Re: JES2 as primary with JES3 as a secondary
Since I quoted Shmuel I agree whole heartedly with Shmuel. Ed On May 1, 2015, at 4:14 PM, Paul Gilmartin wrote: On 2015-05-01 15:08, Ed Gould wrote: Agreed... Agreed with Timothy or agreed with Shmuel? On May 1, 2015, at 9:14 AM, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote: In OF1C8CF620.778691D4- on48257e37.001a8f05-48257e37.0022e...@sg.ibm.com, on 04/30/2015 at 02:21 PM, Timothy Sipples sipp...@sg.ibm.com said: A quarter century is a long time to keep holding onto a ~41 year old IT grudge. :-) I still hold a grudge for the way IBM handled TSO Data Set Utilities: COPY, FORMAT LIST and MERGE, to say nothing of the common TSO requirements for JES2 and JES3. Besides, pointing out an old restriction is not the same as holding a grudge for a third (sic) of a century.. If it weren't hard to use, it wouldn't be TSO. They had to remove them. -- 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: JES2 as primary with JES3 as a secondary
In of1c8cf620.778691d4-on48257e37.001a8f05-48257e37.0022e...@sg.ibm.com, on 04/30/2015 at 02:21 PM, Timothy Sipples sipp...@sg.ibm.com said: . IBM did not (generally) recommend multiple JES3 globals in a single Sysplex Still not PolyASP. PolyASMP wqould be running multiple globals or multiple locals withing the same MVS image, not just the same sysplex. Note: ASP supported it for testing purposes; it was not intended for production use. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT ISO position; see http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress. (S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003) -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: JES2 as primary with JES3 as a secondary
In of1c8cf620.778691d4-on48257e37.001a8f05-48257e37.0022e...@sg.ibm.com, on 04/30/2015 at 02:21 PM, Timothy Sipples sipp...@sg.ibm.com said: A quarter century is a long time to keep holding onto a ~41 year old IT grudge. :-) I still hold a grudge for the way IBM handled TSO Data Set Utilities: COPY, FORMAT LIST and MERGE, to say nothing of the common TSO requirements for JES2 and JES3. Besides, pointing out an old restriction is not the same as holding a grudge for a third (sic) of a century.. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT ISO position; see http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress. (S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003) -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: JES2 as primary with JES3 as a secondary
On 2015-05-01 15:08, Ed Gould wrote: Agreed... Agreed with Timothy or agreed with Shmuel? On May 1, 2015, at 9:14 AM, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote: In of1c8cf620.778691d4-on48257e37.001a8f05-48257e37.0022e...@sg.ibm.com, on 04/30/2015 at 02:21 PM, Timothy Sipples sipp...@sg.ibm.com said: A quarter century is a long time to keep holding onto a ~41 year old IT grudge. :-) I still hold a grudge for the way IBM handled TSO Data Set Utilities: COPY, FORMAT LIST and MERGE, to say nothing of the common TSO requirements for JES2 and JES3. Besides, pointing out an old restriction is not the same as holding a grudge for a third (sic) of a century.. If it weren't hard to use, it wouldn't be TSO. They had to remove them. -- gil -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: JES2 as primary with JES3 as a secondary
The references I cited in my previous post are documentation elaborations. Nothing more, nothing less. IBM did not (generally) recommend multiple JES3 globals in a single Sysplex (which can consist of a single LPAR or not), past tense, and IBM does not (generally) recommend multiple JES3 globals in such an environment, present tense. Here's the previous documentation language, even before elaboration: Although it is possible to have multiple JES3 complexes within a Sysplex, IBM recommends a one-to-one relationship between the JES3 complex and the Sysplex Here's the revised language: IBM recommends a one-to-one relationship between the JES3 complex and the Sysplex for ease of operations. If you do need to set up multiple global systems within the same Sysplex, the following considerations apply Though I prefer the revised language, the recommendation hasn't changed. A recommendation is not a requirement and never was, and a recommendation is certainly not a technology limitation. One ought to assign meaning and significance to every word, at least as a starting point. Especially when the recommendation was preceded by the words it is possible. I'm not sure why the previous language (apparently, by some) was misread and misinterpreted. It certainly shouldn't have been. The previous language was perfectly clear. Nonetheless, IBM elaborated. This not exactly new recommendation (not requirement) is cause for celebration, one would think. Note that IBM recommended (and recommends) to clients they not follow this general JES3 recommendation when specifying the requirements for certain service offerings, as an example. Let's take a brief look at this not exactly new history. I can fairly easily trace JES3 back a quarter century. (Perhaps somebody else would like to go back into the pre-Sysplex JES3 era, from 1973 to 1990, to see what IBM recommended and/or required.) Sysplex debuted in 1990 with MVS/ESA Version 4. As IBM announcement letter 290-487 helpfully explains, JES3 took advantage of Sysplex from the start. I don't have convenient access to the MVS/ESA Version 4 documentation at the moment, but nearly 20 years ago IBM published this redbook, in the MVS/ESA Version 5 era: http://www.redbooks.ibm.com/redbooks/pdfs/sg244582.pdf Section 8.12 reiterates exactly the same JES3 recommendation...and then proceeds to provide instructions on how to violate IBM's recommendation. :-) There's even a diagram of that multiple global (and local) scenario, Figure 55. A quarter century is a long time to keep holding onto a ~41 year old IT grudge. :-) Timothy Sipples IT Architect Executive, Industry Solutions, IBM z Systems, AP/GCG/MEA E-Mail: sipp...@sg.ibm.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: JES2 as primary with JES3 as a secondary
On Thu, 30 Apr 2015 14:21:35 +0800, Timothy Sipples wrote: The references I cited in my previous post are documentation elaborations. Nothing more, nothing less. IBM did not (generally) recommend multiple JES3 globals in a single Sysplex Right. And they still don't, for many reasons. (which can consist of a single LPAR or not), Strictly speaking, a Sysplex can be a single LPAR, but that is not relevant. IBM recommends a one-to-one relationship between the JES3 complex and the Sysplex for ease of operations. If you do need to set up multiple global systems within the same Sysplex, the following considerations apply Right. There can be more than one JES3 Global in a Sysplex, resulting in more than one JESplex. That does not mean that an LPAR can have more than one JES3 subsystem. One ought to assign meaning and significance to every word, at least as a starting point. and not read something into the words that is not there. Especially when the recommendation was preceded by the words it is possible. Nowhere does it say that It is possible to run two JES3 subsystems on the same LPAR. I'm not sure why the previous language (apparently, by some) was misread and misinterpreted. It certainly shouldn't have been. The previous language was perfectly clear. The language is clear, and you have misread it to say that more than one JES3 subsystem can exist within an LPAR. I feel insulted by the tone of your comments. http://www.redbooks.ibm.com/redbooks/pdfs/sg244582.pdf Section 8.12 reiterates exactly the same JES3 recommendation...and then proceeds to provide instructions on how to violate IBM's recommendation. :-) There's even a diagram of that multiple global (and local) scenario, Figure 55. You have misread that diagram. The boxes illustrate processors (or LPARS), each of which has exactly one JES3 subsystem. -- Tom Marchant -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: JES2 as primary with JES3 as a secondary
On Tue, 28 Apr 2015 12:49:44 +0800, Timothy Sipples wrote: I thought JES3 can still spread workload over multiple LPARs? That has nothing to do with PolyASP, which was the ability to run a secondary ASP on the same CPU. I disagree with the word nothing. Multiple LPARs often exist on the same CPU, of course. It is possible to have even a single LPAR with multiple JES3 globals. No, it's not possible to start multiple JES3 subsystems (global or local) in the same LPAR (at the same time). You can start one (and only one) JES3 subsystem per MVS image/LPAR/system and JES3 must be the primary subsystem. See SYS1.SIATSRC(IATINTK) (JES3 initialization task): *- * VERIFY WE ARE THE PRIMARY SUBSYSTEM *- SPACE 1 TMSSIBFLG1,SSIBPJES ARE WE THE PRIMARY SUBSYS? BCALLOFF,NOTPRIME NO, GO ISSUE MSG AND ABEND The message is IAT3010 JES3 IS NOT THE PRIMARY SUBSYSTEM, ABEND S2FB There's only one primary subsystem per MVS image: IEF735I IEFSSNyy: PRIMARY IGNORED. PREVIOUSLY SPECIFIED IN IEFSSNzz Explanation: Two IEFSSNxx parmlib members specified a primary subsystem. The system accepts the first specified primary subsystem name and ignores any subsequent primary subsystem names. ... and there's an ENQ in the JES3 initialization task (SYS1.SIATSRC(IATINTK): *ENQUEUE-RESOURCES = ENQUEUES ON FOLLOWING TO PREVENT *TWO JES3 PRIMARY SUBSYSTEMS FROM *BEING STARTED AT THE SAME TIME: * * QNAME - SYSZIAT * RNAME - SUBSYSTEM NAME * CONCATINATED WITH * THE CHARACTER STRING * 'ACTIVE' You can have multiple JES3 globals in a multi-system sysplex (more than 1 LPAR/MVS image), but not in a single-system sysplex. Norbert Friemel -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: JES2 as primary with JES3 as a secondary
I feel insulted by the tone of your comments. Me too! I used to appreciate Timothy's posts for their precision. However, in this case he seems to have a need to be perceived as right, even if he's not. Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 08:22:00 -0500 From: 000a2a8c2020-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu Subject: Re: JES2 as primary with JES3 as a secondary To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU On Thu, 30 Apr 2015 14:21:35 +0800, Timothy Sipples wrote: The references I cited in my previous post are documentation elaborations. Nothing more, nothing less. IBM did not (generally) recommend multiple JES3 globals in a single Sysplex Right. And they still don't, for many reasons. (which can consist of a single LPAR or not), Strictly speaking, a Sysplex can be a single LPAR, but that is not relevant. IBM recommends a one-to-one relationship between the JES3 complex and the Sysplex for ease of operations. If you do need to set up multiple global systems within the same Sysplex, the following considerations apply Right. There can be more than one JES3 Global in a Sysplex, resulting in more than one JESplex. That does not mean that an LPAR can have more than one JES3 subsystem. One ought to assign meaning and significance to every word, at least as a starting point. and not read something into the words that is not there. Especially when the recommendation was preceded by the words it is possible. Nowhere does it say that It is possible to run two JES3 subsystems on the same LPAR. I'm not sure why the previous language (apparently, by some) was misread and misinterpreted. It certainly shouldn't have been. The previous language was perfectly clear. The language is clear, and you have misread it to say that more than one JES3 subsystem can exist within an LPAR. I feel insulted by the tone of your comments. http://www.redbooks.ibm.com/redbooks/pdfs/sg244582.pdf Section 8.12 reiterates exactly the same JES3 recommendation...and then proceeds to provide instructions on how to violate IBM's recommendation. :-) There's even a diagram of that multiple global (and local) scenario, Figure 55. You have misread that diagram. The boxes illustrate processors (or LPARS), each of which has exactly one JES3 subsystem. -- 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: JES2 as primary with JES3 as a secondary
sipp...@sg.ibm.com (Timothy Sipples) writes: Let's take a brief look at this not exactly new history. I can fairly easily trace JES3 back a quarter century. (Perhaps somebody else would like to go back into the pre-Sysplex JES3 era, from 1973 to 1990, to see what IBM recommended and/or required.) trivia ... my wife was in the gburg JES group and part of the catchers of ASP (from the west coast) to turn into JES3. She then was part of the authors of JESUS (JES unified system) that combined all the features that the JES2 and JES3 customers couldn't live w/o ... but it never got very far because of various internal political issues. She then got con'ed into going to POK to be in charge of mainframe loosely-coupled architecture ... where she did peer-coupled shared data architecture. she didn't remain long because her architecture1 saw very little uptake ... except for IMS hot-standby (until SYSPLEX and parallel SYSPLEX). She was also being badgered by the communication group to force her into using SNA for loosely-coupled operation (there would periodically be a truce where communication group had strategic ownership of everything that crossed the datacenter walls and she could use whatever she wanted within a datacenter ... but then they would start badgering again). I can't speak to the other issues ... but on the JES2 networking side in the 70s 80s ... not only couldn't JES2 talk to anything else ... talking to another JES2 at a different release level could result in taking down both JES2 and the MVS system. The issue was that JES2 networking implementation intermixed networking control and job control fields and minor release-to-release changes resulted in incompatible systems. On the internal network, JES nodes were kept at edge boundary nodes. Major internal network talked to JES nodes by using drivers that emulated JES protocol ... and because of the issues with JES incompatible release vulnerabilities ... a large library of internal network software drivers grew up that would not only format fields expected for specific JES release being talked to ... but also handle JES release reformating ... allowing different JES systems to communicate. I've periodically commented on the infamous case of files from San Jose disk plant site JES system resulting in Hursley MVS crashes ... and it was blamed on the Hursley internal network software. The actual issue was some new release-to-release JES field incompatibility and the internal network software driver library hadn't been updated to handle the new case (as part of countermeasure for keeping JES systems at different release levels from crashing MVS system). -- virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970 -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: JES2 as primary with JES3 as a secondary
On 26 Apr 2015 09:54:57 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attached_Support_Processor I thought JES3 can still spread workload over multiple LPARs? JES3 can have 1 GLOBAL and N LOCALs where N ranges from 1 to a number I have long since forgotten. From Shmuel's post, I guess that POLYASP had some additional capabilities. Clark Morris On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 9:08 AM, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) shmuel+ibm-m...@patriot.net wrote: In 6kjpja91t3suoq1kjpghelh2pbbj13t...@4ax.com, on 04/26/2015 at 08:40 AM, Clark Morris cfmpub...@ns.sympatico.ca said: What was lost? PolyASP. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT ISO position; see http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress. (S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003) -- 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: JES2 as primary with JES3 as a secondary
In cajtoo591ynazi9hblngnsrxzo0vmkx4npwo12wh-dj9jntx...@mail.gmail.com, on 04/26/2015 at 11:54 AM, Mike Schwab mike.a.sch...@gmail.com said: I thought JES3 can still spread workload over multiple LPARs? That has nothing to do with PolyASP, which was the ability to run a secondary ASP on the same CPU. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT ISO position; see http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress. (S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003) -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: JES2 as primary with JES3 as a secondary
I thought JES3 can still spread workload over multiple LPARs? That has nothing to do with PolyASP, which was the ability to run a secondary ASP on the same CPU. I disagree with the word nothing. Multiple LPARs often exist on the same CPU, of course. It is possible to have even a single LPAR with multiple JES3 globals. It's not *generally* recommended, but it's documented and supported. See recent versions of the z/OS JES3 Initialization and Tuning Guide (SA32-1003), OA41165, and OA45253 for details. Timothy Sipples IT Architect Executive, Industry Solutions, IBM z Systems, AP/GCG/MEA E-Mail: sipp...@sg.ibm.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: JES2 as primary with JES3 as a secondary
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attached_Support_Processor I thought JES3 can still spread workload over multiple LPARs? On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 9:08 AM, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) shmuel+ibm-m...@patriot.net wrote: In 6kjpja91t3suoq1kjpghelh2pbbj13t...@4ax.com, on 04/26/2015 at 08:40 AM, Clark Morris cfmpub...@ns.sympatico.ca said: What was lost? PolyASP. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT ISO position; see http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress. (S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003) -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN -- Mike A Schwab, Springfield IL USA Where do Forest Rangers go to get away from it all? -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: JES2 as primary with JES3 as a secondary
On 25 Apr 2015 19:45:15 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote: In CAArMM9R9VfbsSb5fDZkx4hC87_M1-VXHkVyjQf7pE=76bdb...@mail.gmail.com, on 04/24/2015 at 11:17 AM, Tony Harminc t...@harminc.net said: It seems a surprising loss of enerality given the elegant (and long-standing) nature of the subsystem interface. To say nothing of a loss of functionality going from ASP to JES3. What was lost? Clark Morris -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: JES2 as primary with JES3 as a secondary
In CAArMM9R9VfbsSb5fDZkx4hC87_M1-VXHkVyjQf7pE=76bdb...@mail.gmail.com, on 04/24/2015 at 11:17 AM, Tony Harminc t...@harminc.net said: It seems a surprising loss of enerality given the elegant (and long-standing) nature of the subsystem interface. To say nothing of a loss of functionality going from ASP to JES3. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT ISO position; see http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress. (S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003) -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: JES2 as primary with JES3 as a secondary
Thanks, Tom! Unfortunately, I usually do not have that kind of flexibility - neither time-wise nor resource-wise. We are not a really large company. So, in other words: availability is a very loose concept around here ... Best Regards Karl -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Tom Marchant Sent: Friday, April 24, 2015 2:21 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: JES2 as primary with JES3 as a secondary On Tue, 21 Apr 2015 10:29:08 +, Henn, Karl wrote: Every now and then, though, it would be nice to be able to perform a quick test on a JES3 system. ... I'm not afraid of experimenting; I might possibly even find a test LPAR that I can shred on a weekend. If you have a test LPAR available, you could create a JES3 configuration that you IPL with occasionally. Or you could get a zPDT system for JES3 testing. Or hire time in Dallas. -- 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: JES2 as primary with JES3 as a secondary
On 22 April 2015 at 19:20, Ed Jaffe edja...@phoenixsoftware.com wrote: As the book states, JES3 does not run as a secondary subsystem - only primary. Just out of curiosity -- I've been away from this for a long time -- can you explain why this is the case? It seems a surprising loss of generality given the elegant (and long-standing) nature of the subsystem interface. Tony H. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: JES2 as primary with JES3 as a secondary
Seems like great place for VM? In a message dated 4/24/2015 7:20:52 A.M. Central Daylight Time, 000a2a8c2020-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu writes: If you have a test LPAR available, you could create a JES3 configuration that you IPL with occasionally. Or you could get a zPDT system for JES3 testing. Or hire time in Dallas. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: JES2 as primary with JES3 as a secondary
On 4/21/2015 3:29 AM, Henn, Karl wrote: The JES3 to JES2 Migration Considerations (SG24-8083-00) on page 6 reads: You can also define a JES3 as the primary and JES2 as a secondary subsystem (however running JES2 and JES3 on the same z/OS image is not currently supported, though there are no known problems). If JES3 is running on a system, it must be the primary job entry subsystem. You cannot run JES2 as the primary subsystem and JES3 as a secondary subsystem.. As the book states, JES3 does not run as a secondary subsystem - only primary. We have LPARs where JES3 runs primary and JES2 runs secondary and other LPARs that are JES3 only and JES2 only. We have found no issues with this setup. -- Edward E Jaffe Phoenix Software International, Inc 831 Parkview Drive North El Segundo, CA 90245 http://www.phoenixsoftware.com/ -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: JES2 as primary with JES3 as a secondary
Karl, If you are not aware - there are also a JES2 and JES3 list. If you would like to join, go to these URLs JES2http://listserv.vt.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=jes2-l JES3http://www.listserv.uga.edu/archives/jes3-l.html The biggest difference I see is that JES3 needs to know it owns resources before it will let things run. JES2 does not. That may be a consideration in trying to run JES3 under JES2 Lizette -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Henn, Karl Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 3:29 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: JES2 as primary with JES3 as a secondary Hello JES experts, My practical experience with JES3 is near zero, or even below zero. The software we develop rarely ever has to take into consideration the differences between JES2 and JES3. I can remember only 3 such cases in the past more than 15 years I have been working here. Every now and then, though, it would be nice to be able to perform a quick test on a JES3 system. However, I cannot spare an LPAR, and I do not have the time and the resources to set up and maintain a z/OS JES3 system on a permanent basis. So, not surprisingly, my thoughts wandered off to the possibility of a secondary JES; I had done that before, yet only with all JES2s. Frustration came quick: The JES3 to JES2 Migration Considerations (SG24- 8083-00) on page 6 reads: You can also define a JES3 as the primary and JES2 as a secondary subsystem (however running JES2 and JES3 on the same z/OS image is not currently supported, though there are no known problems). If JES3 is running on a system, it must be the primary job entry subsystem. You cannot run JES2 as the primary subsystem and JES3 as a secondary subsystem.. My question; Does anybody know a - dirty? - trick to still do that, run JES2 as primary with JES3 as a secondary? What/Where is the ruse? I mean, it works the other way around. I'm not afraid of experimenting; I might possibly even find a test LPAR that I can shred on a weekend. I'm looking forward to your suggestions. Thanks a lot in advance. Best Regards Karl -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
JES2 as primary with JES3 as a secondary
Hello JES experts, My practical experience with JES3 is near zero, or even below zero. The software we develop rarely ever has to take into consideration the differences between JES2 and JES3. I can remember only 3 such cases in the past more than 15 years I have been working here. Every now and then, though, it would be nice to be able to perform a quick test on a JES3 system. However, I cannot spare an LPAR, and I do not have the time and the resources to set up and maintain a z/OS JES3 system on a permanent basis. So, not surprisingly, my thoughts wandered off to the possibility of a secondary JES; I had done that before, yet only with all JES2s. Frustration came quick: The JES3 to JES2 Migration Considerations (SG24-8083-00) on page 6 reads: You can also define a JES3 as the primary and JES2 as a secondary subsystem (however running JES2 and JES3 on the same z/OS image is not currently supported, though there are no known problems). If JES3 is running on a system, it must be the primary job entry subsystem. You cannot run JES2 as the primary subsystem and JES3 as a secondary subsystem.. My question; Does anybody know a - dirty? - trick to still do that, run JES2 as primary with JES3 as a secondary? What/Where is the ruse? I mean, it works the other way around. I'm not afraid of experimenting; I might possibly even find a test LPAR that I can shred on a weekend. I'm looking forward to your suggestions. Thanks a lot in advance. Best Regards Karl -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
