Re: NIST test suite for Cobol

[Michael Oujesky]

These?
   * 
<https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/Legacy/FIPS/fipspub21-2.pdf>Federal 
Information Processing Standards Publication: 
programming language COBOL (nist.gov)
   * 
<https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/Legacy/SP/nistspecialpublication500-203.pdf>Conformance 
test specifications for COBOL intrinsic function module (nist.gov)
   * 
<https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/Legacy/FIPS/fipspub21-3-1990.pdf>Federal 
Information Processing Standards Publication: COBOL (nist.gov)
   * 
<https://ntrl.ntis.gov/NTRL/dashboard/searchResults/titleDetail/PB89151310.xhtml>COBOL 
85 Compiler Validation System (CCVS 85) User 
Guide (Version 2.0). | National Technical Reports Library - NTIS

or:
   * 
<https://samate.nist.gov/SARD/test-suites>Test 
suites - NIST Software Assurance Reference Dataset


These folks might have it - 
<https://gitlab.cobolworx.com/COBOLworx/gcc-cobol/-/tree/3c7d783ad3b7952c5ebe8ae52e6b339e471d56bd/gcc/cobol>gcc/cobol 
· 3c7d783ad3b7952c5ebe8ae52e6b339e471d56bd · COBOLworx / gcc-cobol · GitLab



At 02:55 AM 10/4/2024, Abe Kornelis wrote:

Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

All,

I am reaching out on behalf of the z390 development/support team.

Many years ago one of our contributors copied the NIST test suite for Cobol
from the NIST web site to use as a test bench while developing our
zCobol compiler.
Unfortunately, the copy in our archive has become damaged.

I searched the NIST web site to obtain a fresh copy, but I failed to
locate it.

If anyone has a suggestion how I might refresh our copy of the test suite,
that would be highly appreciated. Suggestions for an alternative
to the NIST test suite for validating compiler function would be very
helpful too.

Thanks in advance,
Abe Kornelis
==

PS: you can find more info about the z390 project on z390.org
and more info about the zCobol component on zcobol .org

Abe

--
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

NIST test suite for Cobol

[Abe Kornelis]

All,

I am reaching out on behalf of the z390 development/support team.

Many years ago one of our contributors copied the NIST test suite for Cobol
from the NIST web site to use as a test bench while developing our
zCobol compiler.
Unfortunately, the copy in our archive has become damaged.

I searched the NIST web site to obtain a fresh copy, but I failed to
locate it.

If anyone has a suggestion how I might refresh our copy of the test suite,
that would be highly appreciated. Suggestions for an alternative
to the NIST test suite for validating compiler function would be very
helpful too.

Thanks in advance,
Abe Kornelis
==

PS: you can find more info about the z390 project on z390.org
and more info about the zCobol component on zcobol .org

Abe

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

Re: Clist var and tso test copy subcommand

[Joseph Reichman]

Thanks stupid me the = is test subcommand not clist thank you 

> On Sep 23, 2024, at 2:58 PM, Binyamin Dissen 
> <0662573e2c3a-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
> 
> You can subdivide an area with an EQUate statement.
> 
> On Mon, 23 Sep 2024 11:53:35 -0400 Joseph Reichman
> <05812645a43c-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
> 
> :>Binyamin
> :>
> :>You are really good actually what I wanted to do was to copy over a 
> variable name and call IKJCT441 to dump the variable
> :>
> :>Hoping you can answer two follow up questions regarding tso test and clist
> :>
> :>First where did you see this clist variable assignment format
> :>
> :>I thought = operator was just a compare  
> :>And guess you cannt use x’ cause clist unlike Rexx var only like printable 
> character values for variables
> :>
> :>Second if I getmain 20 bytes with test subcommand and equate it to workarea 
> and want to copy data to bytes 5 - 8
> :>
> :>Can reference to area in copy as workarea+4
> :>
> :>Though it passes the syntax check for test
> :>
> :>Doesn’t seem like it works
> :>
> :>Forgot for the  first to get the name of the variable in workarea I used 
> workarea=c’name’ with ampersand it puts a curly brace in
> :>Thank you
> :>
> :>> On Sep 23, 2024, at 11:10?AM, Binyamin Dissen 
> <0662573e2c3a-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
> :>>
> :>> ?On Mon, 23 Sep 2024 08:20:52 -0400 Joseph Reichman
> :>> <05812645a43c-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
> :>>
> :>> :>Is posssible to use the tso test subcommand copy to copy a clist 
> variable for example in test script
> :>> :>Germain 20 sp(0) equate(workarea)
> :>> :>SET NAME = JOE
> :>> :>Copy &name workarea(4)
> :>>
> :>> :>Thought copy would let me copy a literal
> :>>
> :>> workarea=c'&name'
> 
> --
> Binyamin Dissen 
> http://www.dissensoftware.com
> 
> Director, Dissen Software, Bar & Grill - Israel
> 
> --
> 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: Clist var and tso test copy subcommand

[Binyamin Dissen]

You can subdivide an area with an EQUate statement.

On Mon, 23 Sep 2024 11:53:35 -0400 Joseph Reichman
<05812645a43c-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:

:>Binyamin 
:>
:>You are really good actually what I wanted to do was to copy over a variable 
name and call IKJCT441 to dump the variable 
:>
:>Hoping you can answer two follow up questions regarding tso test and clist 
:>
:>First where did you see this clist variable assignment format 
:>
:>I thought = operator was just a compare  
:>And guess you cannt use x’ cause clist unlike Rexx var only like printable 
character values for variables 
:>
:>Second if I getmain 20 bytes with test subcommand and equate it to workarea 
and want to copy data to bytes 5 - 8 
:>
:>Can reference to area in copy as workarea+4 
:>
:>Though it passes the syntax check for test 
:>
:>Doesn’t seem like it works
:>
:>Forgot for the  first to get the name of the variable in workarea I used 
workarea=c’name’ with ampersand it puts a curly brace in 
:>Thank you 
:>
:>> On Sep 23, 2024, at 11:10?AM, Binyamin Dissen 
<0662573e2c3a-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
:>> 
:>> ?On Mon, 23 Sep 2024 08:20:52 -0400 Joseph Reichman
:>> <05812645a43c-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
:>> 
:>> :>Is posssible to use the tso test subcommand copy to copy a clist variable 
for example in test script
:>> :>Germain 20 sp(0) equate(workarea)
:>> :>SET NAME = JOE
:>> :>Copy &name workarea(4)
:>> 
:>> :>Thought copy would let me copy a literal
:>> 
:>> workarea=c'&name'

--
Binyamin Dissen 
http://www.dissensoftware.com

Director, Dissen Software, Bar & Grill - Israel

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

Re: Clist var and tso test copy subcommand

[Joseph Reichman]

Binyamin 

You are really good actually what I wanted to do was to copy over a variable 
name and call IKJCT441 to dump the variable 

Hoping you can answer two follow up questions regarding tso test and clist 

First where did you see this clist variable assignment format 

I thought = operator was just a compare  
And guess you cannt use x’ cause clist unlike Rexx var only like printable 
character values for variables 

Second if I getmain 20 bytes with test subcommand and equate it to workarea and 
want to copy data to bytes 5 - 8 

Can reference to area in copy as workarea+4 

Though it passes the syntax check for test 

Doesn’t seem like it works

Forgot for the  first to get the name of the variable in workarea I used 
workarea=c’name’ with ampersand it puts a curly brace in 
Thank you 

> On Sep 23, 2024, at 11:10 AM, Binyamin Dissen 
> <0662573e2c3a-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 23 Sep 2024 08:20:52 -0400 Joseph Reichman
> <05812645a43c-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
> 
> :>Is posssible to use the tso test subcommand copy to copy a clist variable 
> for example in test script
> :>Germain 20 sp(0) equate(workarea)
> :>SET NAME = JOE
> :>Copy &name workarea(4)
> 
> :>Thought copy would let me copy a literal
> 
> workarea=c'&name'
> 
> --
> Binyamin Dissen 
> http://www.dissensoftware.com
> 
> Director, Dissen Software, Bar & Grill - Israel
> 
> --
> 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: Clist var and tso test copy subcommand

[Binyamin Dissen]

On Mon, 23 Sep 2024 08:20:52 -0400 Joseph Reichman
<05812645a43c-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:

:>Is posssible to use the tso test subcommand copy to copy a clist variable for 
example in test script 
:>Germain 20 sp(0) equate(workarea)
:>SET NAME = JOE 
:>Copy &name workarea(4)

:>Thought copy would let me copy a literal 

workarea=c'&name'

--
Binyamin Dissen 
http://www.dissensoftware.com

Director, Dissen Software, Bar & Grill - Israel

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

Clist var and tso test copy subcommand

[Joseph Reichman]

Hi 

Is posssible to use the tso test subcommand copy to copy a clist variable for 
example in test script 
Germain 20 sp(0) equate(workarea)
SET NAME = JOE 
Copy &name workarea(4)

Thought copy would let me copy a literal 

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

Re: CBU next test

[Jim Elliott]

The CBU contract terms state that you must have a minimum of 72 hours between 
CBU Tests so the answer to your questions is no.

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

CBU next test

[Radoslaw Skorupka]

The following scenario:
A system is using CBU (Capacity Backup Upgrade) in test mode. That means 
up to 10 days of use.
However due to some reasons they want to extend this test using another 
"test ticket".

The test activations are available.

Q1: is it feasible to activate another test before the previous one is 
still running?
Q2: is it feasible to manually prematurely (i.e. 1,5 day earlier) stop 
CBU test during "dark  o'clock" and activate another test?



--
Radoslaw Skorupka
Lodz, Poland

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

Auto: Test Probe Please Don't Respond

[Frederic Mancini]

Je suis absent du 08 juillet 2024 au 19 juillet 2024 inclus.

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

Test Probe Please Don't Respond

[esst...@juno.com]

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

TEST EMAIL

[esst...@juno.com]

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

Auto: test. pleaseignore

[Frederic Mancini]

Je suis absent le 30 avril 2024 après-midi.

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

test. pleaseignore

[Allan Staller]

Classification: Confidential


::DISCLAIMER::

The contents of this e-mail and any attachment(s) are confidential and intended 
for the named recipient(s) only. E-mail transmission is not guaranteed to be 
secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, 
destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or may contain viruses in transmission. 
The e mail and its contents (with or without referred errors) shall therefore 
not attach any liability on the originator or HCL or its affiliates. Views or 
opinions, if any, presented in this email are solely those of the author and 
may not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of HCL or its affiliates. Any 
form of reproduction, dissemination, copying, disclosure, modification, 
distribution and / or publication of this message without the prior written 
consent of authorized representative of HCL is strictly prohibited. If you have 
received this email in error please delete it and notify the sender 
immediately. Before opening any email and/or attachments, please check them for 
viruses and other defects.


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

TEST of updated Email server security Config

[Steve Thompson]

This is a test of email after changing "security" settings of my 
email domain.


Just ignore this please.

--
Regards,
Steve Thompson

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

test message please ignore no reply needed

[Allan Staller]

Classification: Confidential

test
::DISCLAIMER::

The contents of this e-mail and any attachment(s) are confidential and intended 
for the named recipient(s) only. E-mail transmission is not guaranteed to be 
secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, 
destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or may contain viruses in transmission. 
The e mail and its contents (with or without referred errors) shall therefore 
not attach any liability on the originator or HCL or its affiliates. Views or 
opinions, if any, presented in this email are solely those of the author and 
may not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of HCL or its affiliates. Any 
form of reproduction, dissemination, copying, disclosure, modification, 
distribution and / or publication of this message without the prior written 
consent of authorized representative of HCL is strictly prohibited. If you have 
received this email in error please delete it and notify the sender 
immediately. Before opening any email and/or attachments, please check them for 
viruses and other defects.


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

Re: test. please ignore -- IGNORING YOU IGNORING YOU [not]

[Radoslaw Skorupka]

It was discussed many times.
There's even single-word German description of such disclaimer.
However  the disclaimer has almost no legal meaning.
Accidental recipient has no obligation to delete the message or keep it 
secret, etc. Nothing which is caused by the disclaimer (it can be caused 
by the law, but not disclaimer).

Recipient is not obliged to do anything, including reporting abuse, etc.

BTW: Due to some EU rights a company is obliged to have a footer with 
share capital, company address, etc. It is obligatory only for official 
documents signed by procurement people. What lawyers did? They insisted 
to put the note in every email sent by every employee or contractor. 
Needless to say the note grew up - it was getting longer and longer... 
Despite only very very few emails really needed it.


--
Radoslaw Skorupka
Lodz, Poland





W dniu 04.01.2024 o 16:49, Seymour J Metz pisze:

If they e-mail me your medical information, that is a HIPAA violation even if I 
delete it. If they e-mail me classified documents,, that is a security breach 
even if I deleted it. IANAL, but I don't think that a disclaimer would protect 
you from severe consequences, both civil and criminal. Neither does a 
disclaimer preclude the recipient reporting it to the Feds.

Protect sensitive data; don't rely on disclaimers.

--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
עַם יִשְׂרָאֵל חַי
נֵ֣צַח יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל לֹ֥א יְשַׁקֵּ֖ר


From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  on behalf of Steve 
Thompson
Sent: Thursday, January 4, 2024 10:23 AM
To:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: test. please ignore -- IGNORING YOU IGNORING YOU [not]

I am glad you brought this up.

I get these things on individual/entity emails sent directly to
me. I didn't sign for this. How could they prove I got it?

Per USPS regs and some other fed Agency whose name I've
forgotten, if you receive something in the mail addressed to you,
that you didn't ask for, it is yours, even if a bill is sent with
it requiring you to either return it or pay for it. Most may not
know about this. But this went back into the Sixties when
different mass marketing companies that would send out something
like a medallion to hang somewhere (just an example). Well, the
law/regs were changed to make that a free gift to you because why
should you have to return it at your cost when you hadn't asked
for it?

Enter FAX machines used by attorneys. We need to put CYA verbiage
at the bottom of this document. The question is, is it actually
enforceable? This then went to boiler plate on emails from
medical entities (HIPAA stuff). But the regs tell you that data
must be secured

So is a statement to the effect of "this being a non-disclosure
thing" enforceable since one had no other relationship to the
sender, such that no NDA had ever been signed?

So, yeah, glad you mentioned this.

Imagine if it had been marked as classified Top Secret EYES
Only. Could you be charged for having unauthorized classified
data? And just who would you report this to?

On 1/3/2024 4:08 PM, Joel C. Ewing wrote:

A test of another long-winded, non-enforceable corporate
disclaimer perhaps?   Don't you just love corporate lawyers.

The named recipient in this case is the IBM-Main list, and
since this list is echoed to a world-accessible newsgroup, no
one posting anything to this list can reasonably expect
anything on this list to be treated as "Confidential" or any
viewing of any item on this list to have been "received in
error".  That the views represented are "solely those of the
author" is the only part of the DISCLAIMER that has any
validity in this context.  By simply replying to this post
without excluding all of the original post I have violated the
non-enforceable parts of the disclaimer.

 JC Ewing

On 1/3/24 10:24, Allan Staller wrote:

Classification: Confidential

test

::DISCLAIMER::

The contents of this e-mail and any attachment(s) are
confidential and intended for the named recipient(s) only.
E-mail transmission is not guaranteed to be secure or
error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted,
lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or may contain
viruses in transmission. The e mail and its contents (with or
without referred errors) shall therefore not attach any
liability on the originator or HCL or its affiliates. Views or
opinions, if any, presented in this email are solely those of
the author and may not necessarily reflect the views or
opinions of HCL or its affiliates. Any form of reproduction,
dissemination, copying, disclosure, modification, distribution
and / or publication of this message without the prior written
consent of authorized representative of HCL is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this email in error please
delete it and notify the sender immediately. Before openi

Re: test. please ignore -- IGNORING YOU IGNORING YOU [not]

[Mike Schwab]

HIPPA applies to medical professionals and insurance departments, and not
to anyone to whom the information was sent.

National security call FBI to retrieve, sanitize.

On Thu, Jan 4, 2024 at 9:24 AM Steve Thompson  wrote:

> I am glad you brought this up.
>
> I get these things on individual/entity emails sent directly to
> me. I didn't sign for this. How could they prove I got it?
>
> Per USPS regs and some other fed Agency whose name I've
> forgotten, if you receive something in the mail addressed to you,
> that you didn't ask for, it is yours, even if a bill is sent with
> it requiring you to either return it or pay for it. Most may not
> know about this. But this went back into the Sixties when
> different mass marketing companies that would send out something
> like a medallion to hang somewhere (just an example). Well, the
> law/regs were changed to make that a free gift to you because why
> should you have to return it at your cost when you hadn't asked
> for it?
>
> Enter FAX machines used by attorneys. We need to put CYA verbiage
> at the bottom of this document. The question is, is it actually
> enforceable? This then went to boiler plate on emails from
> medical entities (HIPAA stuff). But the regs tell you that data
> must be secured
>
> So is a statement to the effect of "this being a non-disclosure
> thing" enforceable since one had no other relationship to the
> sender, such that no NDA had ever been signed?
>
> So, yeah, glad you mentioned this.
>
> Imagine if it had been marked as classified Top Secret EYES
> Only. Could you be charged for having unauthorized classified
> data? And just who would you report this to?
>
> On 1/3/2024 4:08 PM, Joel C. Ewing wrote:
> > A test of another long-winded, non-enforceable corporate
> > disclaimer perhaps?   Don't you just love corporate lawyers.
> >
> > The named recipient in this case is the IBM-Main list, and
> > since this list is echoed to a world-accessible newsgroup, no
> > one posting anything to this list can reasonably expect
> > anything on this list to be treated as "Confidential" or any
> > viewing of any item on this list to have been "received in
> > error".  That the views represented are "solely those of the
> > author" is the only part of the DISCLAIMER that has any
> > validity in this context.  By simply replying to this post
> > without excluding all of the original post I have violated the
> > non-enforceable parts of the disclaimer.
> >
> > JC Ewing
> >
> > On 1/3/24 10:24, Allan Staller wrote:
> >> Classification: Confidential
> >>
> >> test
> >>
> >> ::DISCLAIMER::
> >> 
> >> The contents of this e-mail and any attachment(s) are
> >> confidential and intended for the named recipient(s) only.
> >> E-mail transmission is not guaranteed to be secure or
> >> error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted,
> >> lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or may contain
> >> viruses in transmission. The e mail and its contents (with or
> >> without referred errors) shall therefore not attach any
> >> liability on the originator or HCL or its affiliates. Views or
> >> opinions, if any, presented in this email are solely those of
> >> the author and may not necessarily reflect the views or
> >> opinions of HCL or its affiliates. Any form of reproduction,
> >> dissemination, copying, disclosure, modification, distribution
> >> and / or publication of this message without the prior written
> >> consent of authorized representative of HCL is strictly
> >> prohibited. If you have received this email in error please
> >> delete it and notify the sender immediately. Before opening
> >> any email and/or attachments, please check them for viruses
> >> and other defects.
> >> 
> >>
> >> ...
> >
>
> --
> 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: test. please ignore -- IGNORING YOU IGNORING YOU [not]

[Seymour J Metz]

If they e-mail me your medical information, that is a HIPAA violation even if I 
delete it. If they e-mail me classified documents,, that is a security breach 
even if I deleted it. IANAL, but I don't think that a disclaimer would protect 
you from severe consequences, both civil and criminal. Neither does a 
disclaimer preclude the recipient reporting it to the Feds.

Protect sensitive data; don't rely on disclaimers.

--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
עַם יִשְׂרָאֵל חַי
נֵ֣צַח יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל לֹ֥א יְשַׁקֵּ֖ר


From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  on behalf of 
Steve Thompson 
Sent: Thursday, January 4, 2024 10:23 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: test. please ignore -- IGNORING YOU IGNORING YOU [not]

I am glad you brought this up.

I get these things on individual/entity emails sent directly to
me. I didn't sign for this. How could they prove I got it?

Per USPS regs and some other fed Agency whose name I've
forgotten, if you receive something in the mail addressed to you,
that you didn't ask for, it is yours, even if a bill is sent with
it requiring you to either return it or pay for it. Most may not
know about this. But this went back into the Sixties when
different mass marketing companies that would send out something
like a medallion to hang somewhere (just an example). Well, the
law/regs were changed to make that a free gift to you because why
should you have to return it at your cost when you hadn't asked
for it?

Enter FAX machines used by attorneys. We need to put CYA verbiage
at the bottom of this document. The question is, is it actually
enforceable? This then went to boiler plate on emails from
medical entities (HIPAA stuff). But the regs tell you that data
must be secured

So is a statement to the effect of "this being a non-disclosure
thing" enforceable since one had no other relationship to the
sender, such that no NDA had ever been signed?

So, yeah, glad you mentioned this.

Imagine if it had been marked as classified Top Secret EYES
Only. Could you be charged for having unauthorized classified
data? And just who would you report this to?

On 1/3/2024 4:08 PM, Joel C. Ewing wrote:
> A test of another long-winded, non-enforceable corporate
> disclaimer perhaps?   Don't you just love corporate lawyers.
>
> The named recipient in this case is the IBM-Main list, and
> since this list is echoed to a world-accessible newsgroup, no
> one posting anything to this list can reasonably expect
> anything on this list to be treated as "Confidential" or any
> viewing of any item on this list to have been "received in
> error".  That the views represented are "solely those of the
> author" is the only part of the DISCLAIMER that has any
> validity in this context.  By simply replying to this post
> without excluding all of the original post I have violated the
> non-enforceable parts of the disclaimer.
>
> JC Ewing
>
> On 1/3/24 10:24, Allan Staller wrote:
>> Classification: Confidential
>>
>> test
>>
>> ::DISCLAIMER::
>> 
>> The contents of this e-mail and any attachment(s) are
>> confidential and intended for the named recipient(s) only.
>> E-mail transmission is not guaranteed to be secure or
>> error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted,
>> lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or may contain
>> viruses in transmission. The e mail and its contents (with or
>> without referred errors) shall therefore not attach any
>> liability on the originator or HCL or its affiliates. Views or
>> opinions, if any, presented in this email are solely those of
>> the author and may not necessarily reflect the views or
>> opinions of HCL or its affiliates. Any form of reproduction,
>> dissemination, copying, disclosure, modification, distribution
>> and / or publication of this message without the prior written
>> consent of authorized representative of HCL is strictly
>> prohibited. If you have received this email in error please
>> delete it and notify the sender immediately. Before opening
>> any email and/or attachments, please check them for viruses
>> and other defects.
>> 
>>
>> ...
>

--
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: test. please ignore -- IGNORING YOU IGNORING YOU [not]

[Steve Thompson]

I am glad you brought this up.

I get these things on individual/entity emails sent directly to 
me. I didn't sign for this. How could they prove I got it?


Per USPS regs and some other fed Agency whose name I've 
forgotten, if you receive something in the mail addressed to you, 
that you didn't ask for, it is yours, even if a bill is sent with 
it requiring you to either return it or pay for it. Most may not 
know about this. But this went back into the Sixties when 
different mass marketing companies that would send out something 
like a medallion to hang somewhere (just an example). Well, the 
law/regs were changed to make that a free gift to you because why 
should you have to return it at your cost when you hadn't asked 
for it?


Enter FAX machines used by attorneys. We need to put CYA verbiage 
at the bottom of this document. The question is, is it actually 
enforceable? This then went to boiler plate on emails from 
medical entities (HIPAA stuff). But the regs tell you that data 
must be secured


So is a statement to the effect of "this being a non-disclosure 
thing" enforceable since one had no other relationship to the 
sender, such that no NDA had ever been signed?


So, yeah, glad you mentioned this.

Imagine if it had been marked as classified Top Secret EYES 
Only. Could you be charged for having unauthorized classified 
data? And just who would you report this to?


On 1/3/2024 4:08 PM, Joel C. Ewing wrote:
A test of another long-winded, non-enforceable corporate 
disclaimer perhaps?   Don't you just love corporate lawyers.


The named recipient in this case is the IBM-Main list, and 
since this list is echoed to a world-accessible newsgroup, no 
one posting anything to this list can reasonably expect 
anything on this list to be treated as "Confidential" or any 
viewing of any item on this list to have been "received in 
error".  That the views represented are "solely those of the 
author" is the only part of the DISCLAIMER that has any 
validity in this context.  By simply replying to this post 
without excluding all of the original post I have violated the 
non-enforceable parts of the disclaimer.


    JC Ewing

On 1/3/24 10:24, Allan Staller wrote:

Classification: Confidential

test

::DISCLAIMER::

The contents of this e-mail and any attachment(s) are 
confidential and intended for the named recipient(s) only. 
E-mail transmission is not guaranteed to be secure or 
error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, 
lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or may contain 
viruses in transmission. The e mail and its contents (with or 
without referred errors) shall therefore not attach any 
liability on the originator or HCL or its affiliates. Views or 
opinions, if any, presented in this email are solely those of 
the author and may not necessarily reflect the views or 
opinions of HCL or its affiliates. Any form of reproduction, 
dissemination, copying, disclosure, modification, distribution 
and / or publication of this message without the prior written 
consent of authorized representative of HCL is strictly 
prohibited. If you have received this email in error please 
delete it and notify the sender immediately. Before opening 
any email and/or attachments, please check them for viruses 
and other defects.



...




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

Re: test. please ignore

[Joel C. Ewing]

A test of another long-winded, non-enforceable corporate disclaimer 
perhaps?   Don't you just love corporate lawyers.


The named recipient in this case is the IBM-Main list, and since this 
list is echoed to a world-accessible newsgroup, no one posting anything 
to this list can reasonably expect anything on this list to be treated 
as "Confidential" or any viewing of any item on this list to have been 
"received in error".  That the views represented are "solely those of 
the author" is the only part of the DISCLAIMER that has any validity in 
this context.  By simply replying to this post without excluding all of 
the original post I have violated the non-enforceable parts of the 
disclaimer.


    JC Ewing

On 1/3/24 10:24, Allan Staller wrote:

Classification: Confidential

test

::DISCLAIMER::

The contents of this e-mail and any attachment(s) are confidential and intended 
for the named recipient(s) only. E-mail transmission is not guaranteed to be 
secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, 
destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or may contain viruses in transmission. 
The e mail and its contents (with or without referred errors) shall therefore 
not attach any liability on the originator or HCL or its affiliates. Views or 
opinions, if any, presented in this email are solely those of the author and 
may not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of HCL or its affiliates. Any 
form of reproduction, dissemination, copying, disclosure, modification, 
distribution and / or publication of this message without the prior written 
consent of authorized representative of HCL is strictly prohibited. If you have 
received this email in error please delete it and notify the sender 
immediately. Before opening any email and/or attachments, please check them for 
viruses and other defects.


...


--
Joel C. Ewing


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

test. please ignore

[Allan Staller]

Classification: Confidential

test

::DISCLAIMER::

The contents of this e-mail and any attachment(s) are confidential and intended 
for the named recipient(s) only. E-mail transmission is not guaranteed to be 
secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, 
destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or may contain viruses in transmission. 
The e mail and its contents (with or without referred errors) shall therefore 
not attach any liability on the originator or HCL or its affiliates. Views or 
opinions, if any, presented in this email are solely those of the author and 
may not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of HCL or its affiliates. Any 
form of reproduction, dissemination, copying, disclosure, modification, 
distribution and / or publication of this message without the prior written 
consent of authorized representative of HCL is strictly prohibited. If you have 
received this email in error please delete it and notify the sender 
immediately. Before opening any email and/or attachments, please check them for 
viruses and other defects.


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

Re: Test site for certificate revocation?

[Charles Mills]

@Colin, I can do that. That may be one of the better options.

Thanks all.

Charles

On Wed, 20 Sep 2023 08:22:22 +0100, Colin Paice  wrote:

>You could try openssl s_server
>I use this script on Linux
>
>
>*cert=" -cert ./docec384.pem -certform pem -key docec384.key.pem -keyform
>pem" CA="-chainCAfile ./docca256.pem"*
>*debug="-trace "*
>*port="-port 4433 "*
>*openssl s_server $port $cert  $CA $debug -www  *

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

Re: Test site for certificate revocation?

[Colin Paice]

You could try openssl s_server
I use this script on Linux


*cert=" -cert ./docec384.pem -certform pem -key docec384.key.pem -keyform
pem" CA="-chainCAfile ./docca256.pem"*
*debug="-trace "*
*port="-port 4433 "*
*openssl s_server $port $cert  $CA $debug -www  *

and a web browser to https://127.0.0.1:4433

You'll have to use your own certificates and specify the ip address.

If you need more help,please contact me offline and I'll send you my test
certificates and instructions

Colin


On Wed, 20 Sept 2023 at 01:57, Charles Mills  wrote:

> Yes, that should work. However I don't have an appropriate test server.
>
> Yes, I could set one up ...
>
> Charles
>
> On Wed, 20 Sep 2023 10:36:30 +1000, Andrew Rowley <
> and...@blackhillsoftware.com> wrote:
>
> >On 20/09/2023 8:37 am, Charles Mills wrote:
> >> Does anyone know of a server URL that will present a revoked
> certificate (for my testing purposes)?
> >
> >Can you create a certificate for your own test site with Lets Encrypt,
> >then revoke it?
>
> --
> 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: Test site for certificate revocation?

[Charles Mills]

Yes, that should work. However I don't have an appropriate test server. 

Yes, I could set one up ...

Charles

On Wed, 20 Sep 2023 10:36:30 +1000, Andrew Rowley 
 wrote:

>On 20/09/2023 8:37 am, Charles Mills wrote:
>> Does anyone know of a server URL that will present a revoked certificate 
>> (for my testing purposes)?
>
>Can you create a certificate for your own test site with Lets Encrypt,
>then revoke it?

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

Re: Test site for certificate revocation?

[Andrew Rowley]

On 20/09/2023 8:37 am, Charles Mills wrote:

Does anyone know of a server URL that will present a revoked certificate (for 
my testing purposes)?


Can you create a certificate for your own test site with Lets Encrypt, 
then revoke it?


--
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: Test site for certificate revocation?

[Tom Brennan]

I'll email...

On 9/19/2023 5:23 PM, Charles Mills wrote:

Ditto -- my client is running on z/OS, Darren! System SSL and RACF!

Seriously, if you have revoked the certificate used by a Web server then a 
conforming browser should refuse to connect, of at least complain loudly.

Can you give me the URL and port? Off-list if you prefer. I will let you know 
what I see.

Charles

On Tue, 19 Sep 2023 17:12:04 -0700, Tom Brennan  
wrote:


So I just went to zerossl.com (what I use) and issued a revoke for a
cert.  Zerossl's web site marks it as revoked.  Of course that doesn't
affect the use of that cert on the web site, so I basically don't
understand what the use of "revoked" might be.  If zerossl DID mark the
actual certificate file/key, I'll never know because there's no option
to download once revoked.

And just do Darren doesn't banish me, these are certs running on an x86
Linux box under my desk, but I'm thinking of moving them to a new z16.


--
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: Test site for certificate revocation?

[Charles Mills]

Ditto -- my client is running on z/OS, Darren! System SSL and RACF!

Seriously, if you have revoked the certificate used by a Web server then a 
conforming browser should refuse to connect, of at least complain loudly.

Can you give me the URL and port? Off-list if you prefer. I will let you know 
what I see.

Charles

On Tue, 19 Sep 2023 17:12:04 -0700, Tom Brennan  
wrote:

>So I just went to zerossl.com (what I use) and issued a revoke for a
>cert.  Zerossl's web site marks it as revoked.  Of course that doesn't
>affect the use of that cert on the web site, so I basically don't
>understand what the use of "revoked" might be.  If zerossl DID mark the
>actual certificate file/key, I'll never know because there's no option
>to download once revoked.
>
>And just do Darren doesn't banish me, these are certs running on an x86
>Linux box under my desk, but I'm thinking of moving them to a new z16.

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

Re: Test site for certificate revocation?

[Tom Brennan]

I have at least one expired cert on a web site I can use for testing, 
but that doesn't seem to be what you want.  You want something 
specifically marked as revoked, right?


So I just went to zerossl.com (what I use) and issued a revoke for a 
cert.  Zerossl's web site marks it as revoked.  Of course that doesn't 
affect the use of that cert on the web site, so I basically don't 
understand what the use of "revoked" might be.  If zerossl DID mark the 
actual certificate file/key, I'll never know because there's no option 
to download once revoked.


And just do Darren doesn't banish me, these are certs running on an x86 
Linux box under my desk, but I'm thinking of moving them to a new z16. 
It will have to be the new AGZ rack-mount in order to fit under my desk.


On 9/19/2023 3:37 PM, Charles Mills wrote:

Does anyone know of a server URL that will present a revoked certificate (for 
my testing purposes)?

There are several that a Google search turns up but

- https://revoked.badssl.com/ is expired and expired certificates are never 
revoked
- https://www.digicert.com/kb/digicert-root-certificates.htm has a bunch of 
revoked test URLs but my client fails on the SNI name, not on revocation. I 
guess I could add an option to make SNI optional but I would rather not do that.

Does anyone have another test site?

You should be able to test it with any browser (assuming it is an https site). If you try 
to open the URL in your browser you should get a "revoked" error.

Thanks!

Charles

--
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

Test site for certificate revocation?

[Charles Mills]

Does anyone know of a server URL that will present a revoked certificate (for 
my testing purposes)?

There are several that a Google search turns up but

- https://revoked.badssl.com/ is expired and expired certificates are never 
revoked
- https://www.digicert.com/kb/digicert-root-certificates.htm has a bunch of 
revoked test URLs but my client fails on the SNI name, not on revocation. I 
guess I could add an option to make SNI optional but I would rather not do that.

Does anyone have another test site?

You should be able to test it with any browser (assuming it is an https site). 
If you try to open the URL in your browser you should get a "revoked" error.

Thanks!

Charles

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

TEST Probe

[esst...@juno.com]

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

Re: Red Alert Test Email

[Doug Shupe]

I got 3 

Stay Safe

> On May 24, 2023, at 18:07, Mark Jacobs 
> <0224d287a4b1-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
> 
> Did anyone else get one today? There's nothing new on the actual red alert 
> landing page.
> 
> Mark Jacobs
> 
> Sent from [ProtonMail](https://protonmail.com), Swiss-based encrypted email.
> 
> GPG Public Key - 
> https://api.protonmail.ch/pks/lookup?op=get&search=markjac...@protonmail.com
> 
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

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

Re: Red Alert Test Email

[Michael Babcock]

+1

On Wed, May 24, 2023 at 5:07 PM Mark Jacobs <
0224d287a4b1-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:

> Did anyone else get one today? There's nothing new on the actual red alert
> landing page.
>
> Mark Jacobs
>
> Sent from [ProtonMail](https://protonmail.com), Swiss-based encrypted
> email.
>
> GPG Public Key -
> https://api.protonmail.ch/pks/lookup?op=get&search=markjac...@protonmail.com
>
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>
-- 
Michael Babcock
OneMain Financial
z/OS Systems Programmer, Lead

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

Re: Red Alert Test Email

[Bonnie Barthel]

Yes, I got one

Bonnie Barthel
Senior IT Specialist
719.649.7888 Mobile
bonnie.bart...@kyndryl.com


-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
Beverly Caldwell
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2023 4:11 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Red Alert Test Email

Yes I got one.

On Wed, May 24, 2023, 5:07 PM Mark Jacobs < 
0224d287a4b1-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:

> Did anyone else get one today? There's nothing new on the actual red 
> alert landing page.
>
> Mark Jacobs
>
> Sent from 
> [ProtonMail](https://protonmail.com ), Swiss-based encrypted email.
>
> GPG Public Key -
> INVALID URI REMOVED
> _pks_lookup-3Fop-3Dget-26search-3Dmarkjacobs-40protonmail.com&d=DwIBaQ
> &c=cCoa5WWAB7EEETJScYfkXg&r=woH4fsP2sESv4r4eRssHrveZVCZvjl4tjInsVb9WqF
> s&m=u45L56oiU1b1e4ILtCyzR-z7eW_QqeT382XR7in_za2P1Ngym7rgKzt1cJ3DpFsS&s
> =p0knoN-35ljqoL08G3AQFO5CfZIIGHXSisPME5OfV1Q&e=
>
> --
> 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: Red Alert Test Email

[Beverly Caldwell]

Yes I got one.

On Wed, May 24, 2023, 5:07 PM Mark Jacobs <
0224d287a4b1-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:

> Did anyone else get one today? There's nothing new on the actual red alert
> landing page.
>
> Mark Jacobs
>
> Sent from [ProtonMail](https://protonmail.com), Swiss-based encrypted
> email.
>
> GPG Public Key -
> https://api.protonmail.ch/pks/lookup?op=get&search=markjac...@protonmail.com
>
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>

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

Red Alert Test Email

[Mark Jacobs]

Did anyone else get one today? There's nothing new on the actual red alert 
landing page.

Mark Jacobs

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

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

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

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

[Laurence Chiu]

This is a vendor package. Upon asking they said they only support RLS for
sharing. So there are no other options.

On Wed, Mar 8, 2023, 2:58 PM Dale R. Smith

>
> IBM has a product called "CICS VSAM Transparency for z/OS" that claims you
> can migrate VSAM Files to Db2 Tables without having to change any program
> code.
> https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/ibm-cics-vsam-transparency-zos
>
> From the web page:
>
> IBM CICS VSAM Transparency for z/OS
>
> Helps you migrate valuable data from VSAM files to Db2 tables in a manner
> that can evolve as business needs change
>
> IBM® CICS® VSAM Transparency helps you move valuable data from VSAM files
> to Db2® tables. This migration can evolve as your business requirements
> dictate, without having to modify your CICS® and batch VSAM application
> programs. You can access the Db2® data 24x7, as well as integrate your data
> with new and existing Db2® applications, preserving your core investments
> and avoiding costly application rewrites.
>
> I'm sure it's not cheap, but it would allow you to share the data and it
> may be cheaper than what you would need to do to share a VSAM file.
>
> I have no experience with the product so I don't know if it works as
> advertised.
>
> --
> Dale R. Smith
>
> --
> 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: Running a Coupling Facility using a CP for a test Parallel Sysplex 0 anyh gotcha's?

[Laurence Chiu]

Hadn't considered that. Based on what the outsourcer has advised us I doubt
this has even crossed their mind.

On Thu, Mar 9, 2023, 6:19 PM Timothy Sipples  wrote:

> The only other thing I can think of is that some operators (some
> outsourcers for example) might not have — or know how to perform — capacity
> measurement, planning, chargeback accounting (ugh!), or contractual
> arrangements when running the CFCC on general purpose processors (CPs).
> Those are not a technical limitations. You/they can do all of that for CF
> workloads straightforwardly. But those "technobusiness" factors might
> explain some reticence if you're observing any.
>
> — — — — —
> 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: Running a Coupling Facility using a CP for a test Parallel Sysplex 0 anyh gotcha's?

[Timothy Sipples]

The only other thing I can think of is that some operators (some outsourcers 
for example) might not have — or know how to perform — capacity measurement, 
planning, chargeback accounting (ugh!), or contractual arrangements when 
running the CFCC on general purpose processors (CPs). Those are not a technical 
limitations. You/they can do all of that for CF workloads straightforwardly. 
But those "technobusiness" factors might explain some reticence if you're 
observing any.

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

[Laurence Chiu]

That is my view. The application team won't care if the application is
performing slowly since this is just a functional test.  It means a path
to HA on the production server. And in my view it doesn't matter if the
engine is an ICF of GP - the load is going to be low on it.

On Thu, Mar 9, 2023 at 3:49 AM Martin Packer 
wrote:

> You don’t need a dedicated engine to test CF – unless your test is a
> Performance test. And then possibly a single one wouldn’t be helpful.
> Function test should be fine with any old engine.
>
>

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

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

[Martin Packer]

You don’t need a dedicated engine to test CF – unless your test is a 
Performance test. And then possibly a single one wouldn’t be helpful. Function 
test should be fine with any old engine.

From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  on behalf of 
Laurence Chiu 
Date: Sunday, 5 March 2023 at 14:05
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Running a Coupling Facility using a CP for a test 
Parallel Sysplex 0 anyh gotcha's?
The debate I am having with the outsourcer is whether or not it's feasible
or even practical to run a test CF on a general purpose engine. They say it
requires a dedicated engine and I think that is nonsense!

If I can get that over the line (and that is the challenge) then I can
suggest what you recommended below. And since I don't need one CF, I might
need even fewer resources.


On Sun, Mar 5, 2023 at 5:39 PM Mike Schwab  wrote:

> To avoid impacting other systems, I would drop your LPAR weights by a
> total of 6%, trim your LPAR memory to reuse for the ICFs,  then create
> your two ICF partitions with 3% of 1 CPU and the reclaimed memory..
>
> On Sat, Mar 4, 2023 at 2:55 PM Laurence Chiu  wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for the input.
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Mar 5, 2023 at 7:41 AM Mike Schwab 
> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342570694_Coupling_Facility_Configuration_Options_-_Updated_2020
> > >
> >
> > I am familiar with that document and even provided a copy to our
> outsourcer
> > to read but clearly they hadn't
> >
> > This is a direct link to IBM for that document.
> >
> > https://www.ibm.com/downloads/cas/JZB2E38Q
> >
> >
> >
> > > CF is not counted on SCRT, shown on RMF reports.
> > > Won't cost you on z/OS, may on some vendors.
> > >
> >
> > I don't care so much as this CF is only System B and for development so
> > using a general purpose engine is not an issue for us. The MSU charges
> are
> > going to be low and we are prepared to pay those if it gets us our
> parallel
> > sysplex
> >
> >
> >
> > > Thin CFs go to enabled wait when work is completed, restart when
> > > interrupt says there is work.
> > >
> > > Estimate is 3% light sharing to 13% heaving sharing (of z/OS workload).
> > >
> > > Thin CF would use internal links so no I/O overhead to another CPU.
> > >
> > > For the testing CF on the same system as the test Sysplex that is fine.
> > But they say there are no spare links from System B to System A if I
> wanted
> > to run a test Sysplex on System B and access a CF on System A.
> >
> > This is their response I had to manage
> >
> >
> > To give an idea of what I am facing, this is their response to my
> proposals.
> >
> > Using a General Purpose CP (GCP)  as a coupling facility on System B(z13
> at
> > WithDrawn From Marketing Licensed Internal Code)
> > • There are no spare unallocated GCP on System B i.e no “parked” GCP.
> > • All GCP’s, on System B, are allocated as shared, across all LPARS. i.e.
> > no dedicated GCP’s.
> > • Sharing GCP’s to use for z/OS and as a coupling facility is strongly
> not
> > recommended FYI coupling facility engines run CFCC (coupling facility
> > control code) rather than z/OS.
> > • This possibly I believe is now exhausted.
> >
> > I think all these points are contestable, specially after reading the IBM
> > document from a specialist in this area
> >
> > I just need to get some authoritative voice onto the case, ideally the
> > author of the document but that might not be easy.
> >
> > --
> > 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
>

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

Unless otherwise stated above:

IBM United Kingdom Limited
Registered in England and Wales with number 741598
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hants. PO6 3AU


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

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

[Wayne Bickerdike]

CICS/VSAM transparency may not solve this problem. You would need to
implement DB2 data sharing and that's not simple if you don't already use
data sharing.

ISI Pty in Melbourne also market a VSAM transparency product. I supported
this product for many years and it is still in use at one large Australian
bank. The ISI version works better than the IBM product which was a
bought-in product from a 3rd party vendor.

For less complex VSAM applications, I considered trying to transform VSAM
read/writes to CF equivalents because the code path overhead is large for
high volume VSAM I/O. The magic is in the intercepts for batch and CICS.

On Wed, Mar 8, 2023 at 12:57 PM Dale R. Smith 
wrote:

> On Wed, 8 Mar 2023 11:35:09 +1300, Laurence Chiu  wrote:
>
> >Just to explain why we need two LPARs. The application uses a VSAM dataset
> >which is updated for all incoming transactions.  If we want to run two
> >instances of that application on two different LPARs to provide
> >availability even if one of the LPARs goes offline for any reason, then
> the
> >VSAM dataset needs to be shared across the two instances when both are
> >running to support concurrent access.
> >
> >The only other option for the two LPARs on the same CEC is possibly VSAM
> >ShareOptions but given this is a package from a vendor, it might not be
> >coded to support the right queueing and de-queueing of access to that
> >dataset.
>
> IBM has a product called "CICS VSAM Transparency for z/OS" that claims you
> can migrate VSAM Files to Db2 Tables without having to change any program
> code.
> https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/ibm-cics-vsam-transparency-zos
>
> From the web page:
>
> IBM CICS VSAM Transparency for z/OS
>
> Helps you migrate valuable data from VSAM files to Db2 tables in a manner
> that can evolve as business needs change
>
> IBM® CICS® VSAM Transparency helps you move valuable data from VSAM files
> to Db2® tables. This migration can evolve as your business requirements
> dictate, without having to modify your CICS® and batch VSAM application
> programs. You can access the Db2® data 24x7, as well as integrate your data
> with new and existing Db2® applications, preserving your core investments
> and avoiding costly application rewrites.
>
> I'm sure it's not cheap, but it would allow you to share the data and it
> may be cheaper than what you would need to do to share a VSAM file.
>
> I have no experience with the product so I don't know if it works as
> advertised.
>
> --
> Dale R. Smith
>
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>


-- 
Wayne V. Bickerdike

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

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

[Dale R. Smith]

On Wed, 8 Mar 2023 11:35:09 +1300, Laurence Chiu  wrote:

>Just to explain why we need two LPARs. The application uses a VSAM dataset
>which is updated for all incoming transactions.  If we want to run two
>instances of that application on two different LPARs to provide
>availability even if one of the LPARs goes offline for any reason, then the
>VSAM dataset needs to be shared across the two instances when both are
>running to support concurrent access.
>
>The only other option for the two LPARs on the same CEC is possibly VSAM
>ShareOptions but given this is a package from a vendor, it might not be
>coded to support the right queueing and de-queueing of access to that
>dataset.

IBM has a product called "CICS VSAM Transparency for z/OS" that claims you can 
migrate VSAM Files to Db2 Tables without having to change any program code.
https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/ibm-cics-vsam-transparency-zos

From the web page:

IBM CICS VSAM Transparency for z/OS

Helps you migrate valuable data from VSAM files to Db2 tables in a manner that 
can evolve as business needs change

IBM® CICS® VSAM Transparency helps you move valuable data from VSAM files to 
Db2® tables. This migration can evolve as your business requirements dictate, 
without having to modify your CICS® and batch VSAM application programs. You 
can access the Db2® data 24x7, as well as integrate your data with new and 
existing Db2® applications, preserving your core investments and avoiding 
costly application rewrites. 

I'm sure it's not cheap, but it would allow you to share the data and it may be 
cheaper than what you would need to do to share a VSAM file.

I have no experience with the product so I don't know if it works as advertised.

-- 
Dale R. Smith

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

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

[Laurence Chiu]

Just to explain why we need two LPARs. The application uses a VSAM dataset
which is updated for all incoming transactions.  If we want to run two
instances of that application on two different LPARs to provide
availability even if one of the LPARs goes offline for any reason, then the
VSAM dataset needs to be shared across the two instances when both are
running to support concurrent access.

The only other option for the two LPARs on the same CEC is possibly VSAM
ShareOptions but given this is a package from a vendor, it might not be
coded to support the right queueing and de-queueing of access to that
dataset.


> ..
>
> 2. Just in case there's any confusion VSAM RLS (and Transactional
> VSAM, i.e. z/OS DFSMStvs) do(es) not require two or more z/OS instances. A
> single z/OS instance with a single CF is the minimum configuration for
> those VSAM features.
>
> 3. If you do run two or more z/OS instances (a "Parallel Sysplex in a
> box") that can be a lovely configuration, but just bear in mind if the site
> or machine go offline (planned or unplanned) then you lose the whole
> Sysplex. Nonetheless a "Parallel Sysplex in a box" provides a great deal of
> value in terms of protecting against various software-related issues that
> would affect service availability if you only had one z/OS instance.
> Hypothetically a single CF could topple over and/or require a planned
> outage even without anything else going offline, but even with one CF the
> "Parallel Sysplex in a box" is rather good.
>
> 4. Check for and apply all relevant firmware, z/OS, and middleware updates
> (of course).
>
> — — — — —
> 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: Running a Coupling Facility using a CP for a test Parallel Sysplex 0 anyh gotcha's?

[Laurence Chiu]

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

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

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

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

[Laurence Chiu]

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

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

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

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

[Mike Schwab]

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

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

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

[Gibney, Dave]

Does an OOS z13 support ICF thin provisioning with nterrupts?

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

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

[Mike Schwab]

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

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

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

[Attila Fogarasi]

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

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


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

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

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

[Allan Staller]

Classification: Confidential

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

HTH

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

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

The situation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks

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

The contents of this e-mail and any attachment(s) are confidential and intended 
for the named recipient(s) only. E-mail transmission is not guaranteed to be 
secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, 
destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or may contain viruses in transmission. 
The e mail and its content

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

[Timothy Sipples]

I think you've covered most of the bases. A few points from me:

1. If you can afford to dedicate a whole engine to the production Coupling 
Facility — at least for the intervals when you're using the production CF 
"nontrivially" — then that'd be ideal. But if you cannot afford a whole engine 
(general purpose processor in this case) then see how your testing goes. The 
basic point is you really don't want production z/OS to stall, waiting for CF 
services.

2. Just in case there's any confusion VSAM RLS (and Transactional VSAM, 
i.e. z/OS DFSMStvs) do(es) not require two or more z/OS instances. A single 
z/OS instance with a single CF is the minimum configuration for those VSAM 
features.

3. If you do run two or more z/OS instances (a "Parallel Sysplex in a box") 
that can be a lovely configuration, but just bear in mind if the site or 
machine go offline (planned or unplanned) then you lose the whole Sysplex. 
Nonetheless a "Parallel Sysplex in a box" provides a great deal of value in 
terms of protecting against various software-related issues that would affect 
service availability if you only had one z/OS instance. Hypothetically a single 
CF could topple over and/or require a planned outage even without anything else 
going offline, but even with one CF the "Parallel Sysplex in a box" is rather 
good.

4. Check for and apply all relevant firmware, z/OS, and middleware updates (of 
course).

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

[Mike Schwab]

Since you will be  the only user, no one else will be impacted.

On Sun, Mar 5, 2023 at 3:49 PM Laurence Chiu  wrote:
>
> That's the debate I'm having. The CF is only to support VSAM RLS and most
> of the time only one member of the sysplex will be up so the load on the CF
> is not going to be high.
>
> I just can't persuade the outsourcer we don't need a dedicated engine for
> the CF.
>
> On Mon, Mar 6, 2023, 9:49 AM Seymour J Metz  wrote:
>
> > The issue is performance. Depending on what you are doing, the degraded
> > performance may be acceptable.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
> > http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
> >
> > 
> > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf
> > of Laurence Chiu [lch...@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Sunday, March 5, 2023 2:05 PM
> > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> > Subject: Re: Running a Coupling Facility using a CP for a test Parallel
> > Sysplex 0 anyh gotcha's?
> >
> > The debate I am having with the outsourcer is whether or not it's feasible
> > or even practical to run a test CF on a general purpose engine. They say it
> > requires a dedicated engine and I think that is nonsense!
> >
> > If I can get that over the line (and that is the challenge) then I can
> > suggest what you recommended below. And since I don't need one CF, I might
> > need even fewer resources.
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Mar 5, 2023 at 5:39 PM Mike Schwab 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > To avoid impacting other systems, I would drop your LPAR weights by a
> > > total of 6%, trim your LPAR memory to reuse for the ICFs,  then create
> > > your two ICF partitions with 3% of 1 CPU and the reclaimed memory..
> > >
> > > On Sat, Mar 4, 2023 at 2:55 PM Laurence Chiu  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for the input.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, Mar 5, 2023 at 7:41 AM Mike Schwab 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Fpublication%2F342570694_Coupling_Facility_Configuration_Options_-_Updated_2020&data=05%7C01%7Csmetz3%40gmu.edu%7C436800a18ba54430093908db1daca96d%7C9e857255df574c47a0c00546460380cb%7C0%7C0%7C638136399655620282%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=HYoo%2FosMEZw5JHKVlB0T%2F2llYz5vokvdUSyxKpIB3Do%3D&reserved=0
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I am familiar with that document and even provided a copy to our
> > > outsourcer
> > > > to read but clearly they hadn't
> > > >
> > > > This is a direct link to IBM for that document.
> > > >
> > > >
> > https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ibm.com%2Fdownloads%2Fcas%2FJZB2E38Q&data=05%7C01%7Csmetz3%40gmu.edu%7C436800a18ba54430093908db1daca96d%7C9e857255df574c47a0c00546460380cb%7C0%7C0%7C638136399655776514%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=tnP0qr0DTsTupn4v2ayadx5%2FmP%2BKlg8RXncytv1PUiA%3D&reserved=0
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > CF is not counted on SCRT, shown on RMF reports.
> > > > > Won't cost you on z/OS, may on some vendors.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I don't care so much as this CF is only System B and for development so
> > > > using a general purpose engine is not an issue for us. The MSU charges
> > > are
> > > > going to be low and we are prepared to pay those if it gets us our
> > > parallel
> > > > sysplex
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Thin CFs go to enabled wait when work is completed, restart when
> > > > > interrupt says there is work.
> > > > >
> > > > > Estimate is 3% light sharing to 13% heaving sharing (of z/OS
> > workload).
> > > > >
> > > > > Thin CF would use internal links so no I/O overhead to another CPU.
> > > > >
> > > > > For the testing CF on the same system as the test Sysplex that is
> > fine.
> > > > But they say there are no spare links from System B to System A if I
> > > wanted
> > > > to run a test Sysplex on System B and access a CF on System A.
> > > >
> > > &

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

[Laurence Chiu]

That's the debate I'm having. The CF is only to support VSAM RLS and most
of the time only one member of the sysplex will be up so the load on the CF
is not going to be high.

I just can't persuade the outsourcer we don't need a dedicated engine for
the CF.

On Mon, Mar 6, 2023, 9:49 AM Seymour J Metz  wrote:

> The issue is performance. Depending on what you are doing, the degraded
> performance may be acceptable.
>
>
> --
> Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
> http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
>
> 
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf
> of Laurence Chiu [lch...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Sunday, March 5, 2023 2:05 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: Running a Coupling Facility using a CP for a test Parallel
> Sysplex 0 anyh gotcha's?
>
> The debate I am having with the outsourcer is whether or not it's feasible
> or even practical to run a test CF on a general purpose engine. They say it
> requires a dedicated engine and I think that is nonsense!
>
> If I can get that over the line (and that is the challenge) then I can
> suggest what you recommended below. And since I don't need one CF, I might
> need even fewer resources.
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 5, 2023 at 5:39 PM Mike Schwab 
> wrote:
>
> > To avoid impacting other systems, I would drop your LPAR weights by a
> > total of 6%, trim your LPAR memory to reuse for the ICFs,  then create
> > your two ICF partitions with 3% of 1 CPU and the reclaimed memory..
> >
> > On Sat, Mar 4, 2023 at 2:55 PM Laurence Chiu  wrote:
> > >
> > > Thanks for the input.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sun, Mar 5, 2023 at 7:41 AM Mike Schwab 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Fpublication%2F342570694_Coupling_Facility_Configuration_Options_-_Updated_2020&data=05%7C01%7Csmetz3%40gmu.edu%7C436800a18ba54430093908db1daca96d%7C9e857255df574c47a0c00546460380cb%7C0%7C0%7C638136399655620282%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=HYoo%2FosMEZw5JHKVlB0T%2F2llYz5vokvdUSyxKpIB3Do%3D&reserved=0
> > > >
> > >
> > > I am familiar with that document and even provided a copy to our
> > outsourcer
> > > to read but clearly they hadn't
> > >
> > > This is a direct link to IBM for that document.
> > >
> > >
> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ibm.com%2Fdownloads%2Fcas%2FJZB2E38Q&data=05%7C01%7Csmetz3%40gmu.edu%7C436800a18ba54430093908db1daca96d%7C9e857255df574c47a0c00546460380cb%7C0%7C0%7C638136399655776514%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=tnP0qr0DTsTupn4v2ayadx5%2FmP%2BKlg8RXncytv1PUiA%3D&reserved=0
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > CF is not counted on SCRT, shown on RMF reports.
> > > > Won't cost you on z/OS, may on some vendors.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I don't care so much as this CF is only System B and for development so
> > > using a general purpose engine is not an issue for us. The MSU charges
> > are
> > > going to be low and we are prepared to pay those if it gets us our
> > parallel
> > > sysplex
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > Thin CFs go to enabled wait when work is completed, restart when
> > > > interrupt says there is work.
> > > >
> > > > Estimate is 3% light sharing to 13% heaving sharing (of z/OS
> workload).
> > > >
> > > > Thin CF would use internal links so no I/O overhead to another CPU.
> > > >
> > > > For the testing CF on the same system as the test Sysplex that is
> fine.
> > > But they say there are no spare links from System B to System A if I
> > wanted
> > > to run a test Sysplex on System B and access a CF on System A.
> > >
> > > This is their response I had to manage
> > >
> > >
> > > To give an idea of what I am facing, this is their response to my
> > proposals.
> > >
> > > Using a General Purpose CP (GCP)  as a coupling facility on System
> B(z13
> > at
> > > WithDrawn From Marketing Licensed Internal Code)
> > > • There are no spare unallocated GCP on System B i.e no “parked” GCP.
> > > • All GCP’s, on System B, are allocated as shared, across all LPARS.
> i.e.
> > > no dedicated GCP’

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

[Seymour J Metz]

AFAIK, the only issues for connecting two LPARS with a CF running on a CP of 
the same CEC are cost and performance.

For cross-CEC connections, a CTCA link is enough for XCF, but anything more, 
e.g., GRS star, requires a CF link.


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


From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of 
Laurence Chiu [lch...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, March 3, 2023 10:34 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Running a Coupling Facility using a CP for a test Parallel Sysplex 0 
anyh gotcha's?

The situation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ibm.com%2Fdownloads%2Fcas%2FJZB2E38Q&data=05%7C01%7Csmetz3%40gmu.edu%7Cdf1956e16dcf4821e3cf08db1c616edf%7C9e857255df574c47a0c00546460380cb%7C0%7C0%7C638134977044989164%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=lSiwgmIAvYohgwejbgEGTNu94ELAAPA%2Fq0lFp7g%2FJ2Y%3D&reserved=0
the option is discussed in great detail and the only negatives are the
incurring of MSU costs and some performance degradation if both a z/OS and
CF LPAR are trying to use the same CP at the same time.  But this can be
managed.

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

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

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

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

Thanks

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

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

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

[Seymour J Metz]

The issue is performance. Depending on what you are doing, the degraded 
performance may be acceptable.


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


From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of 
Laurence Chiu [lch...@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 5, 2023 2:05 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Running a Coupling Facility using a CP for a test Parallel Sysplex 
0 anyh gotcha's?

The debate I am having with the outsourcer is whether or not it's feasible
or even practical to run a test CF on a general purpose engine. They say it
requires a dedicated engine and I think that is nonsense!

If I can get that over the line (and that is the challenge) then I can
suggest what you recommended below. And since I don't need one CF, I might
need even fewer resources.


On Sun, Mar 5, 2023 at 5:39 PM Mike Schwab  wrote:

> To avoid impacting other systems, I would drop your LPAR weights by a
> total of 6%, trim your LPAR memory to reuse for the ICFs,  then create
> your two ICF partitions with 3% of 1 CPU and the reclaimed memory..
>
> On Sat, Mar 4, 2023 at 2:55 PM Laurence Chiu  wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for the input.
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Mar 5, 2023 at 7:41 AM Mike Schwab 
> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Fpublication%2F342570694_Coupling_Facility_Configuration_Options_-_Updated_2020&data=05%7C01%7Csmetz3%40gmu.edu%7C436800a18ba54430093908db1daca96d%7C9e857255df574c47a0c00546460380cb%7C0%7C0%7C638136399655620282%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=HYoo%2FosMEZw5JHKVlB0T%2F2llYz5vokvdUSyxKpIB3Do%3D&reserved=0
> > >
> >
> > I am familiar with that document and even provided a copy to our
> outsourcer
> > to read but clearly they hadn't
> >
> > This is a direct link to IBM for that document.
> >
> > https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ibm.com%2Fdownloads%2Fcas%2FJZB2E38Q&data=05%7C01%7Csmetz3%40gmu.edu%7C436800a18ba54430093908db1daca96d%7C9e857255df574c47a0c00546460380cb%7C0%7C0%7C638136399655776514%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=tnP0qr0DTsTupn4v2ayadx5%2FmP%2BKlg8RXncytv1PUiA%3D&reserved=0
> >
> >
> >
> > > CF is not counted on SCRT, shown on RMF reports.
> > > Won't cost you on z/OS, may on some vendors.
> > >
> >
> > I don't care so much as this CF is only System B and for development so
> > using a general purpose engine is not an issue for us. The MSU charges
> are
> > going to be low and we are prepared to pay those if it gets us our
> parallel
> > sysplex
> >
> >
> >
> > > Thin CFs go to enabled wait when work is completed, restart when
> > > interrupt says there is work.
> > >
> > > Estimate is 3% light sharing to 13% heaving sharing (of z/OS workload).
> > >
> > > Thin CF would use internal links so no I/O overhead to another CPU.
> > >
> > > For the testing CF on the same system as the test Sysplex that is fine.
> > But they say there are no spare links from System B to System A if I
> wanted
> > to run a test Sysplex on System B and access a CF on System A.
> >
> > This is their response I had to manage
> >
> >
> > To give an idea of what I am facing, this is their response to my
> proposals.
> >
> > Using a General Purpose CP (GCP)  as a coupling facility on System B(z13
> at
> > WithDrawn From Marketing Licensed Internal Code)
> > • There are no spare unallocated GCP on System B i.e no “parked” GCP.
> > • All GCP’s, on System B, are allocated as shared, across all LPARS. i.e.
> > no dedicated GCP’s.
> > • Sharing GCP’s to use for z/OS and as a coupling facility is strongly
> not
> > recommended FYI coupling facility engines run CFCC (coupling facility
> > control code) rather than z/OS.
> > • This possibly I believe is now exhausted.
> >
> > I think all these points are contestable, specially after reading the IBM
> > document from a specialist in this area
> >
> > I just need to get some authoritative voice onto the case, ideally the
> > author of the document but that might not be easy.
> >
> > --
> > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-

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

[Laurence Chiu]

The debate I am having with the outsourcer is whether or not it's feasible
or even practical to run a test CF on a general purpose engine. They say it
requires a dedicated engine and I think that is nonsense!

If I can get that over the line (and that is the challenge) then I can
suggest what you recommended below. And since I don't need one CF, I might
need even fewer resources.


On Sun, Mar 5, 2023 at 5:39 PM Mike Schwab  wrote:

> To avoid impacting other systems, I would drop your LPAR weights by a
> total of 6%, trim your LPAR memory to reuse for the ICFs,  then create
> your two ICF partitions with 3% of 1 CPU and the reclaimed memory..
>
> On Sat, Mar 4, 2023 at 2:55 PM Laurence Chiu  wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for the input.
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Mar 5, 2023 at 7:41 AM Mike Schwab 
> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342570694_Coupling_Facility_Configuration_Options_-_Updated_2020
> > >
> >
> > I am familiar with that document and even provided a copy to our
> outsourcer
> > to read but clearly they hadn't
> >
> > This is a direct link to IBM for that document.
> >
> > https://www.ibm.com/downloads/cas/JZB2E38Q
> >
> >
> >
> > > CF is not counted on SCRT, shown on RMF reports.
> > > Won't cost you on z/OS, may on some vendors.
> > >
> >
> > I don't care so much as this CF is only System B and for development so
> > using a general purpose engine is not an issue for us. The MSU charges
> are
> > going to be low and we are prepared to pay those if it gets us our
> parallel
> > sysplex
> >
> >
> >
> > > Thin CFs go to enabled wait when work is completed, restart when
> > > interrupt says there is work.
> > >
> > > Estimate is 3% light sharing to 13% heaving sharing (of z/OS workload).
> > >
> > > Thin CF would use internal links so no I/O overhead to another CPU.
> > >
> > > For the testing CF on the same system as the test Sysplex that is fine.
> > But they say there are no spare links from System B to System A if I
> wanted
> > to run a test Sysplex on System B and access a CF on System A.
> >
> > This is their response I had to manage
> >
> >
> > To give an idea of what I am facing, this is their response to my
> proposals.
> >
> > Using a General Purpose CP (GCP)  as a coupling facility on System B(z13
> at
> > WithDrawn From Marketing Licensed Internal Code)
> > • There are no spare unallocated GCP on System B i.e no “parked” GCP.
> > • All GCP’s, on System B, are allocated as shared, across all LPARS. i.e.
> > no dedicated GCP’s.
> > • Sharing GCP’s to use for z/OS and as a coupling facility is strongly
> not
> > recommended FYI coupling facility engines run CFCC (coupling facility
> > control code) rather than z/OS.
> > • This possibly I believe is now exhausted.
> >
> > I think all these points are contestable, specially after reading the IBM
> > document from a specialist in this area
> >
> > I just need to get some authoritative voice onto the case, ideally the
> > author of the document but that might not be easy.
> >
> > --
> > 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
>

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

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

[Mike Schwab]

To avoid impacting other systems, I would drop your LPAR weights by a
total of 6%, trim your LPAR memory to reuse for the ICFs,  then create
your two ICF partitions with 3% of 1 CPU and the reclaimed memory..

On Sat, Mar 4, 2023 at 2:55 PM Laurence Chiu  wrote:
>
> Thanks for the input.
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 5, 2023 at 7:41 AM Mike Schwab  wrote:
>
> >
> > https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342570694_Coupling_Facility_Configuration_Options_-_Updated_2020
> >
>
> I am familiar with that document and even provided a copy to our outsourcer
> to read but clearly they hadn't
>
> This is a direct link to IBM for that document.
>
> https://www.ibm.com/downloads/cas/JZB2E38Q
>
>
>
> > CF is not counted on SCRT, shown on RMF reports.
> > Won't cost you on z/OS, may on some vendors.
> >
>
> I don't care so much as this CF is only System B and for development so
> using a general purpose engine is not an issue for us. The MSU charges are
> going to be low and we are prepared to pay those if it gets us our parallel
> sysplex
>
>
>
> > Thin CFs go to enabled wait when work is completed, restart when
> > interrupt says there is work.
> >
> > Estimate is 3% light sharing to 13% heaving sharing (of z/OS workload).
> >
> > Thin CF would use internal links so no I/O overhead to another CPU.
> >
> > For the testing CF on the same system as the test Sysplex that is fine.
> But they say there are no spare links from System B to System A if I wanted
> to run a test Sysplex on System B and access a CF on System A.
>
> This is their response I had to manage
>
>
> To give an idea of what I am facing, this is their response to my proposals.
>
> Using a General Purpose CP (GCP)  as a coupling facility on System B(z13 at
> WithDrawn From Marketing Licensed Internal Code)
> • There are no spare unallocated GCP on System B i.e no “parked” GCP.
> • All GCP’s, on System B, are allocated as shared, across all LPARS. i.e.
> no dedicated GCP’s.
> • Sharing GCP’s to use for z/OS and as a coupling facility is strongly not
> recommended FYI coupling facility engines run CFCC (coupling facility
> control code) rather than z/OS.
> • This possibly I believe is now exhausted.
>
> I think all these points are contestable, specially after reading the IBM
> document from a specialist in this area
>
> I just need to get some authoritative voice onto the case, ideally the
> author of the document but that might not be easy.
>
> --
> 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: Running a Coupling Facility using a CP for a test Parallel Sysplex 0 anyh gotcha's?

[Laurence Chiu]

Thanks for the input.


On Sun, Mar 5, 2023 at 7:41 AM Mike Schwab  wrote:

>
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342570694_Coupling_Facility_Configuration_Options_-_Updated_2020
>

I am familiar with that document and even provided a copy to our outsourcer
to read but clearly they hadn't

This is a direct link to IBM for that document.

https://www.ibm.com/downloads/cas/JZB2E38Q



> CF is not counted on SCRT, shown on RMF reports.
> Won't cost you on z/OS, may on some vendors.
>

I don't care so much as this CF is only System B and for development so
using a general purpose engine is not an issue for us. The MSU charges are
going to be low and we are prepared to pay those if it gets us our parallel
sysplex



> Thin CFs go to enabled wait when work is completed, restart when
> interrupt says there is work.
>
> Estimate is 3% light sharing to 13% heaving sharing (of z/OS workload).
>
> Thin CF would use internal links so no I/O overhead to another CPU.
>
> For the testing CF on the same system as the test Sysplex that is fine.
But they say there are no spare links from System B to System A if I wanted
to run a test Sysplex on System B and access a CF on System A.

This is their response I had to manage


To give an idea of what I am facing, this is their response to my proposals.

Using a General Purpose CP (GCP)  as a coupling facility on System B(z13 at
WithDrawn From Marketing Licensed Internal Code)
• There are no spare unallocated GCP on System B i.e no “parked” GCP.
• All GCP’s, on System B, are allocated as shared, across all LPARS. i.e.
no dedicated GCP’s.
• Sharing GCP’s to use for z/OS and as a coupling facility is strongly not
recommended FYI coupling facility engines run CFCC (coupling facility
control code) rather than z/OS.
• This possibly I believe is now exhausted.

I think all these points are contestable, specially after reading the IBM
document from a specialist in this area

I just need to get some authoritative voice onto the case, ideally the
author of the document but that might not be easy.

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

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

[Mike Schwab]

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342570694_Coupling_Facility_Configuration_Options_-_Updated_2020

CF is not counted on SCRT, shown on RMF reports.
Won't cost you on z/OS, may on some vendors.

Thin CFs go to enabled wait when work is completed, restart when
interrupt says there is work.

Estimate is 3% light sharing to 13% heaving sharing (of z/OS workload).

Thin CF would use internal links so no I/O overhead to another CPU.

On Fri, Mar 3, 2023 at 9:35 PM Laurence Chiu  wrote:
>
> The situation.
>
> We share a couple of Z13's with another (larger client). Z13 B is where we
> run our development LPARs and Z13 A is production.
>
> For critical business reasons an online application on our production LPAR
> needs to be highly available and that means in a parallel sysplex.  But our
> outsourcer has told us it cannot be done for the following reasons because
> there are no spare ICF engines on the host B - all are being used by other
> CF instances, either to support production Sysplexes or development ones
> (not ours).
>
> Host A does potentially have a spare ICF engine we could use to support a
> production parallel Sysplex but good practice does recommend you create a
> test one first of course.
>
> I then asked the question, if host A has a spare ICF engine, can't it be
> used to support a CF to be used by the test Sysplex on B. I was advised
> this was not possible since there are no spare connections between host A
> and Host B (Infiniband possibly) so the Sysplex on B could not actually
> communicate with the CF on A.
>
> Our requirement for the Sysplex is primarily to be able to share a VSAM
> dataset which is hit every time a transaction comes in with a peak of about
> 99tps. So we would need VSAM RLS to share the dataset records between the
> two application instances. There is no DB2, CICS or IMS so I think the only
> structures in the CF are those to support VSAM RLS, maybe some XCF
> structures and core systems.
>
> Knowing that we would only bring up the test sysplex to make sure
> transactions routed correctly across the two LPARs and most of the time we
> would have one member of the Sysplex off, I suggested that the test CF
> could be built using a CP.  To this suggestion I received the following
> (anti) advice
> - there would be MSU costs (we don't care since we think the MIPS load on
> the CF would be low). Plus we would ask that the CF be defined with Dynamic
> Coupling Facility Dispatch and set DYNDISP=THIN. Since that CF is going to
> be idling most of the time, MSU consumption is not going to be a major cost.
> - it's strongly recommended not to do this by IBM. Yet when I read this
> document
>
> https://www.ibm.com/downloads/cas/JZB2E38Q
> the option is discussed in great detail and the only negatives are the
> incurring of MSU costs and some performance degradation if both a z/OS and
> CF LPAR are trying to use the same CP at the same time.  But this can be
> managed.
>
> - that a CF running on a CP would need a dedicated CP engine and there are
> no spare engines in host B. That totally flies against the information I
> have read from IBM docs.
>
> Of course for production the CF on host A would be configured to use an ICF
> engine (or share one)
>
> Finally, while I accepted the argument at the time there were no
> connections between Host A and Host B, further reading suggests that you do
> not need to dedicate channels for communications but use XCF or by using
> Infiniband sub channels or sharing the same physical link with more than
> one Sysplex. Then the issue of running the CF on a CP goes away since I can
> ask for two CF's to be defined on host A, one for production and one for
> test and DCFC ensures that that production CF is not impacted by the
> development one.
>
> A lot to digest here but I really want to have some authoritative data in
> order to refute most of the comments being our outsourcer.
>
> Thanks
>
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN



-- 
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

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

[Laurence Chiu]

The situation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

https://www.ibm.com/downloads/cas/JZB2E38Q
the option is discussed in great detail and the only negatives are the
incurring of MSU costs and some performance degradation if both a z/OS and
CF LPAR are trying to use the same CP at the same time.  But this can be
managed.

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

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

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

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

Thanks

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

Re: Test

[Seymour J Metz]

My guess is that WYKR has an MTA in a bad neighborhood. If you send me a e-mail 
offline I will check on who the relevant parties are.


From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  on behalf of 
Steve Thompson 
Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2023 4:45 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Test

Tried it and the problem specifically seems to be with Marist.
I've run into this before. Have to wait until Monday to get them
on the phone.

Steve Thompson

On 2/19/2023 2:40 PM, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Feb 2023 13:12:58 -0500, Steve Thompson wrote:
>
>> This is a test to see if my IP is still being blocked.
>>
> Also, perhaps first, try: 
> <https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.mail-tester.com%2F&data=05%7C01%7Csmetz3%40gmu.edu%7C90b9874cd3d24743821b08db12c2b160%7C9e857255df574c47a0c00546460380cb%7C0%7C0%7C638124399687075946%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=lXA8YQgTsw7%2BwuHdlgHz6tnRDeSa2MY93y8CNRPs7hQ%3D&reserved=0>.
>

--
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: Test

[Steve Thompson]

Tried it and the problem specifically seems to be with Marist. 
I've run into this before. Have to wait until Monday to get them 
on the phone.


Steve Thompson

On 2/19/2023 2:40 PM, Paul Gilmartin wrote:

On Sun, 19 Feb 2023 13:12:58 -0500, Steve Thompson wrote:


This is a test to see if my IP is still being blocked.


Also, perhaps first, try: <https://www.mail-tester.com/>.



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

Re: Test

[Steve Beaver]

Still good 

Sent from my iPhone

No one said I could type with one thumb 

> On Feb 19, 2023, at 13:40, Paul Gilmartin 
> <042bfe9c879d-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
> 
> On Sun, 19 Feb 2023 13:12:58 -0500, Steve Thompson wrote:
> 
>> This is a test to see if my IP is still being blocked.
>> 
> Also, perhaps first, try: <https://www.mail-tester.com/>.
> 
> -- 
> 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: Test

[Paul Gilmartin]

On Sun, 19 Feb 2023 13:12:58 -0500, Steve Thompson wrote:

>This is a test to see if my IP is still being blocked.
>
Also, perhaps first, try: <https://www.mail-tester.com/>.

-- 
gil

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

Re: Test

[Steve Beaver]

Received 

Sent from my iPhone

No one said I could type with one thumb 

> On Feb 19, 2023, at 12:18, Steve Thompson  wrote:
> 
> Thank you for your reply.
> 
> Knowing this screwy problem, I have the list servers I use set up to send me 
> a copy of what I sent them so I can know it posted.
> 
> Regards,
> Steve Thompson
> 
>> On 2/19/2023 1:14 PM, Charles Hardee wrote:
>> I received your message so it appears your not being blocked, as of now.
>> 
>>> On Sun, Feb 19, 2023 at 12:13 PM Steve Thompson  wrote:
>>> 
>>> This is a test to see if my IP is still being blocked.
>>> 
>>> My email server is hosted in Washington state and from time to
>>> time certain organizations suddenly start blocking the ips from
>>> the host there.
>>> 
>>> Steve Thompson
>>> 
>>> --
>>> 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: Test

[Steve Thompson]

Thank you for your reply.

Knowing this screwy problem, I have the list servers I use set up 
to send me a copy of what I sent them so I can know it posted.


Regards,
Steve Thompson

On 2/19/2023 1:14 PM, Charles Hardee wrote:

I received your message so it appears your not being blocked, as of now.

On Sun, Feb 19, 2023 at 12:13 PM Steve Thompson  wrote:


This is a test to see if my IP is still being blocked.

My email server is hosted in Washington state and from time to
time certain organizations suddenly start blocking the ips from
the host there.

Steve Thompson

--
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: Test

[Charles Hardee]

I received your message so it appears your not being blocked, as of now.

On Sun, Feb 19, 2023 at 12:13 PM Steve Thompson  wrote:

> This is a test to see if my IP is still being blocked.
>
> My email server is hosted in Washington state and from time to
> time certain organizations suddenly start blocking the ips from
> the host there.
>
> Steve Thompson
>
> --
> 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

Test

[Steve Thompson]

This is a test to see if my IP is still being blocked.

My email server is hosted in Washington state and from time to 
time certain organizations suddenly start blocking the ips from 
the host there.


Steve Thompson

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

Re: z/PDOS-32 test on real hardware

[Paul Edwards]

On Wed, 21 Dec 2022 03:44:56 -0600, Paul Edwards  wrote:

>Would someone be able to try out the latest z/PDOS on
>real hardware?

There is a new version at http://pdos.org which allows
IPL from tape (and restore from 3390 disk image on
tape) - no IBM or other vendor software required - and
it has been confirmed to work on real hardware.

Pics here:

https://groups.io/g/hercules-380/message/2190
https://groups.io/g/hercules-380/message/2191
https://groups.io/g/hercules-380/message/2193

The first IPL is directly on an LPAR.

The second one, with a real terminal was under z/VM.

BFN. Paul.

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

Re: Test

[Steve Thompson]

Ignoring you. Ignoring you. [The Traveling Gnome]

On 1/3/2023 2:27 PM,   wrote:

Please ignore this is a test.


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


--
Regards, Steve Thompson

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

Test

Please ignore this is a test.


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

Re: z/PDOS-32 test on real hardware

[Paul Edwards]

On Wed, 21 Dec 2022 20:15:49 +, Rahim Azizarab  
wrote:

>I don't have access to real iron; but did you ever try to run it under qemu 
>x390?

As far as I know, qemu doesn't support CKD disks or
connecting a 3270 terminal.

But if that assumption is wrong, I can try it if you give
me a syntax that works for a 3390-1 and what I need
to do to attach a 3270.

Thanks. Paul.

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

Re: z/PDOS-32 test on real hardware

[Rahim Azizarab]

I don't have access to real iron; but did you ever try to run it under qemu 
x390?

emu-system-s390x  -display none -machine s390-ccw-virtio -m 2048M -cpu 
max,zpci=on,msa5-base=off -drive file=dasd/ubuntu.qcow2,format=qcow2 \
 -net nic,model=virtio \
-vnc 127.0.0.1:4 \
    -net nic \
    -net user,id=user.0,hostfwd=tcp::-:22 &






regards;

Rahim 



   

 

On Wednesday, December 21, 2022 at 03:45:08 AM CST, Paul Edwards 
 wrote:  
 
 Hi.

Would someone be able to try out the latest z/PDOS on
real hardware?

It's available from http://pdos.org (down the bottom)

It is a 3390-1 CKD image and you will need OSS-ICC in
order to define a 3270 terminal (SYSG is not used).

In addition you will need to know the subchannel id of the
3270 terminal and zap the CKD image with that number,
unless the guess of x'0001' is correct (it's correct
on Hercules).

This version of z/PDOS runs in AM64 and maps the 4-8 GiB
region on to 0-4 GiB so that 32-bit applications have the full
4 GiB available, and negative indexes (which in AM64
resolve to addresses above 4 GiB) are not an issue.

It's effectively AM32, but not really, because it doesn't rule out
the possibility of 64-bit programs running also. If you were to
change the DAT tables, 64-bit programs could access virtual
addresses above 8 GiB which would presumably map to
real memory above 4 GiB.

The executables that it runs are marked as AM31, suitable
for running on z/OS, and also run as AM24 on MVS 3.8J.
But z/PDOS runs them unconditionally as AM64=32.

Note - not just source code compatible - the unchanged
executables run on all those environments (MVS 3.8J
will ignore the AM31 and run as AM24, z/PDOS will ignore
the AM31 and run as AM64/32).

Theoretically, anyway. I've only tested on Hercules/380,
not real z/Arch hardware that I don't have access to.

Thanks. Paul.

--
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

z/PDOS-32 test on real hardware

[Paul Edwards]

Hi.

Would someone be able to try out the latest z/PDOS on
real hardware?

It's available from http://pdos.org (down the bottom)

It is a 3390-1 CKD image and you will need OSS-ICC in
order to define a 3270 terminal (SYSG is not used).

In addition you will need to know the subchannel id of the
3270 terminal and zap the CKD image with that number,
unless the guess of x'0001' is correct (it's correct
on Hercules).

This version of z/PDOS runs in AM64 and maps the 4-8 GiB
region on to 0-4 GiB so that 32-bit applications have the full
4 GiB available, and negative indexes (which in AM64
resolve to addresses above 4 GiB) are not an issue.

It's effectively AM32, but not really, because it doesn't rule out
the possibility of 64-bit programs running also. If you were to
change the DAT tables, 64-bit programs could access virtual
addresses above 8 GiB which would presumably map to
real memory above 4 GiB.

The executables that it runs are marked as AM31, suitable
for running on z/OS, and also run as AM24 on MVS 3.8J.
But z/PDOS runs them unconditionally as AM64=32.

Note - not just source code compatible - the unchanged
executables run on all those environments (MVS 3.8J
will ignore the AM31 and run as AM24, z/PDOS will ignore
the AM31 and run as AM64/32).

Theoretically, anyway. I've only tested on Hercules/380,
not real z/Arch hardware that I don't have access to.

Thanks. Paul.

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

IQ test score algorithm

[Alper Nese]

We developed a DNA based IQ test score estimation algorithm.
You can try it at.
https://www.cognidna.com/intelligence-iq/

You can also find it by Googling "cognidna iq"

We are real-curious techies. Not a malicious email.  We decided to share
with selected top schools.

Could you please try it and let us know what you think.

Cheers from Silicon Valley,

Alper Nese
CMU MCS 11'
https://www.linkedin.com/in/alpernese/

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

Re: test

[Carmen Vitullo]

Me too, I'm not sure if its the new list-server version or something I'm 
doing wrong, maybe my browser, but I select my subscription and select 
get emails and I get nothing, luckily I still get emails to my work 
account or I'd see nothing :(


if you figure it out please share !


Carmen


On 9/6/2022 8:45 AM, Sean Gleann wrote:

Thank you, Carmen.
I used to be able to see my posts and replies, but that seems to have
stopped.
I wonder what has changed.

Sean

On Tue, 6 Sept 2022 at 14:42, Carmen Vitullo  wrote:


I saw both your posts, I too do not get emails for my posts, replies,
even though I have set my preferences to get emails.

Carmen


On 9/6/2022 8:37 AM, Sean Gleann wrote:

test
Sean

--
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: test

[Sean Gleann]

Thank you, Carmen.
I used to be able to see my posts and replies, but that seems to have
stopped.
I wonder what has changed.

Sean

On Tue, 6 Sept 2022 at 14:42, Carmen Vitullo  wrote:

> I saw both your posts, I too do not get emails for my posts, replies,
> even though I have set my preferences to get emails.
>
> Carmen
>
>
> On 9/6/2022 8:37 AM, Sean Gleann wrote:
> > test
> > Sean
> >
> > --
> > 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: test

[Carmen Vitullo]

I saw both your posts, I too do not get emails for my posts, replies, 
even though I have set my preferences to get emails.


Carmen


On 9/6/2022 8:37 AM, Sean Gleann wrote:

test
Sean

--
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

test

[Sean Gleann]

test
Sean

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

Test

[Sean Gleann]

my posts aren't appearing

Sean

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

z/OS Academy for learning about Test and more!

[Marna WALLE]

Hello all,
I wanted to advertise an upcoming ***in-person*** event in Poughkeepsie, NY, 
the z/OS Academy focusing on "Test on IBM zSystems".  As you probably know, 
this is a popular event (no charge for admission!) for those that are still 
early in their z/OS careers with usually about 2-10 years experience.  It will 
be September 13 - 15, 2022.  

The final agenda will be posted later, but some sessions have been confirmed so 
far:
- Combinatorial Test Design,
- Test Automation,
- Careers in Test on zSystems,
- lab tours
- hands-on activities
- time for networking

If you know anyone on your team that is interested in attending, please sign up 
here:  
https://www.eventbrite.com/e/zos-academy-test-on-ibm-zsystems-tickets-385216070637

I hope to see you here!
-Marna WALLE
z/OS System Install and Upgrade
IBM Poughkeepsie

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

Re: Introducing IBM Virtual Dev and Test for z/OS

[Mike Schwab]

ADCD is what you can order to run on IBM's emulator.

On Fri, Jun 17, 2022, 06:51 kekronbekron <
02dee3fcae33-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:

> Thank you, and ADCD is an alternative to zD&TE?
> So, zDT is supplied sysres whereas ADCD can be bring your own sysres?
>
> I totally forgot about zPDT!
>
> - KB
>
> --- Original Message ---
> On Friday, June 17th, 2022 at 3:27 PM, Timothy Sipples 
> wrote:
>
>
> > Lionel B. Dyck asked:
> >
> > > Is this an alternative to the ZDNT Learners Edition?
> >
> >
> > No, not really. However, IBM Wazi as a Service (hourly rate) might be an
> alternative depending on how much you use z/OS for learning. Or you could
> spend a couple hours in Wazi as a Service, decide "Hey, I want to learn
> more," and order the ZD&T Learners Edition.
> >
> > Dana Mitchell wrote:
> >
> > > The 'Tech Docs' link is 404: https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/zvdt/1.0.0
> >
> >
> > It's working now for me. As I mentioned the general availability date is
> today (Friday, June 17), so that's when the documentation went live, too.
> The documentation tells you how it works technically: full IBM zSystems
> instruction set, virtualized I/O.
> >
> > kekronbekron wrote:
> >
> > > VD&T -- zOS on s390x architecture (IFL)
> >
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > > zD&TE -- zOS on x86_64 architecture
> >
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > > ADCD -- ??
> >
> >
> > This is IBM's "standard" developer-oriented distribution of z/OS and
> related products. The ADCD contents may vary a bit depending on which z/OS
> development option you choose, and you're not required to use it. Most of
> these offerings allow you to extract an existing z/OS image (from your own
> IBM zSystems machine) and use that instead if you prefer.
> >
> > > Wazi -- ??
> >
> >
> > IBM Wazi as a Service is essentially the IBM Cloud hosted version of the
> IBM Virtual Dev and Test for z/OS. It provides "on demand" service to get a
> z/OS instance within just a few minutes, and it's available in hourly
> billed increments. If you want only 1 hour, that's allowed. This offering
> is in limited beta right now, but IBM should have more to say about that
> soon.
> >
> > These ways of running z/OS are not mutually exclusive.
> >
> > — — — — —
> > 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
>

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

Re: Introducing IBM Virtual Dev and Test for z/OS

[Tony Harminc]

Replying to myself...

Now that the "full" doc is available (Thanks, Timothy!) it becomes
pretty clear that this *is* largely zPDT running on zLinux, IOW my
Option (1) below. Experienced zPDT users will quickly recognize a
whole lot of things in the setup and config, not least of which is the
AWS prefix for everything. But there seem to be some new and non-zPDT
orchestrating tools in the picture, so I guess a mix of options (1)
and (2).

The big question is obviously performance. Of course it's "not for
production", but even IFL MIPS are very expensive compared to
commodity Intel MIPS.

On the matter of why Intel Linuxes are in the Software requirements, I
think this must surely be just a mistake. I can see no reference to
anything Intel in the doc.

Maybe the biggest question is why the only supported zLinux is Ubuntu
- no Red Hat to be seen, nor Suse for that matter.

Tony H.


On Thu, 16 Jun 2022 at 12:36, Tony Harminc  wrote:
>
> On Thu, 16 Jun 2022 at 04:46, Timothy Sipples  wrote:
> [...]
> > Now there's yet another great option: the IBM Virtual Dev and Test for 
> > z/OS, generally available THIS FRIDAY. The announcement letter is available 
> > here:
> > https://www.ibm.com/downloads/cas/US-ENUS222-251-CA/name/US-ENUS222-251-CA.PDF
> > And the landing page is here:
> > https://www.ibm.com/products/virtual-dev-and-test-zos
> >
> > This product also provides virtualized z/OS instances on IFLs for 
> > development, unit testing, and training. You will need at least 2 IFLs (on 
> > an IBM zSystems or LinuxONE server), although they can be potentially 
> > shared with other
> > workloads. Of course you'll need some memory and disk space. The latter can 
> > be any reasonable Linux-attachable storage. (It does not have to be 
> > specifically ECKD/FICON-attached.) IBM Virtual Dev and Test for z/OS 
> > licenses
> > are available via IBM Passport Advantage in your choice of one-time charge 
> > license (with annual Subscription & Support) or monthly license (with 
> > monthly Subscription & Support). You can start with monthly then switch to 
> > one-time
> > charge if you wish.
>
> It would be really nice if IBM would explain what this product *is*. I
> appreciate that a certain amount of marketing fluff is always
> necessary, but even for IBM this is remarkably heavy on the fluff and
> light on the details.
>
> All we really know is that IBM seems to be doing what it went to court
> with Neon Systems over - running arbitrary z/OS work on "specialty
> engines" on z.
>
> Seems to me it's roughly one of two things (but doubtless there are
> many possibilities I haven't thought of):
>
> 1) It's zPDT compiled for a target of zArch rather than Intel i64.
> 2) It's some other virtualized - probably container-based way of
> dispatching z/OS work on IFLs, with user-friendly infrastructure to
> provision (dare I say "orchestrate") VMs and their content.
>
> I think (1) is the more likely based on what can be seen. We know that
> IBM has the JIT compiler infrastructure to target zArch, so presumably
> it wouldn't be a huge thing to just recompile zPDT and go. The
> problems most commonly heard about zPDT are with the licensing
> infrastructure and Linux library versions, and not with the emulation
> itself, which seems to be very robust. Of course no amount of JITting
> is going to run as fast as just dispatching on the native iron, but
> presumably the tradeoff of cheap and fast IFLs vs some overhead works
> out well.
>
> If it's (2), then this must play into the zCX and related container
> stuff that would otherwise seem to be plugging along in a parallel
> universe. But the obvious question that arises is why not use one of
> the several existing schemes for spinning up virtual machines on z -
> whether zVM and its many tools, or UNIXy tools to do the same? These
> are fairly mature at this point - certainly the zVM-based ones.
>
> I think (2) is far more the Future than running zPDT on zArch. Maybe
> it's just the traditional IBM Way of having competing teams with a
> periodic Winner and some Losers, and this battle isn't over yet.
>
> One more little confusing item I noticed: In the announcement letter under
> Software requirements
> Operating systems
> we see:
> • Ubuntu Server 22.04 LTS for IBM Z and LinuxONE; IBM z/Architecture(R)
> • Ubuntu 16.04 LTS, 18.04 LTS, and 20.04 LTS; x86-64 hardware
> • Red Hat(R) Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Server 7 and 8; x86-64 hardware
>
> This is just weird. What are those two Intel Linuxes doing there?
> Surely, surely this doesn't in any way involve i64 emulation on real
> zArch hardware?
>
> Tony H.

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

Re: Introducing IBM Virtual Dev and Test for z/OS

[Mohammad Khan]

Agreed, it's not worth trying to figure out IBM-think. There is probably some 
IBM executive telling his subordinates in a serious Michael Corleone tone 
"That's what I want them to think.". Hey, it's Friday and a Godfather quote is 
never out of place :)

mkk


On Thu, 16 Jun 2022 15:02:25 +, Farley, Peter x23353 
 wrote:

>That thought also crossed my mind when reading the data at the "landing page" 
>that Timothy provided, but as usual pricing is the real issue.
>
>I would think IBM could price it like they proposed to do with the Learner's 
>Edition of ZD&T, and it would be less burdensome for them because no dongle 
>need be distributed since the cloud version on z/Linux can use an IBM license 
>server.
>
>But that is thinking logically, and who knows how IBM will think about it.
>

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

Re: Introducing IBM Virtual Dev and Test for z/OS

[kekronbekron]

Thank you, and ADCD is an alternative to zD&TE?
So, zDT is supplied sysres whereas ADCD can be bring your own sysres?

I totally forgot about zPDT!

- KB

--- Original Message ---
On Friday, June 17th, 2022 at 3:27 PM, Timothy Sipples  
wrote:


> Lionel B. Dyck asked:
>
> > Is this an alternative to the ZDNT Learners Edition?
>
>
> No, not really. However, IBM Wazi as a Service (hourly rate) might be an 
> alternative depending on how much you use z/OS for learning. Or you could 
> spend a couple hours in Wazi as a Service, decide "Hey, I want to learn 
> more," and order the ZD&T Learners Edition.
>
> Dana Mitchell wrote:
>
> > The 'Tech Docs' link is 404: https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/zvdt/1.0.0
>
>
> It's working now for me. As I mentioned the general availability date is 
> today (Friday, June 17), so that's when the documentation went live, too. The 
> documentation tells you how it works technically: full IBM zSystems 
> instruction set, virtualized I/O.
>
> kekronbekron wrote:
>
> > VD&T -- zOS on s390x architecture (IFL)
>
>
> Yes.
>
> > zD&TE -- zOS on x86_64 architecture
>
>
> Yes.
>
> > ADCD -- ??
>
>
> This is IBM's "standard" developer-oriented distribution of z/OS and related 
> products. The ADCD contents may vary a bit depending on which z/OS 
> development option you choose, and you're not required to use it. Most of 
> these offerings allow you to extract an existing z/OS image (from your own 
> IBM zSystems machine) and use that instead if you prefer.
>
> > Wazi -- ??
>
>
> IBM Wazi as a Service is essentially the IBM Cloud hosted version of the IBM 
> Virtual Dev and Test for z/OS. It provides "on demand" service to get a z/OS 
> instance within just a few minutes, and it's available in hourly billed 
> increments. If you want only 1 hour, that's allowed. This offering is in 
> limited beta right now, but IBM should have more to say about that soon.
>
> These ways of running z/OS are not mutually exclusive.
>
> — — — — —
> 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: Introducing IBM Virtual Dev and Test for z/OS

[Timothy Sipples]

Lionel B. Dyck asked:
> Is this an alternative to the ZDNT Learners Edition?

No, not really. However, IBM Wazi as a Service (hourly rate) might be an 
alternative depending on how much you use z/OS for learning. Or you could spend 
a couple hours in Wazi as a Service, decide "Hey, I want to learn more," and 
order the ZD&T Learners Edition.

Dana Mitchell wrote:
> The 'Tech Docs'  link is 404: https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/zvdt/1.0.0

It's working now for me. As I mentioned the general availability date is today 
(Friday, June 17), so that's when the documentation went live, too. The 
documentation tells you how it works technically: full IBM zSystems instruction 
set, virtualized I/O.

kekronbekron wrote:
>VD&T  -- zOS on s390x architecture (IFL)

Yes.

>zD&TE -- zOS on x86_64 architecture

Yes.

>ADCD  -- ??

This is IBM's "standard" developer-oriented distribution of z/OS and related 
products. The ADCD contents may vary a bit depending on which z/OS development 
option you choose, and you're not required to use it. Most of these offerings 
allow you to extract an existing z/OS image (from your own IBM zSystems 
machine) and use that instead if you prefer.

>Wazi  -- ??

IBM Wazi as a Service is essentially the IBM Cloud hosted version of the IBM 
Virtual Dev and Test for z/OS. It provides "on demand" service to get a z/OS 
instance within just a few minutes, and it's available in hourly billed 
increments. If you want only 1 hour, that's allowed. This offering is in 
limited beta right now, but IBM should have more to say about that soon.

These ways of running z/OS are not mutually exclusive.

— — — — —
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: Introducing IBM Virtual Dev and Test for z/OS

[kekronbekron]

Hey Tim,

Could you give us a one-liner for each of these.

VD&T  -- zOS on s390x architecture (IFL)
zD&TE -- zOS on x86_64 architecture
ADCD  -- ??
Wazi  -- ??

- KB
--- Original Message ---
On Thursday, June 16th, 2022 at 2:16 PM, Timothy Sipples  
wrote:


> IBM Wazi as a Service provides near instant (within just a few minutes), on 
> demand access to z/OS instances for development, unit testing, and training. 
> These instances run in IBM Cloud, and the performance is excellent since they 
> run on real mainframes. Wazi as a Service is in limited preview now and will 
> be more generally available this year. See here for more information:
>
> https://www.ibm.com/cloud/wazi-as-a-service
>
> One question we got is, "Great, but can I also do this on premises?" Well, 
> yes, you "always" could/can with development LPARs and z/VM guests. And also 
> on your Linux PC (or a X86 server) with the IBM Z Development and Test 
> Environment (ZD&TE), although in that case it's real z/OS but with emulation 
> overhead.
>
> Now there's yet another great option: the IBM Virtual Dev and Test for z/OS, 
> generally available THIS FRIDAY. The announcement letter is available here:
>
> https://www.ibm.com/downloads/cas/US-ENUS222-251-CA/name/US-ENUS222-251-CA.PDF
>
> And the landing page is here:
>
> https://www.ibm.com/products/virtual-dev-and-test-zos
>
> This product also provides virtualized z/OS instances on IFLs for 
> development, unit testing, and training. You will need at least 2 IFLs (on an 
> IBM zSystems or LinuxONE server), although they can be potentially shared 
> with other workloads. Of course you'll need some memory and disk space. The 
> latter can be any reasonable Linux-attachable storage. (It does not have to 
> be specifically ECKD/FICON-attached.) IBM Virtual Dev and Test for z/OS 
> licenses are available via IBM Passport Advantage in your choice of one-time 
> charge license (with annual Subscription & Support) or monthly license (with 
> monthly Subscription & Support). You can start with monthly then switch to 
> one-time charge if you wish.
>
> Did I mention it's generally available this Friday? :-)
>
> Speaking to z/OS system programmers and other operators for a moment (and my 
> personal views here, as always)... The intention behind these offerings is to 
> make sure developers have whatever they need without constraints or delay. 
> Let them do their jobs and be productive at speed. If each developer wants 
> her own z/OS instance, FINE. If the developer "destroys" that z/OS instance, 
> no problem, the developer can spin up another one from "last known good." 
> (That's part of learning, and that's a good thing.) And if you won't let 
> developers develop (and unit test), and maybe even stumble once in a while, 
> we'll do it...with a very reasonable hourly rate for IBM Wazi as a Service, 
> with "walk up" service just a few clicks/taps away from anywhere. But you can 
> do it, too, so go do it (too), OK?
>
> With both Wazi as a Service and IBM Virtual Dev and Test for z/OS developers 
> can use the pre-built "ADCD" z/OS image or use a tool IBM provides to take a 
> "snapshot" of the current development LPAR(s) and use that as a starting 
> point. These z/OS instances can be automated, and we encourage that, so they 
> can be used for DevOps pipelines with automated unit testing.
>
> Have fun.
>
> — — — — —
> 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: Introducing IBM Virtual Dev and Test for z/OS

[Patrick Loftus]

It's possible the IBM Z requirements are for the "Virtual Dev and Test for z/OS 
instances" component, and the x86-64 requirements are for the other two 
components, "Virtual Dev and Test for z/OS web and Software based license 
server" and "Image storage server".

These components are mentioned in the hardware requirements.

Regards


-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
Tony Harminc
Sent: 16 June 2022 17:36
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Introducing IBM Virtual Dev and Test for z/OS


One more little confusing item I noticed: In the announcement letter under 
Software requirements Operating systems we see:
• Ubuntu Server 22.04 LTS for IBM Z and LinuxONE; IBM z/Architecture(R) • 
Ubuntu 16.04 LTS, 18.04 LTS, and 20.04 LTS; x86-64 hardware • Red Hat(R) 
Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Server 7 and 8; x86-64 hardware

This is just weird. What are those two Intel Linuxes doing there?
Surely, surely this doesn't in any way involve i64 emulation on real zArch 
hardware?

Tony H.

--
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: Introducing IBM Virtual Dev and Test for z/OS

[Dana Mitchell]

On Thu, 16 Jun 2022 12:36:14 -0400, Tony Harminc  wrote:
>
>It would be really nice if IBM would explain what this product *is*. I
>appreciate that a certain amount of marketing fluff is always
>necessary, but even for IBM this is remarkably heavy on the fluff and
>light on the details.
>

The 'Tech Docs'  link is 404:   https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/zvdt/1.0.0

>
>Seems to me it's roughly one of two things (but doubtless there are
>many possibilities I haven't thought of):
>
>1) It's zPDT compiled for a target of zArch rather than Intel i64.
>2) It's some other virtualized - probably container-based way of
>dispatching z/OS work on IFLs, with user-friendly infrastructure to
>provision (dare I say "orchestrate") VMs and their content.
>

I would agree (1) is the more likely choice.  Then you get to decide  to 
utilize either z/VM or KVM to provision Linux/zos guests.

Dana

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

Re: Introducing IBM Virtual Dev and Test for z/OS

[Tony Harminc]

On Thu, 16 Jun 2022 at 04:46, Timothy Sipples  wrote:
[...]
> Now there's yet another great option: the IBM Virtual Dev and Test for z/OS, 
> generally available THIS FRIDAY. The announcement letter is available here:
> https://www.ibm.com/downloads/cas/US-ENUS222-251-CA/name/US-ENUS222-251-CA.PDF
> And the landing page is here:
> https://www.ibm.com/products/virtual-dev-and-test-zos
>
> This product also provides virtualized z/OS instances on IFLs for 
> development, unit testing, and training. You will need at least 2 IFLs (on an 
> IBM zSystems or LinuxONE server), although they can be potentially shared 
> with other
> workloads. Of course you'll need some memory and disk space. The latter can 
> be any reasonable Linux-attachable storage. (It does not have to be 
> specifically ECKD/FICON-attached.) IBM Virtual Dev and Test for z/OS licenses
> are available via IBM Passport Advantage in your choice of one-time charge 
> license (with annual Subscription & Support) or monthly license (with monthly 
> Subscription & Support). You can start with monthly then switch to one-time
> charge if you wish.

It would be really nice if IBM would explain what this product *is*. I
appreciate that a certain amount of marketing fluff is always
necessary, but even for IBM this is remarkably heavy on the fluff and
light on the details.

All we really know is that IBM seems to be doing what it went to court
with Neon Systems over - running arbitrary z/OS work on "specialty
engines" on z.

Seems to me it's roughly one of two things (but doubtless there are
many possibilities I haven't thought of):

1) It's zPDT compiled for a target of zArch rather than Intel i64.
2) It's some other virtualized - probably container-based way of
dispatching z/OS work on IFLs, with user-friendly infrastructure to
provision (dare I say "orchestrate") VMs and their content.

I think (1) is the more likely based on what can be seen. We know that
IBM has the JIT compiler infrastructure to target zArch, so presumably
it wouldn't be a huge thing to just recompile zPDT and go. The
problems most commonly heard about zPDT are with the licensing
infrastructure and Linux library versions, and not with the emulation
itself, which seems to be very robust. Of course no amount of JITting
is going to run as fast as just dispatching on the native iron, but
presumably the tradeoff of cheap and fast IFLs vs some overhead works
out well.

If it's (2), then this must play into the zCX and related container
stuff that would otherwise seem to be plugging along in a parallel
universe. But the obvious question that arises is why not use one of
the several existing schemes for spinning up virtual machines on z -
whether zVM and its many tools, or UNIXy tools to do the same? These
are fairly mature at this point - certainly the zVM-based ones.

I think (2) is far more the Future than running zPDT on zArch. Maybe
it's just the traditional IBM Way of having competing teams with a
periodic Winner and some Losers, and this battle isn't over yet.

One more little confusing item I noticed: In the announcement letter under
Software requirements
Operating systems
we see:
• Ubuntu Server 22.04 LTS for IBM Z and LinuxONE; IBM z/Architecture(R)
• Ubuntu 16.04 LTS, 18.04 LTS, and 20.04 LTS; x86-64 hardware
• Red Hat(R) Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Server 7 and 8; x86-64 hardware

This is just weird. What are those two Intel Linuxes doing there?
Surely, surely this doesn't in any way involve i64 emulation on real
zArch hardware?

Tony H.

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

Re: Introducing IBM Virtual Dev and Test for z/OS

[Farley, Peter x23353]

That thought also crossed my mind when reading the data at the "landing page" 
that Timothy provided, but as usual pricing is the real issue.

I would think IBM could price it like they proposed to do with the Learner's 
Edition of ZD&T, and it would be less burdensome for them because no dongle 
need be distributed since the cloud version on z/Linux can use an IBM license 
server.

But that is thinking logically, and who knows how IBM will think about it.

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
Lionel B. Dyck
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2022 10:55 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Introducing IBM Virtual Dev and Test for z/OS

If IBM hosted then it would seem a better option than the ZDNT Learners Edition 
for students/hobbyists who want to code/develop without having to be s systems 
programmer. 


Lionel B. Dyck <><
Website: 
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.lbdsoftware.com__;!!Ebr-cpPeAnfNniQ8HSAI-g_K5b7VKg!NnXg6k7ZOLjLY_6n3-illSNVNHYqPY8vKmJUXGA4rvds2NVnxAD1ytOXelwn7UY5doYZYuA2Vvjs7ivNA4M$
Github: 
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/lbdyck__;!!Ebr-cpPeAnfNniQ8HSAI-g_K5b7VKg!NnXg6k7ZOLjLY_6n3-illSNVNHYqPY8vKmJUXGA4rvds2NVnxAD1ytOXelwn7UY5doYZYuA2VvjsFbAu7A4$
 

"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 
Farley, Peter x23353
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2022 09:44 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Introducing IBM Virtual Dev and Test for z/OS

Lionel,

That's what I was wondering myself, but after checking the "landing page"
that Timothy provided, it looks like it is meant for on-premises use by 
existing z hardware customers - It's running on z/Linux on IFL's (min of 2) on 
your z hardware or on Wazi hardware in the IBM cloud.

No mention of x86 or students in there from what I could see.  And no pricing 
information at all, just "see your friendly IBM representative".

But I do hope Timothy answers as well, this is just my reading of the data he 
provided.

Peter

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
Lionel B. Dyck
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2022 9:39 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Introducing IBM Virtual Dev and Test for z/OS

Is this an alternative to the ZDNT Learners Edition?

What's the cost?  Can hobbyists use it?


Lionel B. Dyck <><
Website:
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.lbdsoftware.com__;!!Ebr-cpPeAnfNniQ8
HSAI-g_K5b7VKg!PWNjDuIXI2E9ayvAZqhD4UpV2YEbt9O2_s0W-hzk2U3s5xk2AR2lgD_cVrdiY
uBeI6Dh0J1oNJR1tRJzYOs$
Github:
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/lbdyck__;!!Ebr-cpPeAnfNniQ8HS
AI-g_K5b7VKg!PWNjDuIXI2E9ayvAZqhD4UpV2YEbt9O2_s0W-hzk2U3s5xk2AR2lgD_cVrdiYuB
eI6Dh0J1oNJR1HE-FJiU$ 

"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 
Timothy Sipples
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2022 03:46 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Introducing IBM Virtual Dev and Test for z/OS

IBM Wazi as a Service provides near instant (within just a few minutes), on 
demand access to z/OS instances for development, unit testing, and training.
These instances run in IBM Cloud, and the performance is excellent since they 
run on real mainframes. Wazi as a Service is in limited preview now and will be 
more generally available this year. See here for more information:

https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ibm.com/cloud/wazi-as-a-service__;!!
Ebr-cpPeAnfNniQ8HSAI-g_K5b7VKg!PWNjDuIXI2E9ayvAZqhD4UpV2YEbt9O2_s0W-hzk2U3s5
xk2AR2lgD_cVrdiYuBeI6Dh0J1oNJR1zpaVZ_A$ 

One question we got is, "Great, but can I also do this on premises?" Well, yes, 
you "always" could/can with development LPARs and z/VM guests. And also on your 
Linux PC (or a X86 server) with the IBM Z Development and Test Environment 
(ZD&TE), although in that case it's real z/OS but with emulation overhead.

Now there's yet another great option: the IBM Virtual Dev and Test for z/OS, 
generally available THIS FRIDAY. The announcement letter is available here:

https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ibm.com/downloads/cas/US-ENUS222-251
-CA/name/US-ENUS222-251-CA.P__;!!Ebr-cpPeAnfNniQ8HSAI-g_K5b7VKg!PWNjDuIXI2E9
ayvAZqhD4UpV2YEbt9O2_s0W-hzk2U3s5xk2AR2lgD_cVrdiYuBeI6Dh0J1oNJR1qOF_h_E$
DF

And the landing page is here:

https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ibm.com/products/virtual-dev-and-tes
t-zos__;!!Ebr-cpPeAnfNniQ8HSAI-g_K5b7VKg!PWNjDuIXI2E9ayvAZqhD4UpV2YEbt9O2_s0
W-hzk2U3s5xk2AR2lgD_cVrdiYuBeI6Dh0J1oNJR13Gg4FHw$ 

This product also provides virtualized z/OS instances on IFLs for development, 
unit testing, and training. You wi

Re: Introducing IBM Virtual Dev and Test for z/OS

[Lionel B. Dyck]

If IBM hosted then it would seem a better option than the ZDNT Learners
Edition for students/hobbyists who want to code/develop without having to be
s systems programmer. 


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
Farley, Peter x23353
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2022 09:44 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Introducing IBM Virtual Dev and Test for z/OS

Lionel,

That's what I was wondering myself, but after checking the "landing page"
that Timothy provided, it looks like it is meant for on-premises use by
existing z hardware customers - It's running on z/Linux on IFL's (min of 2)
on your z hardware or on Wazi hardware in the IBM cloud.

No mention of x86 or students in there from what I could see.  And no
pricing information at all, just "see your friendly IBM representative".

But I do hope Timothy answers as well, this is just my reading of the data
he provided.

Peter

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of
Lionel B. Dyck
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2022 9:39 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Introducing IBM Virtual Dev and Test for z/OS

Is this an alternative to the ZDNT Learners Edition?

What's the cost?  Can hobbyists use it?


Lionel B. Dyck <><
Website:
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.lbdsoftware.com__;!!Ebr-cpPeAnfNniQ8
HSAI-g_K5b7VKg!PWNjDuIXI2E9ayvAZqhD4UpV2YEbt9O2_s0W-hzk2U3s5xk2AR2lgD_cVrdiY
uBeI6Dh0J1oNJR1tRJzYOs$
Github:
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/lbdyck__;!!Ebr-cpPeAnfNniQ8HS
AI-g_K5b7VKg!PWNjDuIXI2E9ayvAZqhD4UpV2YEbt9O2_s0W-hzk2U3s5xk2AR2lgD_cVrdiYuB
eI6Dh0J1oNJR1HE-FJiU$ 

"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
Timothy Sipples
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2022 03:46 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Introducing IBM Virtual Dev and Test for z/OS

IBM Wazi as a Service provides near instant (within just a few minutes), on
demand access to z/OS instances for development, unit testing, and training.
These instances run in IBM Cloud, and the performance is excellent since
they run on real mainframes. Wazi as a Service is in limited preview now and
will be more generally available this year. See here for more information:

https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ibm.com/cloud/wazi-as-a-service__;!!
Ebr-cpPeAnfNniQ8HSAI-g_K5b7VKg!PWNjDuIXI2E9ayvAZqhD4UpV2YEbt9O2_s0W-hzk2U3s5
xk2AR2lgD_cVrdiYuBeI6Dh0J1oNJR1zpaVZ_A$ 

One question we got is, "Great, but can I also do this on premises?" Well,
yes, you "always" could/can with development LPARs and z/VM guests. And also
on your Linux PC (or a X86 server) with the IBM Z Development and Test
Environment (ZD&TE), although in that case it's real z/OS but with emulation
overhead.

Now there's yet another great option: the IBM Virtual Dev and Test for z/OS,
generally available THIS FRIDAY. The announcement letter is available here:

https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ibm.com/downloads/cas/US-ENUS222-251
-CA/name/US-ENUS222-251-CA.P__;!!Ebr-cpPeAnfNniQ8HSAI-g_K5b7VKg!PWNjDuIXI2E9
ayvAZqhD4UpV2YEbt9O2_s0W-hzk2U3s5xk2AR2lgD_cVrdiYuBeI6Dh0J1oNJR1qOF_h_E$
DF

And the landing page is here:

https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ibm.com/products/virtual-dev-and-tes
t-zos__;!!Ebr-cpPeAnfNniQ8HSAI-g_K5b7VKg!PWNjDuIXI2E9ayvAZqhD4UpV2YEbt9O2_s0
W-hzk2U3s5xk2AR2lgD_cVrdiYuBeI6Dh0J1oNJR13Gg4FHw$ 

This product also provides virtualized z/OS instances on IFLs for
development, unit testing, and training. You will need at least 2 IFLs (on
an IBM zSystems or LinuxONE server), although they can be potentially shared
with other workloads. Of course you'll need some memory and disk space. The
latter can be any reasonable Linux-attachable storage. (It does not have to
be specifically ECKD/FICON-attached.) IBM Virtual Dev and Test for z/OS
licenses are available via IBM Passport Advantage in your choice of one-time
charge license (with annual Subscription & Support) or monthly license (with
monthly Subscription & Support). You can start with monthly then switch to
one-time charge if you wish.

Did I mention it's generally available this Friday? :-)

Speaking to z/OS system programmers and other operators for a moment (and my
personal views here, as always)... The intention behind these offerings is
to make sure developers have whatever they need without constraints or
delay. Let them do their jobs and be productive at speed. If each developer
wants her own z/OS instance, FINE. If the developer &quo

Re: Introducing IBM Virtual Dev and Test for z/OS

[Farley, Peter x23353]

Lionel,

That's what I was wondering myself, but after checking the "landing page" that 
Timothy provided, it looks like it is meant for on-premises use by existing z 
hardware customers - It's running on z/Linux on IFL's (min of 2) on your z 
hardware or on Wazi hardware in the IBM cloud.

No mention of x86 or students in there from what I could see.  And no pricing 
information at all, just "see your friendly IBM representative".

But I do hope Timothy answers as well, this is just my reading of the data he 
provided.

Peter

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
Lionel B. Dyck
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2022 9:39 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Introducing IBM Virtual Dev and Test for z/OS

Is this an alternative to the ZDNT Learners Edition?

What's the cost?  Can hobbyists use it?


Lionel B. Dyck <><
Website: 
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.lbdsoftware.com__;!!Ebr-cpPeAnfNniQ8HSAI-g_K5b7VKg!PWNjDuIXI2E9ayvAZqhD4UpV2YEbt9O2_s0W-hzk2U3s5xk2AR2lgD_cVrdiYuBeI6Dh0J1oNJR1tRJzYOs$
 
Github: 
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/lbdyck__;!!Ebr-cpPeAnfNniQ8HSAI-g_K5b7VKg!PWNjDuIXI2E9ayvAZqhD4UpV2YEbt9O2_s0W-hzk2U3s5xk2AR2lgD_cVrdiYuBeI6Dh0J1oNJR1HE-FJiU$
 

"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
Timothy Sipples
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2022 03:46 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Introducing IBM Virtual Dev and Test for z/OS

IBM Wazi as a Service provides near instant (within just a few minutes), on
demand access to z/OS instances for development, unit testing, and training.
These instances run in IBM Cloud, and the performance is excellent since
they run on real mainframes. Wazi as a Service is in limited preview now and
will be more generally available this year. See here for more information:

https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ibm.com/cloud/wazi-as-a-service__;!!Ebr-cpPeAnfNniQ8HSAI-g_K5b7VKg!PWNjDuIXI2E9ayvAZqhD4UpV2YEbt9O2_s0W-hzk2U3s5xk2AR2lgD_cVrdiYuBeI6Dh0J1oNJR1zpaVZ_A$
 

One question we got is, "Great, but can I also do this on premises?" Well,
yes, you "always" could/can with development LPARs and z/VM guests. And also
on your Linux PC (or a X86 server) with the IBM Z Development and Test
Environment (ZD&TE), although in that case it's real z/OS but with emulation
overhead.

Now there's yet another great option: the IBM Virtual Dev and Test for z/OS,
generally available THIS FRIDAY. The announcement letter is available here:

https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ibm.com/downloads/cas/US-ENUS222-251-CA/name/US-ENUS222-251-CA.P__;!!Ebr-cpPeAnfNniQ8HSAI-g_K5b7VKg!PWNjDuIXI2E9ayvAZqhD4UpV2YEbt9O2_s0W-hzk2U3s5xk2AR2lgD_cVrdiYuBeI6Dh0J1oNJR1qOF_h_E$
 
DF

And the landing page is here:

https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ibm.com/products/virtual-dev-and-test-zos__;!!Ebr-cpPeAnfNniQ8HSAI-g_K5b7VKg!PWNjDuIXI2E9ayvAZqhD4UpV2YEbt9O2_s0W-hzk2U3s5xk2AR2lgD_cVrdiYuBeI6Dh0J1oNJR13Gg4FHw$
 

This product also provides virtualized z/OS instances on IFLs for
development, unit testing, and training. You will need at least 2 IFLs (on
an IBM zSystems or LinuxONE server), although they can be potentially shared
with other workloads. Of course you'll need some memory and disk space. The
latter can be any reasonable Linux-attachable storage. (It does not have to
be specifically ECKD/FICON-attached.) IBM Virtual Dev and Test for z/OS
licenses are available via IBM Passport Advantage in your choice of one-time
charge license (with annual Subscription & Support) or monthly license (with
monthly Subscription & Support). You can start with monthly then switch to
one-time charge if you wish.

Did I mention it's generally available this Friday? :-)

Speaking to z/OS system programmers and other operators for a moment (and my
personal views here, as always)... The intention behind these offerings is
to make sure developers have whatever they need without constraints or
delay. Let them do their jobs and be productive at speed. If each developer
wants her own z/OS instance, FINE. If the developer "destroys" that z/OS
instance, no problem, the developer can spin up another one from "last known
good." (That's part of learning, and that's a good thing.) And if you won't
let developers develop (and unit test), and maybe even stumble once in a
while, we'll do it...with a very reasonable hourly rate for IBM Wazi as a
Service, with "walk up" service just a few clicks/taps away from anywhere.
But you can do it, too, so go do it (too), OK?

With both Wazi as a Service and IBM Virtual Dev and Test for z/OS developers
can use the pre-built "ADCD" z/OS image or use a tool IBM provides to take a
&

Re: Introducing IBM Virtual Dev and Test for z/OS

[Lionel B. Dyck]

Is this an alternative to the ZDNT Learners Edition?

What's the cost?  Can hobbyists use it?


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
Timothy Sipples
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2022 03:46 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Introducing IBM Virtual Dev and Test for z/OS

IBM Wazi as a Service provides near instant (within just a few minutes), on
demand access to z/OS instances for development, unit testing, and training.
These instances run in IBM Cloud, and the performance is excellent since
they run on real mainframes. Wazi as a Service is in limited preview now and
will be more generally available this year. See here for more information:

https://www.ibm.com/cloud/wazi-as-a-service

One question we got is, "Great, but can I also do this on premises?" Well,
yes, you "always" could/can with development LPARs and z/VM guests. And also
on your Linux PC (or a X86 server) with the IBM Z Development and Test
Environment (ZD&TE), although in that case it's real z/OS but with emulation
overhead.

Now there's yet another great option: the IBM Virtual Dev and Test for z/OS,
generally available THIS FRIDAY. The announcement letter is available here:

https://www.ibm.com/downloads/cas/US-ENUS222-251-CA/name/US-ENUS222-251-CA.P
DF

And the landing page is here:

https://www.ibm.com/products/virtual-dev-and-test-zos

This product also provides virtualized z/OS instances on IFLs for
development, unit testing, and training. You will need at least 2 IFLs (on
an IBM zSystems or LinuxONE server), although they can be potentially shared
with other workloads. Of course you'll need some memory and disk space. The
latter can be any reasonable Linux-attachable storage. (It does not have to
be specifically ECKD/FICON-attached.) IBM Virtual Dev and Test for z/OS
licenses are available via IBM Passport Advantage in your choice of one-time
charge license (with annual Subscription & Support) or monthly license (with
monthly Subscription & Support). You can start with monthly then switch to
one-time charge if you wish.

Did I mention it's generally available this Friday? :-)

Speaking to z/OS system programmers and other operators for a moment (and my
personal views here, as always)... The intention behind these offerings is
to make sure developers have whatever they need without constraints or
delay. Let them do their jobs and be productive at speed. If each developer
wants her own z/OS instance, FINE. If the developer "destroys" that z/OS
instance, no problem, the developer can spin up another one from "last known
good." (That's part of learning, and that's a good thing.) And if you won't
let developers develop (and unit test), and maybe even stumble once in a
while, we'll do it...with a very reasonable hourly rate for IBM Wazi as a
Service, with "walk up" service just a few clicks/taps away from anywhere.
But you can do it, too, so go do it (too), OK?

With both Wazi as a Service and IBM Virtual Dev and Test for z/OS developers
can use the pre-built "ADCD" z/OS image or use a tool IBM provides to take a
"snapshot" of the current development LPAR(s) and use that as a starting
point. These z/OS instances can be automated, and we encourage that, so they
can be used for DevOps pipelines with automated unit testing.

Have fun.

- - - - -
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

Introducing IBM Virtual Dev and Test for z/OS

[Timothy Sipples]

IBM Wazi as a Service provides near instant (within just a few minutes), on 
demand access to z/OS instances for development, unit testing, and training. 
These instances run in IBM Cloud, and the performance is excellent since they 
run on real mainframes. Wazi as a Service is in limited preview now and will be 
more generally available this year. See here for more information:

https://www.ibm.com/cloud/wazi-as-a-service

One question we got is, "Great, but can I also do this on premises?" Well, yes, 
you "always" could/can with development LPARs and z/VM guests. And also on your 
Linux PC (or a X86 server) with the IBM Z Development and Test Environment 
(ZD&TE), although in that case it's real z/OS but with emulation overhead.

Now there's yet another great option: the IBM Virtual Dev and Test for z/OS, 
generally available THIS FRIDAY. The announcement letter is available here:

https://www.ibm.com/downloads/cas/US-ENUS222-251-CA/name/US-ENUS222-251-CA.PDF

And the landing page is here:

https://www.ibm.com/products/virtual-dev-and-test-zos

This product also provides virtualized z/OS instances on IFLs for development, 
unit testing, and training. You will need at least 2 IFLs (on an IBM zSystems 
or LinuxONE server), although they can be potentially shared with other 
workloads. Of course you'll need some memory and disk space. The latter can be 
any reasonable Linux-attachable storage. (It does not have to be specifically 
ECKD/FICON-attached.) IBM Virtual Dev and Test for z/OS licenses are available 
via IBM Passport Advantage in your choice of one-time charge license (with 
annual Subscription & Support) or monthly license (with monthly Subscription & 
Support). You can start with monthly then switch to one-time charge if you wish.

Did I mention it's generally available this Friday? :-)

Speaking to z/OS system programmers and other operators for a moment (and my 
personal views here, as always)... The intention behind these offerings is to 
make sure developers have whatever they need without constraints or delay. Let 
them do their jobs and be productive at speed. If each developer wants her own 
z/OS instance, FINE. If the developer "destroys" that z/OS instance, no 
problem, the developer can spin up another one from "last known good." (That's 
part of learning, and that's a good thing.) And if you won't let developers 
develop (and unit test), and maybe even stumble once in a while, we'll do 
it...with a very reasonable hourly rate for IBM Wazi as a Service, with "walk 
up" service just a few clicks/taps away from anywhere. But you can do it, too, 
so go do it (too), OK?

With both Wazi as a Service and IBM Virtual Dev and Test for z/OS developers 
can use the pre-built "ADCD" z/OS image or use a tool IBM provides to take a 
"snapshot" of the current development LPAR(s) and use that as a starting point. 
These z/OS instances can be automated, and we encourage that, so they can be 
used for DevOps pipelines with automated unit testing.

Have fun.

— — — — —
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

TEST

[rpinion865]

This is a test of the Emergency Broadcast System. Please ignore.

Sent with [Proton Mail](https://proton.me/) secure email.

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

test

[Woo, Pete]

Testing - please ignore

Pete Woo
Email: p...@unum.com
Office: 803.731.5868


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

Test

[Steve Beaver]

 


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

News mirror broken - was: Re: test

[Don Poitras]

In article <9kkqoghpp6fseqdviuisqvbu6n6h43t...@4ax.com> you wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Nov 2021 22:35:43 -0600, Arnold Trembley
>  wrote:
>
> >test
> >why no usenet postings?
> The gateway from the IBM-MAIN listserv to usenet either was dropped in
> the last 5 months or posts using TLS1.2 which my provider is not
> supporting.  This may also be a problem with your provider.  I had to
> change my subscription from NOMAIL to MAIL.
>
> Clark Morris

I don't think it's TLS 1.2. I don't know if my shell host can accept 1.2,
but certainly Google Groups should be able to and the posts showing up
there end on September 3rd (other than the mistaken posts made directly
to the newsgroup).

-- 
Don Poitras

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