IBM is not concerned with the smaller clients. If you cannot pay the big bucks then, by all means, take your business elsewhere. Those clients that need multiple LPARs on multiple boxes, probably will continue with IBM for the foreseeable future. The others will give up due to the price. It is a suicidal strategy as those giving up today will pave the way for the bigger ones to get out in the future. Regards Jack On Tue, Jun 27, 2023, 06:51 Neil O'Connor wrote: > I used z/OSMF on a z13s from 2018 till the end of 2022. Since then it's on > a z15 T02. I have not found performance to be an issue. It was really bad > in the early days before it exploited Liberty Profile, but much better > after that. > > Neil. > > > -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf > Of Brian Westerman > Sent: Tuesday, 27 June 2023 14:48 > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: Re: z/OSMF > > I manage 3 sites that each have a z13s with no specialty processors, they > were deemed unnecessary at the time of the purchase, and at the time IBM > didn't disclose that shortly afterwards they would be shifting to z/OSMF > which all but locks them out of installing the next release. > > Possibly IBM should not sell processors that are under powered for the > mandatory processes, or possibly not force sites to upgrade the processor > they purchased jsut because IBM has decided that z/OSMF is "easier" than > Serverpac. > > It would have been smarter for IBM to keep z/OSMF based installation > optional until the z13s was no longer a supported processor. > > Brian > > -- > 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: z/OSMF
Remember the days when you could purchase mainframe software? In 1987 we had UCC-1, UCC-7, and UCC-11. And we had just gotten ACF2, which had just been acquired by Uccel. The instructional material at the ACF2 class still had SKK printed on it. Then CA came along and bought Uccel, within a very short time of the Uccel acquisition of ACF2. That's when they started offering their Unipacks to replace the original Uccel purchase contracts. In my humble opinion, that's where mainframe software pricing took a turn for the worse. Sent with Proton Mail secure email. --- Original Message --- On Tuesday, June 27th, 2023 at 7:22 AM, Jack Zukt wrote: > A long time ago, when the only computers available were mainframes, IBM and > ISV pricing strategy may have made a lot of sense. > When I first started working on IT, four decades ago, around here there > were a few dozen of places running IBM MVS, VSE and VM. > Today, after bank and insurance consolidation, plus outsourcing, there are > very, very few remaining. And where before you could only rely on big iron > to run your loads, today there are several much cheaper alternatives being > aggressively offered. > It seems to me that IBM is not concerned with the smaller clients. If you > cannot pay the big bucks then, by all means, take your business elsewhere. > Those clients that need multiple LPARs on multiple boxes, probably will > continue with IBM for the foreseeable future. The others will give up due > to the price. > It is a suicidal strategy as those giving up today will pave the way for > the bigger ones to get out in the future. > Regards > Jack > > On Tue, Jun 27, 2023, 06:51 Neil O'Connor ver.z...@outlook.com wrote: > > > I used z/OSMF on a z13s from 2018 till the end of 2022. Since then it's on > > a z15 T02. I have not found performance to be an issue. It was really bad > > in the early days before it exploited Liberty Profile, but much better > > after that. > > > > Neil. > > > > -Original Message- > > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU On Behalf > > Of Brian Westerman > > Sent: Tuesday, 27 June 2023 14:48 > > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > > Subject: Re: z/OSMF > > > > I manage 3 sites that each have a z13s with no specialty processors, they > > were deemed unnecessary at the time of the purchase, and at the time IBM > > didn't disclose that shortly afterwards they would be shifting to z/OSMF > > which all but locks them out of installing the next release. > > > > Possibly IBM should not sell processors that are under powered for the > > mandatory processes, or possibly not force sites to upgrade the processor > > they purchased jsut because IBM has decided that z/OSMF is "easier" than > > Serverpac. > > > > It would have been smarter for IBM to keep z/OSMF based installation > > optional until the z13s was no longer a supported processor. > > > > Brian > > > > -- > > 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: z/OSMF
Mainframe s/w giants may continue today's practice, but as a h/w provider, IBM have really got to up their game. If anyone has seen the hardware coming out of AMD and NVIDIA, they're wild... w.i.l.d. And without even seeing the TCO of an IBM vs AMD/NVIDIA solution, it's safe to say you get far more out of the latter. Having said that, disruption in software pricing would be very, very welcome. At least transparency, rather than what's-he-wearing-based pricing. In general news, IBM announced they're going to aquire Apptio. Could pricing get better or worse? :) - KB --- Original Message --- On Tuesday, June 27th, 2023 at 4:52 PM, Jack Zukt wrote: > A long time ago, when the only computers available were mainframes, IBM and > ISV pricing strategy may have made a lot of sense. > When I first started working on IT, four decades ago, around here there > were a few dozen of places running IBM MVS, VSE and VM. > Today, after bank and insurance consolidation, plus outsourcing, there are > very, very few remaining. And where before you could only rely on big iron > to run your loads, today there are several much cheaper alternatives being > aggressively offered. > It seems to me that IBM is not concerned with the smaller clients. If you > cannot pay the big bucks then, by all means, take your business elsewhere. > Those clients that need multiple LPARs on multiple boxes, probably will > continue with IBM for the foreseeable future. The others will give up due > to the price. > It is a suicidal strategy as those giving up today will pave the way for > the bigger ones to get out in the future. > Regards > Jack > > On Tue, Jun 27, 2023, 06:51 Neil O'Connor ver.z...@outlook.com wrote: > > > I used z/OSMF on a z13s from 2018 till the end of 2022. Since then it's on > > a z15 T02. I have not found performance to be an issue. It was really bad > > in the early days before it exploited Liberty Profile, but much better > > after that. > > > > Neil. > > > > -Original Message- > > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU On Behalf > > Of Brian Westerman > > Sent: Tuesday, 27 June 2023 14:48 > > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > > Subject: Re: z/OSMF > > > > I manage 3 sites that each have a z13s with no specialty processors, they > > were deemed unnecessary at the time of the purchase, and at the time IBM > > didn't disclose that shortly afterwards they would be shifting to z/OSMF > > which all but locks them out of installing the next release. > > > > Possibly IBM should not sell processors that are under powered for the > > mandatory processes, or possibly not force sites to upgrade the processor > > they purchased jsut because IBM has decided that z/OSMF is "easier" than > > Serverpac. > > > > It would have been smarter for IBM to keep z/OSMF based installation > > optional until the z13s was no longer a supported processor. > > > > Brian > > > > -- > > 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: Tls 1.2 and server authentiaction
The check is "optional" on the application's part for z/OS System SSL: https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/zos/2.5.0?topic=reference-gsk-validate-server I use optional in quotes because the TLS protocol has two main purposes: encryption (which is not under discussion here) and preventing a man-in-the-middle attack. The server certificate proves the identity of the server that the client has actually connected to -- proves that it is not some imposter "in the middle." Yes, it is utterly possible for a client application to skip that step, but it is a Really Bad Idea. If the user has specified an IP address then in some senses that is equivalent to a URL, except that there is no way to check that the server certificate is really for the site the user intended to connect to. (Unless the certificate is in fact issued for an IP address -- which is rare.) Actually, some servers now will not even allow a connection by IP address: they demand a TLS protocol feature called Server Name Indication (SNI) in which the client indicates the name they are trying to connect to early in the TLS startup sequence. That lets a server respond differently depending on exactly which DNS name the user has specified. Charles On Mon, 26 Jun 2023 18:57:13 -0700, Tom Brennan wrote: >In my limited (non-mainframe) experience with OpenSSL, I think it's up >to the application to decide whether to check the common name in a >validated cert with, say, a URL or IP address string. So it could be an >older application didn't bother, and a newer one does. Just guessing. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: z/OSMF
If a company is using a 20 MSU system and is forced to buy a 200 MSU system because that's the smallest available, unless something drastic happens to hardware AND software pricing, the company isn't going to be looking for "what else can I put on this expensive and woefully underutilized machine", they're going to be looking at "where can I move my 20 MSUs worth of processing to get rid of this expensive machine". We're running a 2-way, 316 MSU machine and my business customers would squawk loudly if I had to move our workload to a 4 way with no more horsepower. We have several single-threaded processes that run that would be woefully impacted if the per-engine thruput was halved. Rex -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Andrew Rowley Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2023 5:34 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: z/OSMF On 27/06/2023 5:40 pm, Gibney, Dave wrote: > 200 MSU was much more than we needed. Maybe 20 or so at our peaks. And the > z/OS and ISV charges at 200 levels would have been intolerable. That's why I keep qualifying it with ISVs would have to adjust their pricing. While the smallest system is 13 MSU they have no reason to do that, but if the smallest available system was 200 MSU I think they would be forced to adjust. If you are using 100% of a 20 MSU system, z/OS is just an expensive system that can't do much more than run the stuff still around from the 90s. If you are using 20 MSU of a 200 MSU system, it's an expensive system hugely underutilized, and maybe people start asking what work can be moved there, how to make better use of the data it contains etc? -- Andrew Rowley Black Hill Software -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN -- 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: How batch create a PDSE2 with Generations?
I am good with MAXGENS=. Like anything else in a software install, the user may if they wish specify options that will fail. I know now how I missed the ability to create a generation PDSE2 with JCL: I conflated that issue with *referencing* a "back generation member" with JCL. THAT is impossible. There is no DSN=MY.VER2.LIBRARY(MYMEMBER,-1) Charles On Mon, 26 Jun 2023 14:43:21 -0500, Paul Gilmartin wrote: >On Mon, 26 Jun 2023 12:52:56 -0500, Charles Mills wrote: > >>Fails ugly! >> >Can you capture that message with "BPXWDYN( '... msg(stem.) ..."), >parse it for " MAXIMUM ALLOWED" and retry. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: How batch create a PDSE2 with Generations?
RFE? Member plus generation within PDSE2 GDS? From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of Charles Mills Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2023 9:36 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: How batch create a PDSE2 with Generations? I am good with MAXGENS=. Like anything else in a software install, the user may if they wish specify options that will fail. I know now how I missed the ability to create a generation PDSE2 with JCL: I conflated that issue with *referencing* a "back generation member" with JCL. THAT is impossible. There is no DSN=MY.VER2.LIBRARY(MYMEMBER,-1) Charles On Mon, 26 Jun 2023 14:43:21 -0500, Paul Gilmartin wrote: >On Mon, 26 Jun 2023 12:52:56 -0500, Charles Mills wrote: > >>Fails ugly! >> >Can you capture that message with "BPXWDYN( '... msg(stem.) ..."), >parse it for " MAXIMUM ALLOWED" and retry. -- 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: How batch create a PDSE2 with Generations?
There are several RFE's (now Ideas) https://ibm-z-hardware-and-operating-systems.ideas.ibm.com/ideas/ZOS-I-2788 https://ibm-z-hardware-and-operating-systems.ideas.ibm.com/ideas/ZOS-I-1955 https://ibm-z-hardware-and-operating-systems.ideas.ibm.com/ideas/ZOS-I-1732 https://ibm-z-hardware-and-operating-systems.ideas.ibm.com/ideas/ZOS-I-1612 https://ibm-z-hardware-and-operating-systems.ideas.ibm.com/ideas/ZOS-I-1565 I believe that all are in 'Future consideration' status. Additional votes couldn't hurt. Lionel B. Dyck <>< Website: https://www.lbdsoftware.com Github: https://github.com/lbdyck Worry more about your character than your reputation. Character is what you are, reputation merely what others think you are. - - - John Wooden -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Seymour J Metz Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2023 8:42 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: How batch create a PDSE2 with Generations? RFE? Member plus generation within PDSE2 GDS? From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of Charles Mills Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2023 9:36 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: How batch create a PDSE2 with Generations? I am good with MAXGENS=. Like anything else in a software install, the user may if they wish specify options that will fail. I know now how I missed the ability to create a generation PDSE2 with JCL: I conflated that issue with *referencing* a "back generation member" with JCL. THAT is impossible. There is no DSN=MY.VER2.LIBRARY(MYMEMBER,-1) Charles On Mon, 26 Jun 2023 14:43:21 -0500, Paul Gilmartin wrote: >On Mon, 26 Jun 2023 12:52:56 -0500, Charles Mills wrote: > >>Fails ugly! >> >Can you capture that message with "BPXWDYN( '... msg(stem.) ..."), >parse it for " MAXIMUM ALLOWED" and retry. -- 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: How batch create a PDSE2 with Generations?
I believe I recall correctly that a GDG may contain a PDS. May it contain a PDSE Version 2? So you could have member generations within PDSE generations? Whee!!! A PDS version within a GDG would be DSN=PDS.NAME(-n) . I am going to guess there is no JCL syntax for a member (never mind member generations!) within a back-generation PDS(E). I think that perhaps overloading the datasetname(qualifier) JCL syntax was a bad idea. Charles On Tue, 27 Jun 2023 13:41:46 +, Seymour J Metz wrote: >RFE? Member plus generation within PDSE2 GDS? -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: How batch create a PDSE2 with Generations?
A GDS can be a PDSE2. However, there is no way to specify in JCL a combination of relative generation, member name and member generation. From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of Charles Mills Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2023 9:51 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: How batch create a PDSE2 with Generations? I believe I recall correctly that a GDG may contain a PDS. May it contain a PDSE Version 2? So you could have member generations within PDSE generations? Whee!!! A PDS version within a GDG would be DSN=PDS.NAME(-n) . I am going to guess there is no JCL syntax for a member (never mind member generations!) within a back-generation PDS(E). I think that perhaps overloading the datasetname(qualifier) JCL syntax was a bad idea. Charles On Tue, 27 Jun 2023 13:41:46 +, Seymour J Metz wrote: >RFE? Member plus generation within PDSE2 GDS? -- 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: Tls 1.2 and server authentiaction
Surprise... Although the server certificate SHOULD be verified, IBM did not perform this check until APAR OA63164... ITschak ITschak Mugzach *|** IronSphere Platform* *|* *Information Security Continuous Monitoring for z/OS, x/Linux & IBM I **| z/VM coming soon * On Tue, Jun 27, 2023 at 4:31 PM Charles Mills wrote: > The check is "optional" on the application's part for z/OS System SSL: > > https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/zos/2.5.0?topic=reference-gsk-validate-server > > I use optional in quotes because the TLS protocol has two main purposes: > encryption (which is not under discussion here) and preventing a > man-in-the-middle attack. The server certificate proves the identity of the > server that the client has actually connected to -- proves that it is not > some imposter "in the middle." Yes, it is utterly possible for a client > application to skip that step, but it is a Really Bad Idea. > > If the user has specified an IP address then in some senses that is > equivalent to a URL, except that there is no way to check that the server > certificate is really for the site the user intended to connect to. (Unless > the certificate is in fact issued for an IP address -- which is rare.) > Actually, some servers now will not even allow a connection by IP address: > they demand a TLS protocol feature called Server Name Indication (SNI) in > which the client indicates the name they are trying to connect to early in > the TLS startup sequence. That lets a server respond differently depending > on exactly which DNS name the user has specified. > > Charles > > On Mon, 26 Jun 2023 18:57:13 -0700, Tom Brennan < > t...@tombrennansoftware.com> wrote: > > >In my limited (non-mainframe) experience with OpenSSL, I think it's up > >to the application to decide whether to check the common name in a > >validated cert with, say, a URL or IP address string. So it could be an > >older application didn't bother, and a newer one does. Just guessing. > > -- > 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: Tls 1.2 and server authentiaction
Yow! https://crypto.stanford.edu/~dabo/pubs/abstracts/ssl-client-bugs.html CM On Tue, 27 Jun 2023 16:59:23 +0300, ITschak Mugzach wrote: >Surprise... Although the server certificate SHOULD be verified, IBM did not >perform this check until APAR OA63164... -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Tls 1.2 and server authentiaction
Yow indeed. בתאריך יום ג׳, 27 ביוני 2023 ב-17:15 מאת Charles Mills : > Yow! > > https://crypto.stanford.edu/~dabo/pubs/abstracts/ssl-client-bugs.html > > CM > > On Tue, 27 Jun 2023 16:59:23 +0300, ITschak Mugzach > wrote: > > >Surprise... Although the server certificate SHOULD be verified, IBM did > not > >perform this check until APAR OA63164... > > -- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > -- ITschak Mugzach *|** IronSphere Platform* *|* *Information Security Continuous Monitoring for z/OS, x/Linux & IBM I **| z/VM coming soon * -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: z/OSMF
Why would anyone think IBM wants to sell a mainframe to everyone? Any more than Tesla wants to sell to people who buy 15-20k autos. Someone needing 20 MSUs would be a perfect candidate for outsourcing to someone who outsources mainframe capacity. Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Tuesday, June 27, 2023, 9:36 AM, Pommier, Rex wrote: If a company is using a 20 MSU system and is forced to buy a 200 MSU system because that's the smallest available, unless something drastic happens to hardware AND software pricing, the company isn't going to be looking for "what else can I put on this expensive and woefully underutilized machine", they're going to be looking at "where can I move my 20 MSUs worth of processing to get rid of this expensive machine". We're running a 2-way, 316 MSU machine and my business customers would squawk loudly if I had to move our workload to a 4 way with no more horsepower. We have several single-threaded processes that run that would be woefully impacted if the per-engine thruput was halved. Rex -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Andrew Rowley Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2023 5:34 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: z/OSMF On 27/06/2023 5:40 pm, Gibney, Dave wrote: > 200 MSU was much more than we needed. Maybe 20 or so at our peaks. And the > z/OS and ISV charges at 200 levels would have been intolerable. That's why I keep qualifying it with ISVs would have to adjust their pricing. While the smallest system is 13 MSU they have no reason to do that, but if the smallest available system was 200 MSU I think they would be forced to adjust. If you are using 100% of a 20 MSU system, z/OS is just an expensive system that can't do much more than run the stuff still around from the 90s. If you are using 20 MSU of a 200 MSU system, it's an expensive system hugely underutilized, and maybe people start asking what work can be moved there, how to make better use of the data it contains etc? -- Andrew Rowley Black Hill Software -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN -- 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 -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: z/OSMF
The counter-argument to that is "How do you build the next generation(s) of companies that need/want to buy mainframes?". By abandoning the low end (and frankly the middle as well) IBM is cutting off any such development of a future client base. Hint: It isn't through outsourcers. Peter -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Bill Johnson Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2023 10:40 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: z/OSMF Why would anyone think IBM wants to sell a mainframe to everyone? Any more than Tesla wants to sell to people who buy 15-20k autos. Someone needing 20 MSUs would be a perfect candidate for outsourcing to someone who outsources mainframe capacity. Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Tuesday, June 27, 2023, 9:36 AM, Pommier, Rex wrote: If a company is using a 20 MSU system and is forced to buy a 200 MSU system because that's the smallest available, unless something drastic happens to hardware AND software pricing, the company isn't going to be looking for "what else can I put on this expensive and woefully underutilized machine", they're going to be looking at "where can I move my 20 MSUs worth of processing to get rid of this expensive machine". We're running a 2-way, 316 MSU machine and my business customers would squawk loudly if I had to move our workload to a 4 way with no more horsepower. We have several single-threaded processes that run that would be woefully impacted if the per-engine thruput was halved. Rex -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Andrew Rowley Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2023 5:34 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: z/OSMF On 27/06/2023 5:40 pm, Gibney, Dave wrote: > 200 MSU was much more than we needed. Maybe 20 or so at our peaks. And the > z/OS and ISV charges at 200 levels would have been intolerable. That's why I keep qualifying it with ISVs would have to adjust their pricing. While the smallest system is 13 MSU they have no reason to do that, but if the smallest available system was 200 MSU I think they would be forced to adjust. If you are using 100% of a 20 MSU system, z/OS is just an expensive system that can't do much more than run the stuff still around from the 90s. If you are using 20 MSU of a 200 MSU system, it's an expensive system hugely underutilized, and maybe people start asking what work can be moved there, how to make better use of the data it contains etc? -- This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. If the reader of the message is not the intended recipient or an authorized representative of the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and delete the message and any attachments from your system. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: z/OSMF
Sorry, finger check that went unnoticed. Ours is a 216 MSU machine, not 316. Rex -Original Message- From: Pommier, Rex Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2023 8:36 AM To: 'IBM Mainframe Discussion List' Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: z/OSMF If a company is using a 20 MSU system and is forced to buy a 200 MSU system because that's the smallest available, unless something drastic happens to hardware AND software pricing, the company isn't going to be looking for "what else can I put on this expensive and woefully underutilized machine", they're going to be looking at "where can I move my 20 MSUs worth of processing to get rid of this expensive machine". We're running a 2-way, 316 MSU machine and my business customers would squawk loudly if I had to move our workload to a 4 way with no more horsepower. We have several single-threaded processes that run that would be woefully impacted if the per-engine thruput was halved. Rex -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Andrew Rowley Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2023 5:34 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: z/OSMF On 27/06/2023 5:40 pm, Gibney, Dave wrote: > 200 MSU was much more than we needed. Maybe 20 or so at our peaks. And the > z/OS and ISV charges at 200 levels would have been intolerable. That's why I keep qualifying it with ISVs would have to adjust their pricing. While the smallest system is 13 MSU they have no reason to do that, but if the smallest available system was 200 MSU I think they would be forced to adjust. If you are using 100% of a 20 MSU system, z/OS is just an expensive system that can't do much more than run the stuff still around from the 90s. If you are using 20 MSU of a 200 MSU system, it's an expensive system hugely underutilized, and maybe people start asking what work can be moved there, how to make better use of the data it contains etc? -- Andrew Rowley Black Hill Software -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN -- 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: [EXTERNAL] Re: z/OSMF
> -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On > Behalf Of Bill Johnson > Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2023 7:40 AM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: z/OSMF > > Why would anyone think IBM wants to sell a mainframe to everyone? Any > more than Tesla wants to sell to people who buy 15-20k autos. Someone > needing 20 MSUs would be a perfect candidate for outsourcing to someone > who outsources mainframe capacity. > Which is what we did. And shut the system down at the end of the 5 year contract > > Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone > > > On Tuesday, June 27, 2023, 9:36 AM, Pommier, Rex > wrote: > > If a company is using a 20 MSU system and is forced to buy a 200 MSU system > because that's the smallest available, unless something drastic happens to > hardware AND software pricing, the company isn't going to be looking for > "what else can I put on this expensive and woefully underutilized machine", > they're going to be looking at "where can I move my 20 MSUs worth of > processing to get rid of this expensive machine". > > We're running a 2-way, 316 MSU machine and my business customers would > squawk loudly if I had to move our workload to a 4 way with no more > horsepower. We have several single-threaded processes that run that would > be woefully impacted if the per-engine thruput was halved. > > Rex > > -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On > Behalf Of Andrew Rowley > Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2023 5:34 AM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: z/OSMF > > On 27/06/2023 5:40 pm, Gibney, Dave wrote: > > 200 MSU was much more than we needed. Maybe 20 or so at our peaks. > And the z/OS and ISV charges at 200 levels would have been intolerable. > > That's why I keep qualifying it with ISVs would have to adjust their pricing. > While the smallest system is 13 MSU they have no reason to do that, but if the > smallest available system was 200 MSU I think they would be forced to adjust. > > If you are using 100% of a 20 MSU system, z/OS is just an expensive system > that can't do much more than run the stuff still around from the 90s. > > If you are using 20 MSU of a 200 MSU system, it's an expensive system hugely > underutilized, and maybe people start asking what work can be moved there, > how to make better use of the data it contains etc? > > -- > Andrew Rowley > Black Hill Software > > -- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to > lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > > -- > 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 > > > > > -- > 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: Are there samples of COBOL methods or classes?
>As the very first computer language I learned was COBOL, I have been always= > interested to learn=20 >about OO COBOL but never had the necessary time to research it. > >Are there by any chance simple COBOL snippets that would demonstrate how to= > use OO COBOL to interact=20 >with Java (e.g. creating a Java object, invoking a simple method with argum= >ents and fetch the=20 >returned value) and a comparable example for COBOL 6.4? Are the examples of OO COBOL to Java that we include in the COBOL Programming Guide helpful? Cheers, TomR >> COBOL is the Language of the Future! << -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Are there samples of COBOL methods or classes?
> Am 27.06.2023 um 19:34 schrieb Tom Ross : > > >> >> As the very first computer language I learned was COBOL, I have been always= >> interested to learn=20 >> about OO COBOL but never had the necessary time to research it. >> >> Are there by any chance simple COBOL snippets that would demonstrate how to= >> use OO COBOL to interact=20 >> with Java (e.g. creating a Java object, invoking a simple method with argum= >> ents and fetch the=20 >> returned value) and a comparable example for COBOL 6.4? > > Are the examples of OO COBOL to Java that we include in the COBOL Programming > Guide helpful? Probably, would you have a link to it and also to the equvalent for 6.4? Best wishes —-rony -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: How batch create a PDSE2 with Generations?
On Tue, 27 Jun 2023 08:47:57 -0500, Lionel B. Dyck wrote: >There are several RFE's (now Ideas) > Wow! But there should be a single *Unique* string representation of GDG and PDSE member generation manipulations,honored alike in: o JCL DD statements o TSO ALLOCATE o ISPF o BPXWDYN o XLC fopen() o OMVS /bin/cp o etc. ... sparing the programmer the need to code DYNALLOC text units. The parsing and interpretation should be done by SVC 99, not in code replicated and maintained in the various utilities/ see: o Genesis 11:1–9 o Conway's Law >https://ibm-z-hardware-and-operating-systems.ideas.ibm.com/ideas/ZOS-I-2788 > >https://ibm-z-hardware-and-operating-systems.ideas.ibm.com/ideas/ZOS-I-1955 > >https://ibm-z-hardware-and-operating-systems.ideas.ibm.com/ideas/ZOS-I-1732 > >https://ibm-z-hardware-and-operating-systems.ideas.ibm.com/ideas/ZOS-I-1612 > >https://ibm-z-hardware-and-operating-systems.ideas.ibm.com/ideas/ZOS-I-1565 > >I believe that all are in 'Future consideration' status. Additional votes >couldn't hurt. -- gil -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: z/OSMF
Why would IBM offer state of the art technology that they’ve spent billions to develop to “next generation” companies, most of whom will die within a decade? Wouldn’t that tick off their current customers who might then ask for a similar discount? Do automakers offer discounts to those who can’t afford their products? Do insurance companies offer discounts to consumers who can’t afford the premiums? IBM must also consider their shareholders who rely on the dividend. As we’ve discussed previously, IBM mainframes are growing customers and growing their transactions processed for their current customers. As for ignoring small & medium sized companies, I disagree. They’ve got a number of small and midsized companies including health insurers, banks, retailers, etc. I’ve worked for some who still run a mainframe. Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Tuesday, June 27, 2023, 10:49 AM, Farley, Peter <031df298a9da-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: The counter-argument to that is "How do you build the next generation(s) of companies that need/want to buy mainframes?". By abandoning the low end (and frankly the middle as well) IBM is cutting off any such development of a future client base. Hint: It isn't through outsourcers. Peter -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Bill Johnson Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2023 10:40 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: z/OSMF Why would anyone think IBM wants to sell a mainframe to everyone? Any more than Tesla wants to sell to people who buy 15-20k autos. Someone needing 20 MSUs would be a perfect candidate for outsourcing to someone who outsources mainframe capacity. Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Tuesday, June 27, 2023, 9:36 AM, Pommier, Rex wrote: If a company is using a 20 MSU system and is forced to buy a 200 MSU system because that's the smallest available, unless something drastic happens to hardware AND software pricing, the company isn't going to be looking for "what else can I put on this expensive and woefully underutilized machine", they're going to be looking at "where can I move my 20 MSUs worth of processing to get rid of this expensive machine". We're running a 2-way, 316 MSU machine and my business customers would squawk loudly if I had to move our workload to a 4 way with no more horsepower. We have several single-threaded processes that run that would be woefully impacted if the per-engine thruput was halved. Rex -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Andrew Rowley Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2023 5:34 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: z/OSMF On 27/06/2023 5:40 pm, Gibney, Dave wrote: > 200 MSU was much more than we needed. Maybe 20 or so at our peaks. And the > z/OS and ISV charges at 200 levels would have been intolerable. That's why I keep qualifying it with ISVs would have to adjust their pricing. While the smallest system is 13 MSU they have no reason to do that, but if the smallest available system was 200 MSU I think they would be forced to adjust. If you are using 100% of a 20 MSU system, z/OS is just an expensive system that can't do much more than run the stuff still around from the 90s. If you are using 20 MSU of a 200 MSU system, it's an expensive system hugely underutilized, and maybe people start asking what work can be moved there, how to make better use of the data it contains etc? -- This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. If the reader of the message is not the intended recipient or an authorized representative of the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and delete the message and any attachments from your system. -- 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
Does the term USE CASE apply to system software upgrades
List - I am being aske to create USE CASES for system software. My brain is not able to coordinate USE CASE with system software updates It seems the phrase USE CASE applies more to SYSTEM Software development than a System Software Upgrade For Example, If I am upgrading from z/OS V2.4 to V2.5 - I am asked to supply a use case. Any guidance on how to do this? Thank you Lizette -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: z/OSMF
Why? In order to catch the ones who DON'T die and grow their business to the size IBM finds (more) profitable. I'm not talking about "next gen" IT companies but the startups and family companies in practical, everyday businesses. If they grow without IBM technology they probably won't ever even look at IBM for IT solutions. Therefore lost potential clients. But I admit that is just my somewhat parochial view. We can agree to disagree. Peter -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Bill Johnson Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2023 3:40 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: z/OSMF Why would IBM offer state of the art technology that they’ve spent billions to develop to “next generation” companies, most of whom will die within a decade? Wouldn’t that tick off their current customers who might then ask for a similar discount? Do automakers offer discounts to those who can’t afford their products? Do insurance companies offer discounts to consumers who can’t afford the premiums? IBM must also consider their shareholders who rely on the dividend. As we’ve discussed previously, IBM mainframes are growing customers and growing their transactions processed for their current customers. As for ignoring small & medium sized companies, I disagree. They’ve got a number of small and midsized companies including health insurers, banks, retailers, etc. I’ve worked for some who still run a mainframe. On Tuesday, June 27, 2023, 10:49 AM, Farley, Peter <031df298a9da-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: The counter-argument to that is "How do you build the next generation(s) of companies that need/want to buy mainframes?". By abandoning the low end (and frankly the middle as well) IBM is cutting off any such development of a future client base. Hint: It isn't through outsourcers. Peter -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Bill Johnson Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2023 10:40 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: z/OSMF Why would anyone think IBM wants to sell a mainframe to everyone? Any more than Tesla wants to sell to people who buy 15-20k autos. Someone needing 20 MSUs would be a perfect candidate for outsourcing to someone who outsources mainframe capacity. Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Tuesday, June 27, 2023, 9:36 AM, Pommier, Rex wrote: If a company is using a 20 MSU system and is forced to buy a 200 MSU system because that's the smallest available, unless something drastic happens to hardware AND software pricing, the company isn't going to be looking for "what else can I put on this expensive and woefully underutilized machine", they're going to be looking at "where can I move my 20 MSUs worth of processing to get rid of this expensive machine". We're running a 2-way, 316 MSU machine and my business customers would squawk loudly if I had to move our workload to a 4 way with no more horsepower. We have several single-threaded processes that run that would be woefully impacted if the per-engine thruput was halved. Rex -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Andrew Rowley Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2023 5:34 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: z/OSMF On 27/06/2023 5:40 pm, Gibney, Dave wrote: > 200 MSU was much more than we needed. Maybe 20 or so at our peaks. And the > z/OS and ISV charges at 200 levels would have been intolerable. That's why I keep qualifying it with ISVs would have to adjust their pricing. While the smallest system is 13 MSU they have no reason to do that, but if the smallest available system was 200 MSU I think they would be forced to adjust. If you are using 100% of a 20 MSU system, z/OS is just an expensive system that can't do much more than run the stuff still around from the 90s. If you are using 20 MSU of a 200 MSU system, it's an expensive system hugely underutilized, and maybe people start asking what work can be moved there, how to make better use of the data it contains etc? -- This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. If the reader of the message is not the intended recipient or an authorized representative of the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and delete the message and any attachments from your system. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Does the term USE CASE apply to system software upgrades
Um, what about "no support if we don't keep up with the continuous and progressive upgrades"? "Keep up with continuous security upgrades"? "It's just like MS Windows Update, if you don't keep up the criminals will break in and steal your data"? -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Lizette Koehler Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2023 3:47 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Does the term USE CASE apply to system software upgrades List - I am being aske to create USE CASES for system software. My brain is not able to coordinate USE CASE with system software updates It seems the phrase USE CASE applies more to SYSTEM Software development than a System Software Upgrade For Example, If I am upgrading from z/OS V2.4 to V2.5 - I am asked to supply a use case. Any guidance on how to do this? Thank you Lizette -- This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. If the reader of the message is not the intended recipient or an authorized representative of the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and delete the message and any attachments from your system. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: [EXTERNAL] Does the term USE CASE apply to system software upgrades
Seems to me that a "use case" in this situation would be simply a comparison of pros and cons of upgrading. Part of it would simply be a business case of why the upgrade should happen, part could be more of a "here are the enhancements in the upgraded software and here is how our company could exploit these enhancements". My $.02. Rex -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Lizette Koehler Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2023 2:47 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: [EXTERNAL] Does the term USE CASE apply to system software upgrades List - I am being aske to create USE CASES for system software. My brain is not able to coordinate USE CASE with system software updates It seems the phrase USE CASE applies more to SYSTEM Software development than a System Software Upgrade For Example, If I am upgrading from z/OS V2.4 to V2.5 - I am asked to supply a use case. Any guidance on how to do this? Thank you Lizette -- 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: Does the term USE CASE apply to system software upgrades
I would suggest choosing a function or two that you’re planning on exploiting on the new release, and have those be the use cases. -- Kevin McKenzie External Phone: 845-435-8282, Tie-line: 8-295-8282 z/OS Test Services - Test Architect, Provisioning z/OS Hardware/Software Interlock From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of Lizette Koehler Date: Tuesday, June 27, 2023 at 3:47 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: [EXTERNAL] Does the term USE CASE apply to system software upgrades List - I am being aske to create USE CASES for system software. My brain is not able to coordinate USE CASE with system software updates It seems the phrase USE CASE applies more to SYSTEM Software development than a System Software Upgrade For Example, If I am upgrading from z/OS V2.4 to V2.5 - I am asked to supply a use case. Any guidance on how to do this? Thank you Lizette -- 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: Does the term USE CASE apply to system software upgrades
So if I am planning to update my tape management system, would I be able to create a use case? The software is from a vendor. The process is invoked whenever a tape mount request is made. So I am not sure how w Use Case would apply Thank you -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Kevin Mckenzie Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2023 12:57 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Does the term USE CASE apply to system software upgrades I would suggest choosing a function or two that you're planning on exploiting on the new release, and have those be the use cases. -- Kevin McKenzie External Phone: 845-435-8282, Tie-line: 8-295-8282 z/OS Test Services - Test Architect, Provisioning z/OS Hardware/Software Interlock From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of Lizette Koehler Date: Tuesday, June 27, 2023 at 3:47 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: [EXTERNAL] Does the term USE CASE apply to system software upgrades List - I am being aske to create USE CASES for system software. My brain is not able to coordinate USE CASE with system software updates It seems the phrase USE CASE applies more to SYSTEM Software development than a System Software Upgrade For Example, If I am upgrading from z/OS V2.4 to V2.5 - I am asked to supply a use case. Any guidance on how to do this? Thank you Lizette -- 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: How batch create a PDSE2 with Generations?
This is the old horizontal versus vertical argument: should an application look the same regardless of the environment in which it is running or should all applications in an environment follow the conventions of that environment? That's especioally true for ISPF, wheree users often expect things to be ain separate fields rather than in a single field with punctuation. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of Paul Gilmartin [042bfe9c879d-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu] Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2023 3:32 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: How batch create a PDSE2 with Generations? On Tue, 27 Jun 2023 08:47:57 -0500, Lionel B. Dyck wrote: >There are several RFE's (now Ideas) > Wow! But there should be a single *Unique* string representation of GDG and PDSE member generation manipulations,honored alike in: o JCL DD statements o TSO ALLOCATE o ISPF o BPXWDYN o XLC fopen() o OMVS /bin/cp o etc. ... sparing the programmer the need to code DYNALLOC text units. The parsing and interpretation should be done by SVC 99, not in code replicated and maintained in the various utilities/ see: o Genesis 11:1–9 o Conway's Law >https://ibm-z-hardware-and-operating-systems.ideas.ibm.com/ideas/ZOS-I-2788 > >https://ibm-z-hardware-and-operating-systems.ideas.ibm.com/ideas/ZOS-I-1955 > >https://ibm-z-hardware-and-operating-systems.ideas.ibm.com/ideas/ZOS-I-1732 > >https://ibm-z-hardware-and-operating-systems.ideas.ibm.com/ideas/ZOS-I-1612 > >https://ibm-z-hardware-and-operating-systems.ideas.ibm.com/ideas/ZOS-I-1565 > >I believe that all are in 'Future consideration' status. Additional votes >couldn't hurt. -- gil -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Does the term USE CASE apply to system software upgrades
Is you have business or regulatory incentives to remain supported, then the case seems made. > -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On > Behalf Of Lizette Koehler > Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2023 1:02 PM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: Re: Does the term USE CASE apply to system software upgrades > > [EXTERNAL EMAIL] > > So if I am planning to update my tape management system, would I be able to > create a use case? The software is from a vendor. The process is invoked > whenever a tape mount request is made. > > So I am not sure how w Use Case would apply > > > Thank you > > > -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On > Behalf Of Kevin Mckenzie > Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2023 12:57 PM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: Re: Does the term USE CASE apply to system software upgrades > > I would suggest choosing a function or two that you're planning on exploiting > on the new release, and have those be the use cases. > > -- > Kevin McKenzie > > External Phone: 845-435-8282, Tie-line: 8-295-8282 z/OS Test Services - Test > Architect, Provisioning z/OS Hardware/Software Interlock > > > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on > behalf of Lizette Koehler > Date: Tuesday, June 27, 2023 at 3:47 PM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Does the term USE CASE apply to system software > upgrades List - > > > > I am being aske to create USE CASES for system software. My brain is not able > to coordinate USE CASE with system software updates > > > > It seems the phrase USE CASE applies more to SYSTEM Software development > than a System Software Upgrade > > > > For Example, If I am upgrading from z/OS V2.4 to V2.5 - I am asked to supply a > use case. > > > > > > Any guidance on how to do this? > > > > > > Thank you > > > > Lizette > > > -- > 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: EXTERNAL EMAIL: Does the term USE CASE apply to system software upgrades
A use case is simply a formal description of how you use a product, software or infrastructure (there can be many use cases for a single piece of software). In many cases the use case is used to document the things that must be tested in a rollout of the software. J -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Lizette Koehler Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2023 12:47 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: EXTERNAL EMAIL: Does the term USE CASE apply to system software upgrades List - I am being aske to create USE CASES for system software. My brain is not able to coordinate USE CASE with system software updates It seems the phrase USE CASE applies more to SYSTEM Software development than a System Software Upgrade For Example, If I am upgrading from z/OS V2.4 to V2.5 - I am asked to supply a use case. Any guidance on how to do this? Thank you Lizette -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN Warning: All e-mail sent to this address will be received by the corporate e-mail system, and is subject to archival and review by someone other than the recipient. This e-mail may contain proprietary information and is intended only for the use of the intended recipient(s). If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient(s), you are notified that you have received this message in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: EXTERNAL EMAIL: Re: Does the term USE CASE apply to system software upgrades
Your use cases would be to write a tape, read a tape, scratch a tape etc. etc. J -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Lizette Koehler Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2023 1:02 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: EXTERNAL EMAIL: Re: Does the term USE CASE apply to system software upgrades So if I am planning to update my tape management system, would I be able to create a use case? The software is from a vendor. The process is invoked whenever a tape mount request is made. So I am not sure how w Use Case would apply Thank you -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Kevin Mckenzie Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2023 12:57 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Does the term USE CASE apply to system software upgrades I would suggest choosing a function or two that you're planning on exploiting on the new release, and have those be the use cases. -- Kevin McKenzie External Phone: 845-435-8282, Tie-line: 8-295-8282 z/OS Test Services - Test Architect, Provisioning z/OS Hardware/Software Interlock From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of Lizette Koehler Date: Tuesday, June 27, 2023 at 3:47 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: [EXTERNAL] Does the term USE CASE apply to system software upgrades List - I am being aske to create USE CASES for system software. My brain is not able to coordinate USE CASE with system software updates It seems the phrase USE CASE applies more to SYSTEM Software development than a System Software Upgrade For Example, If I am upgrading from z/OS V2.4 to V2.5 - I am asked to supply a use case. Any guidance on how to do this? Thank you Lizette -- 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 Warning: All e-mail sent to this address will be received by the corporate e-mail system, and is subject to archival and review by someone other than the recipient. This e-mail may contain proprietary information and is intended only for the use of the intended recipient(s). If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient(s), you are notified that you have received this message in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Does the term USE CASE apply to system software upgrades
Hi Lizette These are some that I have seen used. Now in that environment, they had Fed and State Gov't contracts to abide by. USE CASE: updates must be done to make audit requirements relative to security USE CASE: Audit requirement, must be on supported software. Have to put on the maint to remain supported. In general as others have said, no support if not at a supported version or release of product x. USE CASE: Production depends on [production automation product] and it must be at x level to run on the supported release of z/OS which we are in the process of migrating to. Hope this helps. Steve Thompson On 6/27/2023 3:46 PM, Lizette Koehler wrote: List - I am being aske to create USE CASES for system software. My brain is not able to coordinate USE CASE with system software updates It seems the phrase USE CASE applies more to SYSTEM Software development than a System Software Upgrade For Example, If I am upgrading from z/OS V2.4 to V2.5 - I am asked to supply a use case. Any guidance on how to do this? Thank you Lizette -- 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: EXTERNAL EMAIL: Re: Does the term USE CASE apply to system software upgrades
That to me would be an IVP and not a use case. Use Case is more like what the list has been commenting on: A use case is a concept used in software development, product design, and other fields to describe how a system can be used to achieve specific goals or tasks. It outlines the interactions between users or actors and the system to achieve a specific outcome. In software and systems engineering, the phrase use case is a polyseme with two senses: A usage scenario for a piece of software; often used in the plural to suggest situations where a piece of software may be useful. A potential scenario in which a system receives an external request (such as user input) and responds to it. This article discusses the latter sense. A use case is a list of actions or event steps typically defining the interactions between a role (known in the Unified Modeling Language (UML) as an actor) and a system to achieve a goal. The actor can be a human or another external system. In systems engineering, use cases are used at a higher level than within software engineering, often representing missions or stakeholder goals. The detailed requirements may then be captured in the Systems Modeling Language (SysML) or as contractual statements. I have been trying to see how those entries on USE CASE apply to a purchased software. I can see creating IVPs to ensure the software is working correctly. I cannot see how to create a use case between the software and the actor. -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Jerry Whitteridge Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2023 1:27 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: EXTERNAL EMAIL: Re: Does the term USE CASE apply to system software upgrades Your use cases would be to write a tape, read a tape, scratch a tape etc. etc. J -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Lizette Koehler Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2023 1:02 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: EXTERNAL EMAIL: Re: Does the term USE CASE apply to system software upgrades So if I am planning to update my tape management system, would I be able to create a use case? The software is from a vendor. The process is invoked whenever a tape mount request is made. So I am not sure how w Use Case would apply Thank you -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Kevin Mckenzie Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2023 12:57 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Does the term USE CASE apply to system software upgrades I would suggest choosing a function or two that you're planning on exploiting on the new release, and have those be the use cases. -- Kevin McKenzie External Phone: 845-435-8282, Tie-line: 8-295-8282 z/OS Test Services - Test Architect, Provisioning z/OS Hardware/Software Interlock From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of Lizette Koehler Date: Tuesday, June 27, 2023 at 3:47 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: [EXTERNAL] Does the term USE CASE apply to system software upgrades List - I am being aske to create USE CASES for system software. My brain is not able to coordinate USE CASE with system software updates It seems the phrase USE CASE applies more to SYSTEM Software development than a System Software Upgrade For Example, If I am upgrading from z/OS V2.4 to V2.5 - I am asked to supply a use case. Any guidance on how to do this? Thank you Lizette -- 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 Warning: All e-mail sent to this address will be received by the corporate e-mail system, and is subject to archival and review by someone other than the recipient. This e-mail may contain proprietary information and is intended only for the use of the intended recipient(s). If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient(s), you are notified that you have received this message in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN --
Re: How batch create a PDSE2 with Generations?
On Tue, 27 Jun 2023 20:07:26 +, Seymour J Metz wrote: >This is the old horizontal versus vertical argument: should an application >look the same regardless of the environment in which it is running or should >all applications in an environment follow the conventions of that environment? >That's especioally true for ISPF, wheree users often expect things to be ain >separate fields rather than in a single field with punctuation. > The terms are new to my vocabulary. Help orient me. The ISPF user expects a "vertical" UI; I'm proposing a "horizontal" one? But it depends on point of view: the API designer might perceive my horizontal idea as vertical: all the calls are similar. I have used systems in which the path level separator is variously ':', '/', or '\'. I know one HTTPD which accepts '\' as a level separator to accommodate programmer expectations, contrary to RFC 1738. And its paths were case-insensitive. I had to correct one web developer whose HTMl failed on a different HTTPD. My still favorite system uses ':' as a path separator in the GUI for historical reasons and '/' for portability and Standard conformance in the API. It translates, almost transparently, as needed. >From: Paul Gilmartin >Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2023 3:32 PM >> >Wow! But there should be a single *Unique* string representation >of GDG and PDSE member generation manipulations,honored >alike in: >o JCL DD statements >o TSO ALLOCATE >o ISPF >o BPXWDYN >o XLC fopen() >o OMVS /bin/cp >o etc. >... sparing the programmer the need to code DYNALLOC text units. >The parsing and interpretation should be done by SVC 99, not in >code replicated and maintained in the various utilities/ -- gil -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: z/OSMF
On 27/06/2023 11:35 pm, Pommier, Rex wrote: If a company is using a 20 MSU system and is forced to buy a 200 MSU system because that's the smallest available, unless something drastic happens to hardware AND software pricing, the company isn't going to be looking for "what else can I put on this expensive and woefully underutilized machine", they're going to be looking at "where can I move my 20 MSUs worth of processing to get rid of this expensive machine". Again, the assumption is that the pricing was adjusted so it was not more expensive. 200 MSU was just to pick a number. It probably should be higher. What is the speed of a desktop PC these days? I am guessing my 4 year old PC is around 600-700 MSU equivalent? A Raspberry Pi about 40-60 MSU? And 4 or more cores makes a lot of problems go away. It would be good if z/OS at the low end had kept up with the performance and price improvements in the rest of the industry. -- Andrew Rowley Black Hill Software -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: z/OSMF
On Tue, 27 Jun 2023 13:35:47 +, Pommier, Rex wrote: >We're running a 2-way, 316 MSU machine and my business customers would squawk >loudly if I had to move our workload to a 4 way with no more horsepower. We >have several single-threaded processes that run that would be woefully >impacted if the per-engine thruput was halved. > You are running several processes that each need more than 50% of a CP, and your CEC has two CPs? How much CPU do these processes use? -- Tom Marchant -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: How batch create a PDSE2 with Generations?
On Tue, 27 Jun 2023 14:32:18 -0500, Paul Gilmartin wrote: >The parsing and interpretation should be done by SVC 99, not in >code replicated and maintained in the various utilities/ I disagree. SVC 99 is a Supervisor state function. Parsing and interpretation is a function that does not require running in Supervisor state or any other privileged mode. It should be done by Problem state code. -- Tom Marchant -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: How batch create a PDSE2 with Generations?
Let me be the first of likely many who will say "where did you get that idea?" It doesn't require any more privilege than ALLOC or bpxwdyn. Or // DD. sas On Tue, Jun 27, 2023 at 7:47 PM Tom Marchant < 000a2a8c2020-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > On Tue, 27 Jun 2023 14:32:18 -0500, Paul Gilmartin > wrote: > > >The parsing and interpretation should be done by SVC 99, not in > >code replicated and maintained in the various utilities/ > > I disagree. SVC 99 is a Supervisor state function. > Parsing and interpretation is a function that does not require running in > Supervisor state or any other privileged mode. It should be done by Problem > state code. > > -- > Tom Marchant > > -- > 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: How batch create a PDSE2 with Generations?
Where did I get the idea that SVC 99 code runs in Supervisor state? It is an SVC. SVC code receives control in Supervisor state. It doesn't require that the program issuing the SVC 99 have any privileges -- Tom Marchant. On Tue, 27 Jun 2023 20:27:27 -0400, Steve Smith wrote: >Let me be the first of likely many who will say "where did you get that >idea?" It doesn't require any more privilege than ALLOC or bpxwdyn. Or >// DD. > >sas > >On Tue, Jun 27, 2023 at 7:47 PM Tom Marchant < >000a2a8c2020-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > >> On Tue, 27 Jun 2023 14:32:18 -0500, Paul Gilmartin >> wrote: >> >> >The parsing and interpretation should be done by SVC 99, not in >> >code replicated and maintained in the various utilities/ >> >> I disagree. SVC 99 is a Supervisor state function. >> Parsing and interpretation is a function that does not require running in >> Supervisor state or any other privileged mode. It should be done by Problem >> state code. >> >> -- >> Tom Marchant >> >> -- >> 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: How batch create a PDSE2 with Generations?
OK, I totally missed your point. Sorry about that. Going back to gil's post, I agree (with Tom) that SVC 99 has no business getting into the parsing business. It's a well-defined interface. I see no reason why various different "languages" shouldn't be used to express the functionality. No one would seriously say that all programming should be done in say, C. Ha, now that I read that back, I'd bet that's disputable. sas On Tue, Jun 27, 2023 at 9:00 PM Tom Marchant < 000a2a8c2020-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > Where did I get the idea that SVC 99 code runs in Supervisor state? > It is an SVC. > SVC code receives control in Supervisor state. > It doesn't require that the program issuing the SVC 99 have any privileges > > -- > Tom Marchant. > > On Tue, 27 Jun 2023 20:27:27 -0400, Steve Smith wrote: > > >Let me be the first of likely many who will say "where did you get that > >idea?" It doesn't require any more privilege than ALLOC or bpxwdyn. Or > >// DD. > > > >sas > > > >On Tue, Jun 27, 2023 at 7:47 PM Tom Marchant < > >000a2a8c2020-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > > > >> On Tue, 27 Jun 2023 14:32:18 -0500, Paul Gilmartin < > paulgboul...@aol.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >> >The parsing and interpretation should be done by SVC 99, not in > >> >code replicated and maintained in the various utilities/ > >> > >> I disagree. SVC 99 is a Supervisor state function. > >> Parsing and interpretation is a function that does not require running > in > >> Supervisor state or any other privileged mode. It should be done by > Problem > >> state code. > >> > >> -- > >> Tom Marchant > >> > -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: z/OSMF
Brian Westerman wrote: >It would have been smarter for IBM to keep z/OSMF based installation >optional until the z13s was no longer a supported processor. IBM released the current (as I write this) latest release of z/OS (z/OS 2.5) in September, 2021, with the older ISPF CustomPac Dialog format as one of the installation options. IBM announced that this older installation option would no longer be available after January, 2022. IBM urged all customers who'd like this older installation option to place an order no later than January, 2022. That announcement was shared in this forum among many other places. To my knowledge IBM does not charge anything additional for electronic z/OS orders. So there shouldn't have been any financial barrier to ordering z/OS 2.5, at least none that IBM can control. z/OS 3.1, the next release, will require a z14 generation machine or higher. — Timothy Sipples Senior Architect Digital Assets, Industry Solutions, and Cybersecurity IBM zSystems/LinuxONE, Asia-Pacific sipp...@sg.ibm.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: z/OSMF
I think you are missing the point, why sell something and then before you sunset that box, make it so that you can't upgrade the software? That's completely against IBM's original method of operation. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
