Re: RSCS NJE SCTC to JES
Rick, we run two NJE connections from one VM system to two MVS JES2 systems and yes the JES2 end must be defined as BCTC and the VM end must be defined as SCTC. This is a real PITA when we do DR tests as we always have to tell the DR provider, "Yes, they have to be defined as BCTC.". I t usually requires them to do an IO gen, (or at least an HCD change). Dale R. Smith Technology Services Senior IBM Global Services [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1-614-481-1608 On Tue, 8 May 2007 20:03:10 -0400, Rick Barlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I am trying to determine if there is still a restriction that an ESCON C TC >between RSCS and z/OS JES must be defined as BCTC rather than SCTC. The >last time I looked at this was 1999 and it was still a restriction. I know >that RSCS V3R2 can handle SCTC between RSCS systems. I can't find anything >in the RSCS documentation that says there is a restriction. I am not su re >what z/OS JES book might have the information. I would also like to >detemine if JES2 is any different from JES3. I need to do JES 2 today b ut >may do JES 3 soon. > >Does anyone on the list happen to have such an NJE sonnection in use? > > >Rick Barlow >Systems Engineering Consultant >Nationwide Services Co., Technology Solutions >Mainframe, z/VM and System z Linux Support >One Nationwide Plaza 3-20-13 >Columbus OH 43215-2220 U.S.A >Voice: (614) 249-5213Fax: (614) 677-0821 >mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > =
Re: z/VM usability
The one-pack MUSIC system does run on real hardware, well it does run a current CP (tried it on 4.3 with the DASD overlaid on V-disk). I didn't have real FBA devices to try that portion. On 5/8/07, Dave Wade <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: --- David Boyes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Has anyone written a third party OS that can > easily replace CMS? > > None are "easy" replacements, but IMHO there are > several possible > candidates: > > MUSIC > Linux > Solaris (coming soon) > > Only MUSIC is really "CMS-like". The other two are > obvious Unix > derivatives, and would require retooling or > emulation of the CMS DIAG > API. Music is availble for download from :- http://www.geocities.com/sim390/ but I am not sure if you can run this version on real hardware. Some one else mentioned the original VM/370 CMS. This won't run on modern hardware as its strictly 370 mode only and is pretty primitive in many ways. Its limited to original 800 byte blocked file system so no FBA devices and very small minidisks for CMS. None of the things that make CMS what it is today. No full screen input (diag58), no IUCV, no REXX (or even EXEC2), and no XEDIT/FILELIST etc etc. Perhaps a "better" way would be to enhance Don Higgins Z390 (www.z390.org) tool so it would generate real object decks, and have some way of gluing that directly into CP There is also Wylbur and MTS. as far as I know neither MTS is not available but "Super Wylbur" might be at cost. e are available at present. However assuming VM is to continue then we we will probably be "forced" into using whatever IBM supply to maintain it... > Linux would be consistent with other things > going on in the > industry and inside IBM, and Solaris would ...well, > just be weird. > > The key bit would be the presence of REXX and Pipes, > IMHO. The other > external commands could be built on a piece-by-piece > basis, but there's > a lot of logic for CMS users that really depends on > those two parts. > Dave. Finding fabulous fares is fun. Let Yahoo! FareChase search your favorite travel sites to find flight and hotel bargains. http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097
Re: RSCS NJE SCTC to JES
Rick, In the z/OS version 1.8 JES / 2 Init and Tuning Guide it states - Channel-to-channel (CTC) connections are identical to BSC communications except CTC connections do not use EP or PEP. CTC connections are best suited for connections to nodes within the same computer facility. NJE protocols support an ESCON* Basic Mode CTC (defined to the hardware configuration dialog as BCTC) and a 3088 CTC, but do not support an ESCON CTC (defined to the hardware configuration dialog as SCTC). This is in section 5.1.1.3 I currently have a CTC connection between a z/OS 1.8 system and RSCS on a z/VM 5.2 system and the devices used are defined as BCTC. Hope this helps. HITACHI DATA SYSTEMS Raymond E. Noal Senior Technical Engineer Office: (408) 970 - 7978 -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick Barlow Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2007 5:03 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: RSCS NJE SCTC to JES I am trying to determine if there is still a restriction that an ESCON CTC between RSCS and z/OS JES must be defined as BCTC rather than SCTC. The last time I looked at this was 1999 and it was still a restriction. I know that RSCS V3R2 can handle SCTC between RSCS systems. I can't find anything in the RSCS documentation that says there is a restriction. I am not sure what z/OS JES book might have the information. I would also like to detemine if JES2 is any different from JES3. I need to do JES 2 today but may do JES 3 soon. Does anyone on the list happen to have such an NJE sonnection in use? Rick Barlow Systems Engineering Consultant Nationwide Services Co., Technology Solutions Mainframe, z/VM and System z Linux Support One Nationwide Plaza 3-20-13 Columbus OH 43215-2220 U.S.A Voice: (614) 249-5213Fax: (614) 677-0821 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RSCS NJE SCTC to JES
>I am trying to determine if there is still a restriction that an ESCON CTC >between RSCS and z/OS JES must be defined as BCTC rather than SCTC. The >last time I looked at this was 1999 and it was still a restriction. I know >that RSCS V3R2 can handle SCTC between RSCS systems. I can't find anything >in the RSCS documentation that says there is a restriction. I am not sure >what z/OS JES book might have the information. I would also like to >detemine if JES2 is any different from JES3. I need to do JES 2 today but >may do JES 3 soon. > >Does anyone on the list happen to have such an NJE sonnection in use? > Wow this is a blast from the past question. I have a vague memory from 10 years ago, and I believe this was a JES restriction not RSCS. I do not know if this was ever resolved. Try it. Best Regards, Les Geer IBM z/VM and Linux Development
RSCS NJE SCTC to JES
I am trying to determine if there is still a restriction that an ESCON CTC between RSCS and z/OS JES must be defined as BCTC rather than SCTC. The last time I looked at this was 1999 and it was still a restriction. I know that RSCS V3R2 can handle SCTC between RSCS systems. I can't find anything in the RSCS documentation that says there is a restriction. I am not sure what z/OS JES book might have the information. I would also like to detemine if JES2 is any different from JES3. I need to do JES 2 today but may do JES 3 soon. Does anyone on the list happen to have such an NJE sonnection in use? Rick Barlow Systems Engineering Consultant Nationwide Services Co., Technology Solutions Mainframe, z/VM and System z Linux Support One Nationwide Plaza 3-20-13 Columbus OH 43215-2220 U.S.A Voice: (614) 249-5213Fax: (614) 677-0821 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Interesting article
I like the following point: "Everything is consolidated on the same System z9 platform, and the machine can be run at nearly full processor capacity without falling over dead--unlike X64 servers, which rarely run at peak capacity." Somebody is finally getting it. Tony Thigpen -Original Message - From: Phil Smith III Sent: 05/08/2007 06:51 AM http://www.itjungle.com/tlb/tlb050807-story01.html This might relate to the mainframe-Cell BE hybrid article that we all speculated on last week (or was it two weeks ago? Time flies...)
Re: TCP/IP VM Documentation
Sergio, You can also get product doc here: http://www.vm.ibm.com/library/ Click on Library Center, Bookshelf or PDF Library for your release. The TCP/IP feature manuals will be there. Sergio Lima wrote: Hello, I'm trying find a Manual, or may be a little guide of how install , and IVP the TCP/IP from VM. Someone know a easy way to found this ? Thanks very much Sergio Lima Costa System Consultant __ Fale com seus amigos de graça com o novo Yahoo! Messenger http://br.messenger.yahoo.com/ -- Rich Smrcina VM Assist, Inc. Phone: 414-491-6001 Ans Service: 360-715-2467 rich.smrcina at vmassist.com Catch the WAVV! http://www.wavv.org WAVV 2007 - Green Bay, WI - May 18-22, 2007
Re: RES: TCP/IP VM Documentation
Mr. Carlos... I will try there...
Thanks
Big Old Man..
"Carlos A. Bodra" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escreveu:
v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} .shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) }Hello
Old man! Try
http://www.redbooks.ibm.com/cgi-bin/searchsite.cgi?query=tcp/ip+AND+vm
-
De: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Em nome de Sergio
Lima
Enviada em: terça-feira, 8 de maio de 2007 18:05
Para: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Assunto: TCP/IP VM Documentation
Hello,
I'm trying find a Manual, or may be a little guide of how install , and IVP
the TCP/IP from VM.
Someone know a easy way to found this ?
Thanks very much
Sergio Lima Costa
System Consultant
__
Fale com seus amigos de graça com o novo Yahoo! Messenger
http://br.messenger.yahoo.com/
__
Fale com seus amigos de graça com o novo Yahoo! Messenger
http://br.messenger.yahoo.com/
RES: TCP/IP VM Documentation
Hello Old man! Try http://www.redbooks.ibm.com/cgi-bin/searchsite.cgi?query=tcp/ip+AND+vm _ De: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Em nome de Sergio Lima Enviada em: terça-feira, 8 de maio de 2007 18:05 Para: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Assunto: TCP/IP VM Documentation Hello, I'm trying find a Manual, or may be a little guide of how install , and IVP the TCP/IP from VM. Someone know a easy way to found this ? Thanks very much Sergio Lima Costa System Consultant __ Fale com seus amigos de graça com o novo Yahoo! Messenger http://br.messenger.yahoo.com/
Re: CP TERM ESCAPE not working when setting PER
On Tuesday, 05/08/2007 at 07:35 CET, "Ian S. Worthington" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The problem is, if I understand it correctly, that the "#", (or in my case the > ";") *is* being issued from an exec and the ";" is being interpreted as the > linend character. Correct. Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott
Re: SPOOL volume disk error
Yes, I agree. Mikhael, please call this in to the service center and sen d in the dump for the PFE002 if you have it. That abend could certainly ha ve been triggered by the spool volume problem, but it's almost certainly a separate problem in our memory management subsystem, and one which we won 't be able to figure out without the dump. Bill Holder z/VM Development, Memory Management team lead IBM Endicott On Tue, 8 May 2007 00:57:15 -0400, Alan Altmark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On Tuesday, 05/08/2007 at 12:09 ZE8, Mikhael Ramirez Joaquin ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> The message left in the operator console was: >> >> SYSTEM RESTARTED PFE002 AND SYSTEM CONSOLE NOT VM OPERATOR CONSOLE >> >> It's a 3390-Model-3 Symetrix. >> >> The pack was already working before..just when the device error >> encountered starts to appear the error messages. > >The OPERATOR should have received the I/O error messages. What were the y? > PFE002 is not a disk error, but is a problem in memory management. I >don't know why a spool volume would cause that error unless you don't ha ve >enough paging space and CP has overflowed onto spool (QUERY ALLOC) and >the pages have been corrupted by some other system with access to the sa me >disk. > >You can use DDR to look at the offending location on the disk (according >to the I/O error message) to see what's on there. > >If I got this problem on my system, I would call it into the Support >Center. > >Alan Altmark >z/VM Development >IBM Endicott > =
TCP/IP VM Documentation
Hello, I'm trying find a Manual, or may be a little guide of how install , and IVP the TCP/IP from VM. Someone know a easy way to found this ? Thanks very much Sergio Lima Costa System Consultant __ Fale com seus amigos de graça com o novo Yahoo! Messenger http://br.messenger.yahoo.com/
Re: vmsecure doc
Did you try going out to the Ca-web site? I pulled in mine from there. -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of James M Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2007 10:35 To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: vmsecure doc Hello- Can anyone point me to vmsecure documentation on the web please? Looked on ca.com and google to no avail. Thanks. -James
Re: z/VM usability
I can do a beer in the Austin Area. Is anyone going to WAVV? Ed Martin Aultman Health Foundation 330-588-4723 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ext. 40441 > -Original Message- > From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of David Kreuter > Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2007 3:43 PM > To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU > Subject: Re: z/VM usability > > Is your offer just for Rob or any lister? - quite generous! > David > > > > If you are in the Austin area sometime, let me know and I'll buy you a > beer.
Re: CP TERM ESCAPE not working when setting PER
Yes indeed: in execs CP's line editing characters it should not be interpreted but remain part of the command string. And, this should be straigthforward: XEDIT interprets it always (terminal or execs), CP only on terminal input. So on a terminal, CP commands should be interpreted. Confusion started -in my eyes- with XAUTOLOG (but I guess CP SET PF was acting like this since ages). An interesting case is CP commands from an XEDIT session: many people think that entering #CP Q T in XEDIT's command line goes directly to CP, just like #CP in linemode. False: it seems to work, but only as long as XEDIT's linend is set to #. It is XEDIT that splits it's command string in 2 pieces: an empty command and CP Q T. The same is true for any fullscreen application, like VM:OPER or even "Fullscreen CMS": it is the the fullscreen application that must pass the command to CP (or CMS), and for CP this is then not a command coming from a terminal. Another command with confusion is CP SEND: the operands you enter become linemode terminal input for the target machine, so that string is at execution time interpreted with the TERM settings of the target machine. But, care must be taken at the sending side too, at least when entered on a terminal Now you should be ready to consult the online help and explain the difference between 'CP SEND CP userid Q T' and 'CP SEND userid CP Q T', or even '#CP SEND userid "#CP Q T' (the first will always work, the send often not, the last one always if the TERM defaults are active) 2007/5/8, Ian S. Worthington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Kris -- The problem is, if I understand it correctly, that the "#", (or in my case the ";") *is* being issued from an exec and the ";" is being interpreted as the linend character. ian ... -- Kris Buelens, IBM Belgium, VM customer support
Re: z/VM usability
Is your offer just for Rob or any lister? - quite generous! David > If you are in the Austin area sometime, let me know and I'll buy you a beer.
Re: CP TERM ESCAPE not working when setting PER
If it not part of a comment, literal or value of a variable, it is. If it is inside a quoted or delimited string or is part of a comment, it is not interpreted as end-of-statement. Regards, Richard Schuh -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of George Haddad Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2007 12:09 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: CP TERM ESCAPE not working when setting PER Isn't the semi-colon also the Rexx end-of-stmt character? Sorry if this is a silly question (since I've deleted the original post), but is it possible that it's Rexx that's interpreting it as 2 commands, and not CP? Ian S. Worthington wrote: > Kris -- > > The problem is, if I understand it correctly, that the "#", (or in my case the > ";") *is* being issued from an exec and the ";" is being interpreted as the > linend character. > > ian > ... > >
Re: CP TERM ESCAPE not working when setting PER
Isn't the semi-colon also the Rexx end-of-stmt character? Sorry if this is a silly question (since I've deleted the original post), but is it possible that it's Rexx that's interpreting it as 2 commands, and not CP? Ian S. Worthington wrote: Kris -- The problem is, if I understand it correctly, that the "#", (or in my case the ";") *is* being issued from an exec and the ";" is being interpreted as the linend character. ian ...
Re: z/VM usability
Well Rob - I maanged pretty much to buy, install, and bring up our zSeries here with z/VM and Linux, with only a few little gotcha's here and there. And keep it running for near on four years now. I'm not an IBM Systems Programmer, but I do resemble one at times. If you are in the Austin area sometime, let me know and I'll buy you a beer. I expect I know a bit more about UNIX than you do, so maybe we can trade. -Paul --- Begin Message --- On 5/8/07, Paul Raulerson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well- I was being polite, since this is pretty obviously a sore subject with > you for some reason. I was being polite too, as we all are on this list. There is nothing sore about this with me, but I consider myself a bit more knowledgeable than you on the capabilities of CMS Pipelines. So I decided to correct you. I did not expect to teach you CMS Pipelines with my post. Rob --- End Message ---
Re: CP TERM ESCAPE not working when setting PER
Kris -- The problem is, if I understand it correctly, that the "#", (or in my case the ";") *is* being issued from an exec and the ";" is being interpreted as the linend character. ian ... -- Original Message -- Received: Tue, 08 May 2007 08:37:06 AM BST From: Kris Buelens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: CP TERM ESCAPE not working when setting PER > > Anyhow, these differences are only important when entering these commands on > a terminal, in execs, " nor # are interpreted . > > -- > Kris Buelens, > IBM Belgium, VM customer support >
Re: z/VM usability
On 5/8/07, Paul Raulerson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Well- I was being polite, since this is pretty obviously a sore subject with you for some reason. I was being polite too, as we all are on this list. There is nothing sore about this with me, but I consider myself a bit more knowledgeable than you on the capabilities of CMS Pipelines. So I decided to correct you. I did not expect to teach you CMS Pipelines with my post. Rob
Re: z/VM usability
--- David Boyes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Has anyone written a third party OS that can > easily replace CMS? > > None are "easy" replacements, but IMHO there are > several possible > candidates: > > MUSIC > Linux > Solaris (coming soon) > > Only MUSIC is really "CMS-like". The other two are > obvious Unix > derivatives, and would require retooling or > emulation of the CMS DIAG > API. Music is availble for download from :- http://www.geocities.com/sim390/ but I am not sure if you can run this version on real hardware. Some one else mentioned the original VM/370 CMS. This won't run on modern hardware as its strictly 370 mode only and is pretty primitive in many ways. Its limited to original 800 byte blocked file system so no FBA devices and very small minidisks for CMS. None of the things that make CMS what it is today. No full screen input (diag58), no IUCV, no REXX (or even EXEC2), and no XEDIT/FILELIST etc etc. Perhaps a "better" way would be to enhance Don Higgins Z390 (www.z390.org) tool so it would generate real object decks, and have some way of gluing that directly into CP There is also Wylbur and MTS. as far as I know neither MTS is not available but "Super Wylbur" might be at cost. e are available at present. However assuming VM is to continue then we we will probably be "forced" into using whatever IBM supply to maintain it... > Linux would be consistent with other things > going on in the > industry and inside IBM, and Solaris would ...well, > just be weird. > > The key bit would be the presence of REXX and Pipes, > IMHO. The other > external commands could be built on a piece-by-piece > basis, but there's > a lot of logic for CMS users that really depends on > those two parts. > Dave. Finding fabulous fares is fun. Let Yahoo! FareChase search your favorite travel sites to find flight and hotel bargains. http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097
Re: z/VM usability
Try Melinda Varian's history of VM at http://www.princeton.edu/~melinda/25paper.pdf Regards, Richard Schuh VM on the mainframe however, was being driven from different motivations. Perhaps someone here will share and contrast those reasona and activites for us.
Re: z/VM usability
A great summation Phil, and accurate. VM (and z/OS) are *comfortable* environments, because almost everything you can do you can only do one or two ways, and they are usually pretty darn well documented. In business, this is a *wonderful* thing. :) In UNIX, if there are not at least 5 different ways to do something, it is because nobody anywhere has ever gotten interested in doing it. And the documentaton is usually either very sloppy, or in a lot of cases, here just is not any documentation at all. Well, perhaps, there is a usage section in the code that will display a little help. The core idea of pipes in Unix was driven by, of all things - economics. To get the authorization to develop the system at the old Bell Labs, Kerningham, Ritchie, and company sold UNIX as a text processing system for the copyright or patent department. (I forget which.) This was on an old DEC PDP system which very limited memory. Much more limited memory than an IBM mainframe of the day. To allow multiple users to use the system, they *had* to keep the programs tiny and sort of stitch them together. Duct tape can fix almost anything I suppose. In any event, the nroff/troff system, which is a full fledged typesetting system, also derived from this, and so forth and so on. And since input was on an ASR-33 teletype machine (imagine wordprocessing on one of those beasties!) the names of the utilities were kept short because nobody liked typing in those days. In fact, in those days, some programmers felt it was beneath their dignity to learn to type, since that was what clerks and secretaries did. I had a guy who worked for me give me that line as late as 1987! And underneath all that, the *real* reason was to keep the computer on site - since all the other ones like the GE GECOS monster the PDP replaced, were pretty expensive. So to have a computer to develop their ideas on, the scientists went all out for text processing. AWK came of this as well- with the initials of the three developers making up the program name. The contention that it is AWKward to use or AWKward to learn is purely a coincidence. And I have a nice bridge to sell too. VM on the mainframe however, was being driven from different motivations. Perhaps someone here will share and contrast those reasona and activites for us. --- Begin Message --- Paul Raulerson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >No, I have looked, and CMS Pipelines are nice indeed. But then so are pipes >under UNIX; indeed, pipes are the very core of UNIX. If you are not annoyed >by discussing it, I would love to hear your opinions on what is so primitive >about UNIX. :) This is an interesting topic: *IX fans are always horrified (at least, at first) by CMS Pipelines, I think mostly because since Pipes isn't part of the OS, you have to *gasp* enter a SEPARATE COMMAND to use them. That's obviously a nit in the scheme of things, but reflects one of the philosophical differences between the two worlds. *IX has been described as an environment with a lot of little tools that you glue (or maybe duct tape) together; CMS is an environment with larger tools that often don't play together so well. CMS Pipes bridges a lot of that gap, but (I suspect) since the *IX fans like their paradigm, they see it as a kludge. Which, in a way, it is. OTOH, we VMers look at *IX and say "What kind of OS has awk AND sed AND Perl AND all these obscure little things like 'wc' and 'tr' and 'uniq' and and and...?" It feels kludgy and awkward (no pun intended) to have so many overlapping functions. So maybe this is an "agree to disagree" deal -- the two camps may never really come together fully. I look forward to others' thoughts on this topic! ObAnecdote: 25 or so years ago, back at UofW, we had basic Pipe commands built into CMS: >, >>, and < at least. They were not a great success; whether this was due to the lack of the 273 other functions (wc et al.) or due to a difference in OS philosophy I'm not sure. ...phsiii --- End Message ---
Re: z/VM usability
> No, I have looked, and CMS Pipelines are nice indeed. But then so are pipes > under UNIX; indeed, pipes are the very core of UNIX. If you are not annoyed > by discussing it, I would love to hear your opinions on what is so primitive > about UNIX. :) As I said: leaky garden hose. The analogy holds just as long as you use terms like "nice" Well- I was being polite, since this is pretty obviously a sore subject with you for some reason. * CMS Pipelines has multi stream pipelines which means that you can divert part of the input stream and have that go through a different segment of the pipeline and further down the pipe the streams can join again when desired. The closest you get in UNIX is something like the "tee" program. There is a reason for this in UNIX - most system utilties are built to do one or two things as well as possible, and that rather simple mindset leads to a single in / single out design prejudice. It does not mean they capability does not exist. For example, I have many mulitple input streams sending data to a named pipe, which has a director application reading from it, which sends things out of dynamically created streams of processing. For example, Job#1 may come down the pipe and need to be processed in Chinese, while Job#2 coming down the pipe may need to br printed in some other state, and Job#3 is credit card transaction. I did write the director application in C, but it could have been written just as well in Perl or Rexx or Pascal or Fortran for that matter. Granted, this is not a super high volume transactional system (it processed between 100 adn 200 jobs per minute) but if I needed that, I would use CICS. * The stages in CMS Pipelines are not limited by a single input and output (and stderr), but can have many streams which allows for building complex refineries without the need for endless copies of the data. * The way records are moving through the pipeline and the way stages interact means that you can reason about where records are and guarantee the order in which data is produced and consumed in parallel pipeline segments. This is more program design to me than a natural or intrinsic function of Pipes, but that's not a fact that is my opinion. :) * Dynamic changes to the topology of the pipeline where a stage can replace itself by a newly composed segment either permanently or temporary (a sipping pipeline). Combined with the strict order in which data is consumed, you control what part of the data flows through the modified pipeline. Again, this iis quite easily accomplished under Unix - though I admit the best solution tends to start a new process or thread, which is somewhat different. Then I think that process creation is more expensive under VM than under Linux. Opinion again though, I might be wrong. I do believe I am one of those many VM people who embraced Linux and the concepts are not alien to me (I avoid the term "transition" because that would suggest going from one to the other). Recently I wrote a simple Perl program - ptime - to take lines from stdin and write them out prefixed with the local time. To my surprise the following did not work to tag vmstat output with the time as I intended: vmstat 10 | ptime Turns out that something is doing an undetermined amount of buffering (and yes, I learned that I can set the "$|" variable (?) to change that). And there's many more cases where the tools violate the Principe of Least Astonishment. Things like njpipes and OS/2 pipe ran short of that and turned out to be far less useful. That kind of surprises me- though in this case I would most likely have written a short C program to do it and used fflush(). It seems silly that Perl did not automatically account for the buffering. There are other things that can drive you crazy too - like ever try to get a reasonable return code? Try sending back a -4 as the exit code on a program sometime. Annoying! There are certainly lots of rough edges in UNIX/Linux, but there are more than a few there in CMS too, most especially if you do not use it on a very regular basis. Sometimes, the problems in Linux are enough to make me scream and really REALLY miss JCL. -Paul I understand I have the option to write a C program from scratch to do what I want, or maybe copy an old one from when I wanted almost the same. We've done so with Rexx for quite some time. However, I find it way more productive to compose a pipeline out of many built-in stages and maybe a few reusable ones from myself in Rexx. Rob
Re: vmsecure doc
If you go to CA's site (http://supportconnect.ca.com/sc/support/Index) and get yourself a supportconnect userid, you can login and there are extra options under the "downloads" link on the left hand side of the page - one of them being "Documentation". You should be able to find what you are looking for there.. From: James M [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2007 8:35 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: vmsecure doc Hello- Can anyone point me to vmsecure documentation on the web please? Looked on ca.com and google to no avail. Thanks. -James
Re: vmsecure doc
Hi James, You need to go to SupportConnect.ca.com to access the online documenation. JR JR (Steven) Imler CA Senior Software Engineer Tel: +1 703 708 3479 Fax: +1 703 708 3267 [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of James M Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2007 11:35 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: vmsecure doc Hello- Can anyone point me to vmsecure documentation on the web please? Looked on ca.com and google to no avail. Thanks. -James
vmsecure doc
Hello- Can anyone point me to vmsecure documentation on the web please? Looked on ca.com and google to no avail. Thanks. -James
Re: Interesting article
"time flies...like an arrow. But fruit flies like a banana..." I think I need more coffee now. Phil Smith III wrote: http://www.itjungle.com/tlb/tlb050807-story01.html This might relate to the mainframe-Cell BE hybrid article that we all speculated on last week (or was it two weeks ago? Time flies...) -- DJ V/Soft
Interesting article
http://www.itjungle.com/tlb/tlb050807-story01.html This might relate to the mainframe-Cell BE hybrid article that we all speculated on last week (or was it two weeks ago? Time flies...) -- ...phsiii Phil Smith III (703) 476-4511 (office) (703) 568-6662 (cell)
Re: z/VM usability
Paul Raulerson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >No, I have looked, and CMS Pipelines are nice indeed. But then so are pipes >under UNIX; indeed, pipes are the very core of UNIX. If you are not annoyed >by discussing it, I would love to hear your opinions on what is so primitive >about UNIX. :) This is an interesting topic: *IX fans are always horrified (at least, at first) by CMS Pipelines, I think mostly because since Pipes isn't part of the OS, you have to *gasp* enter a SEPARATE COMMAND to use them. That's obviously a nit in the scheme of things, but reflects one of the philosophical differences between the two worlds. *IX has been described as an environment with a lot of little tools that you glue (or maybe duct tape) together; CMS is an environment with larger tools that often don't play together so well. CMS Pipes bridges a lot of that gap, but (I suspect) since the *IX fans like their paradigm, they see it as a kludge. Which, in a way, it is. OTOH, we VMers look at *IX and say "What kind of OS has awk AND sed AND Perl AND all these obscure little things like 'wc' and 'tr' and 'uniq' and and and...?" It feels kludgy and awkward (no pun intended) to have so many overlapping functions. So maybe this is an "agree to disagree" deal -- the two camps may never really come together fully. I look forward to others' thoughts on this topic! ObAnecdote: 25 or so years ago, back at UofW, we had basic Pipe commands built into CMS: >, >>, and < at least. They were not a great success; whether this was due to the lack of the 273 other functions (wc et al.) or due to a difference in OS philosophy I'm not sure. ...phsiii
Re: z/VM usability
On 5/8/07, Paul Raulerson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: No, I have looked, and CMS Pipelines are nice indeed. But then so are pipes under UNIX; indeed, pipes are the very core of UNIX. If you are not annoyed by discussing it, I would love to hear your opinions on what is so primitive about UNIX. :) As I said: leaky garden hose. The analogy holds just as long as you use terms like "nice" * CMS Pipelines has multi stream pipelines which means that you can divert part of the input stream and have that go through a different segment of the pipeline and further down the pipe the streams can join again when desired. The closest you get in UNIX is something like the "tee" program. * The stages in CMS Pipelines are not limited by a single input and output (and stderr), but can have many streams which allows for building complex refineries without the need for endless copies of the data. * The way records are moving through the pipeline and the way stages interact means that you can reason about where records are and guarantee the order in which data is produced and consumed in parallel pipeline segments. * Dynamic changes to the topology of the pipeline where a stage can replace itself by a newly composed segment either permanently or temporary (a sipping pipeline). Combined with the strict order in which data is consumed, you control what part of the data flows through the modified pipeline. I do believe I am one of those many VM people who embraced Linux and the concepts are not alien to me (I avoid the term "transition" because that would suggest going from one to the other). Recently I wrote a simple Perl program - ptime - to take lines from stdin and write them out prefixed with the local time. To my surprise the following did not work to tag vmstat output with the time as I intended: vmstat 10 | ptime Turns out that something is doing an undetermined amount of buffering (and yes, I learned that I can set the "$|" variable (?) to change that). And there's many more cases where the tools violate the Principe of Least Astonishment. Things like njpipes and OS/2 pipe ran short of that and turned out to be far less useful. I understand I have the option to write a C program from scratch to do what I want, or maybe copy an old one from when I wanted almost the same. We've done so with Rexx for quite some time. However, I find it way more productive to compose a pipeline out of many built-in stages and maybe a few reusable ones from myself in Rexx. Rob
Re: CP TERM ESCAPE not working when setting PER
Unlike SET PF IMMED which ignores the line editing chars at SET time, interpreting them when you press the PF key. Things are not that simple. (the IMMED option on SET PF is not important here). If you are in TERM MODE VM and enter in RUNNING mode and issue CP SET PF6 #CP Q T It becomes two commands, PF6 is not set to "#CP Q T", and you need to issue CP SET PF6 "#CP Q T When entering it in CP READ mode, it remains 1 command and PF6 is set indeed. If you then would issue CP SET PF6 "#CP Q T, the " becomes part of command assigned to PF6. When entering #CP SET PF6 #CP Q T in Running mode, it also remains one command, just like Alan says This is also exactly how XAUTOLOG works. Anyhow, these differences are only important when entering these commands on a terminal, in execs, " nor # are interpreted . -- Kris Buelens, IBM Belgium, VM customer support
Route changes
Hi networking mavens! [ http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/maven Function: noun Etymology: Yiddish meyvn, from Late Hebrew mEbhIn : one who is experienced or knowledgeable : EXPERT; also : FREAK 4a ] (Freak??) It looks like I am FINALLY, REALLY doing it! The traffic over our 2216 will be moved to two OSAs - SNA traffic to an OSE and TCP traffic to an OSD. We have 2 2216s in the following setup (please use monospace font): 10.0.0.0/16 ---+---+-- | | | 10.0.0.8/16 | [2216-P] | 10.1.2.1/24 | | | 10.1.2.2/24 | 10.0.0.12/16 VSE-IM VM-P 10.0.0.0/16 ---++-- || | 10.0.0.9/16| [---2216-T---] | 10.1.4.1/24 | |10.1.5.1/24 | | | | | 10.1.4.2/24 |10.1.5.2/24 | 10.0.0.7/16 VSE-TM +---VM-T 10.1.4.2/24 || 10.1.5.2/24 +--VCTC--+ 2216-P is on lan 10.0 as 10.0.0.8, and is the gateway for traffic to VSE-IM at 10.1.2.2 2216-T on the same lan is 10.0.0.9, and is the gateway to VM-T 10.1.5.2 and also to VSE-TM at 10.1.4.2 VM-T has a VCTC connection to VSE-TM using the same IP numbers as they use to the 2216: 10.1.5.2 to 10.1.4.2 (/24) The Network-Guy (tm) has shown me a bit of his routing info: ip route vrf MOFET 10.1.2.0 255.255.255.0 10.0.0.8 ip route vrf MOFET 10.1.4.0 255.255.255.0 10.0.0.9 ip route vrf MOFET 10.1.5.0 255.255.255.0 10.0.0.9 My VM definitions in VM-T include: HOME 10.0.0.7 LAN10 ; OSA QDIO TO LAN 10.0.0.0/16 10.1.5.2 T2216 ; LAN ADAPTER 2216-T (10.1.5.1) 10.1.5.2 VSET; TM (10.1.4.2) Known gateways: NetAddress FirstHopFlgs PktSz Subnet Mask Subnet Value Link -- - --- -- Default 10.1.5.1UGS 1500T2216 10.0.0.0US 1500 0.255.0.0 0.0.0.0 LAN10 10.1.4.2UHS 4096 HOSTVSET 10.1.5.1UHS 1500 HOSTT2216 As far I understand, in order for traffic to VSE-IM, VSE-TM, and VM-T to bypass the 2216s, I will need to perform the following steps: First, the default gateway needs to change from 10.1.5.1 (the 2216) back to the 10.0.0.0/16 lan. for VM-T: 1) change the VM-T's HOME list from: HOME 10.0.0.7 LAN10 10.1.5.2 T2216 10.1.5.2 VSET to: HOME 10.0.0.7 LAN10 10.1.5.2 LAN10 10.1.5.2 VSET 2) have the Network-Guy change the route of 10.1.5.0 to be 10.0.0.7 This seems to be all, making it the easiest conversion. For VSE-TM: 1) The N-G needs to route 10.1.4.0 to 10.0.0.7 (VM-T) 2) VM needs to act as a virtual router and send all 10.1.4.2 traffic over the VCTC to VSE. Also, returning traffic from VSE must go out over 10.0.0.7. (Unfortunately, our VSE TCPIP seems incapable of talking to a virtual switch, so VM must act as a router to it). Is there anything special I need to do in VM to get it to route to VSE and back, or are my current definitions enough? For VSE-IM: 1) Same as for TM, the N-G needs to route 10.1.2.0 to 10.0.0.12 . 2) Here I need to set up a new VSE-I link in VM-P, which does not yet have a VCTC to IM. 3) Once I have the CTC, VM routing should be implemented just like between VM-T and VSE-TM. Do I have any gross (or other) mistakes here? Do you have any advice/hints/tips? This is an old level, we are still using VM TCPIP from z/VM 4.3.0, until I hopefully go to 5.3 this summer. (I have 4.4 here also, but it never went production. It could if necessary). Thanks for your help! Shimon -- Shimon Lebowitzmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] VM System Programmer . Israel Police National HQ. http://www.poboxes.com/shimonpgp Jerusalem, Israel phone: +972 2 542-9877 fax: 542-9308
