Original Message
From: IBM-MAIN automatic digest system
Sent: Sunday, December 6, 2015 00:00
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Reply To: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
Subject: IBM-MAIN Digest - 4 Dec 2015 to 5 Dec 2015 (#2015-339)
There are 18 messages totaling 880 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. OT: What's a "ton" of JCL?
2. IBM z890 Update. (5)
3. SADMP Allocation factor
4. length of "executable" (6)
5. TCPIP Configuration Help (2)
6. Online manuals for 3880-21, 3880-23, 3990, 2105 et al? (2)
7. Lrecl
--
Date:Fri, 4 Dec 2015 23:27:07 -0600
From:Ed Gould <edgould1...@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: OT: What's a "ton" of JCL?
Haven't you seen the WORD "JCL" on card boxes I have:)
Ed
On Dec 4, 2015, at 6:48 PM, Thomas Kern wrote:
> I have never written any JCL on the boxes, just labels and notes.
>
> /Tom Kern
>
> On 12/04/2015 00:33, Ted MacNEIL wrote:
>> Is that counting the weight of the boxes themselves?
>>
>> -
>> -teD
>> -
>>Original Message
>> From: Thomas Kern
>> Sent: Friday, December 4, 2015 00:14
>> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
>> Reply To: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
>> Subject: Re: OT: What's a "ton" of JCL?
>>
>> Approximately 274905 cards.
>>
>> 2000 cards per box is about 14.55 lbs.
>> 137.45 boxes per ton(2000lbs)
>>
>> It is Friday now.
>>
>> /Tom Kern
>>
>> On 12/03/2015 22:40, Joel C. Ewing wrote:
>>> On 12/03/2015 12:16 PM, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 3 Dec 2015 10:43:38 -0600, Joel C. Ewing wrote:
>>>>> ... Because DOS/VS had native support for source and object
>>>>> libraries, those were kept online, but there was no decent native
>>>>> support to effectively submit production job JCL from
>>>>> libraries ...
>>>>>
>>>> Astonishing. You could RYO editor but not RYO "SUBMIT".
>>> OLE' was envisioned and implemented by one person, James Stevens,
>>> the
>>> head of Tech Services at a time when it was a one or two man
>>> operation
>>> (I raised the body count to 3) -- he probably created OLE' as
>>> late night
>>> entertainment for his own convenience and benefit to make
>>> development of
>>> his Mini-Task on-line environment and other utilities less
>>> tedious. It
>>> went company-wide since it significantly improved the efficiency
>>> of 40+
>>> programmers versus fiddling with individual cards in a deck. JCL
>>> didn't
>>> get changed as much and Operator's time was considered less
>>> valuable;
>>> and since they only picked up the entire job deck and moved it
>>> around
>>> as a unit it wasn't that obvious that a significant amount of
>>> time would
>>> be saved by avoiding the use of decks for production JCL.
>>>
>>> OLE' did have the ability to submit jobs to DOS, but the interactive
>>> OLE' work areas assigned to individual users were each a pre-defined
>>> number of "pages" of 24 80-byte records and the total size of all
>>> areas
>>> was constrained by the capacity of a 3330. With those space
>>> constraints,
>>> the normal practice was to keep in one's OLE' area(s) only data
>>> actively
>>> being edited along with some shorter job streams used for testing
>>> and
>>> development. It would have been possible to submit a short batch job
>>> from OLE' to extract a production job stream from a source
>>> library and
>>> load it into part of the an OLE' area (as was done for source code
>>> editing), wait for that job to run, and then submit the
>>> production job
>>> from OLE'; but by the time an Operator had done that they could have
>>> already loaded a physical deck. There just didn't seem to be enough
>>> cost-benefit to justify converting JCL from cards to DASD until MVS
>>> changed the equation.
>>>>> ... and the
>>>>> company was averse to spending on "unneeded" additional
>>>>> software, so
>>>>> production JCL was created in OLE' but punched and kept on
>>>>> cards for use
>>>>> by Operations.
>>>>>
>>>> The supplies must have been cheap.
>>> My impression was that the volume of new cards was low enough to
>>> be a
>>> trivial cost compared to the cost of printer paper, and I never
>>> sa
