Re: REXXCPS EXEC
>>> On 6/10/2011 at 01:46 PM, Mike Hammock wrote: > Let's see, > what word can we find that starts with "B" that means "Meaningless"? Bogus? Bogo? Mark Post
Re: REXXCPS EXEC
Chuckie, Chuckie, Chuckie,
Smacking someone on the (back) of the head is not "beaning" them. The correct
and more proper term is - Whisterpoot !!!
Raymond E. Noal
EMC²
where information lives
Phone: (508) 249-4076
Ext: 44076
-Original Message-
From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU] On Behalf
Of Alan Altmark
Sent: Friday, June 10, 2011 2:22 PM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: REXXCPS EXEC
On Friday, 06/10/2011 at 01:47 EDT, Mike Hammock
wrote:
> Of course,
> pretty soon we may have to start using BIPS (Billions of .). Let's
see,
> what word can we find that starts with "B" that means "Meaningless"?
(yawn)
(scratch) (scratch)
I vote for "Beaningless." It even pulls in:
- Useless accounting ("bean counters")
- Smacking someone on the head ("beaning" them)
(burp)
-- Chuckie
(snore)
Re: REXXCPS EXEC
Isn't that called bull? Lloyd - Original Message From: Mike Hammock To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Sent: Fri, June 10, 2011 1:46:05 PM Subject: Re: REXXCPS EXEC Of course, pretty soon we may have to start using BIPS (Billions of .). Let's see, what word can we find that starts with "B" that means "Meaningless"? Mike Hammock -- From: "Les Koehler" Sent: Friday, June 10, 2011 12:58 PM To: Subject: Re: REXXCPS EXEC > That's an interesting observation, but what does it have to do with how much >work a regular VM userid can get done using Rexx? That's the whole point of >REXXCPS. > > Les > > Mike Hammock wrote: >> I have found in the past that dividing the REXX CPS number by 1800 gives an >>approximation(!) of the general MIPS rating. >> Those of you with access to various systems might want to see if this comes >>anywhere to close for your system. This would make the system below (2622295 >>CPS) about 1456 MIPS. >> Just remember that REXXCPS is a single thread; it can only test a single >>processor/core. If you have a multi-processor system you have to multiple >>by >>the number of processors and "adjust" for N-way "interference". >> >> Mike Hammock >> >> -- >> From: "Bruce Hayden" >> Sent: Friday, June 10, 2011 10:12 AM >> To: >> Subject: Re: REXXCPS EXEC >> >>> I ran it on a 2817-742 (i.e. a z196): >>> rexxcps >>> - REXXCPS 2.1 -- Measuring REXX clauses/second - >>> REXX version is: REXX370 4.02 01 Dec 1998 >>> System is: CMS >>> Averaging: 100 measures of 100 iterations >>> Calibration (empty DO): 0.1351 secs (average of 100) >>> Spooling trace NOTERM >>> Spooling now back on TERM >>> >>> Total (full DO): 0.03813453 secs (average of 100 measures of 100 iterations) >>> Time for one iteration (1000 clauses) was: 0.0003813453 seconds >>> >>> Performance: 2622295 REXX clauses per second >>> >>> Ready; T=3.76/3.76 10:06:06 >>> >>> But - you're probably more interested in the numbers after compiling >>> the exec. (I noticed in the table that it also has the results after >>> the exec is compiled.) >>> >>> rexxcpsc >>> - REXXCPS 2.1 -- Measuring REXX clauses/second - >>> REXX version is: REXXC370 4.02 23 Dec 1999 >>> System is: CMS >>> Averaging: 100 measures of 100 iterations >>> Calibration (empty DO): 0.0467 secs (average of 100) >>> Spooling trace NOTERM >>> Spooling now back on TERM >>> >>> Total (full DO): 0.00707880 secs (average of 100 measures of 100 iterations) >>> Time for one iteration (1000 clauses) was: 0.70788 seconds >>> >>> Performance: 14126688 REXX clauses per second >>> >>> Ready; T=0.69/0.69 10:06:10 >>> >>> On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 6:18 AM, Les Koehler wrote: I'm curious... Has anyone with real mainframe hardware (no emulation) recently run REXXCPS that MFC wrote way back when? See: http://speleotrove.com/misc/rexxcpslist.html for his collection of data. If you've never seen REXXCPS, there's a link to it at the top of the page. Just remove the hash-bang usr/bin to run it on a VM userid. Les >>> >>> >>> >>> -- Bruce Hayden >>> z/VM and Linux on System z ATS >>> IBM, Endicott, NY >>> >>> >> > >
Re: REXXCPS EXEC
On Friday, 06/10/2011 at 01:47 EDT, Mike Hammock
wrote:
> Of course,
> pretty soon we may have to start using BIPS (Billions of .). Let's
see,
> what word can we find that starts with "B" that means "Meaningless"?
(yawn)
(scratch) (scratch)
I vote for "Beaningless." It even pulls in:
- Useless accounting ("bean counters")
- Smacking someone on the head ("beaning" them)
(burp)
-- Chuckie
(snore)
AUTO: Jocelyn Blais is out of the office/ Jocelyn Blais n'est pas disponible. (returning 14/06/2011)
I am out of the office until 14/06/2011. Bonjour, Je serai absent du bureau en vacance jusqu'au14 juin 2011. Pour toute urgence veuillez contacter votre representant logiciel. Pour des questions techniques vous pouvez communiquer avec Paul Hall at 905-316-6542 ou par courriel ph...@ca.ibm.com. A bientôt, Jocelyn Blais Hi, I am out of the office, in vacation, until June 14, 2011. For emergencies please contact your IBM Sales representative. For technical questions you can also contact Paul Hall at 905-316-6542 or by email at ph...@ca.ibm.com. Jocelyn Blais Spécialiste Tivoli - Solution de gestion des systèmes IBM Canada Limitée 140, Grande-Allée Est, 5ème étage Québec (Québec) G1N 5N6 418.521-8248 bla...@ca.ibm.com Note: This is an automated response to your message "Re: z/VM 5.4 FTP Installation ... ? ..." sent on 6/10/2011 8:12:35. This is the only notification you will receive while this person is away.
Re: REXXCPS EXEC
Personally, I would not want to try to defend either one as being especially useful/meaningful, especially to an individual user. Is "REXX Clauses per Second" any more meaningful to typical users than "Millions of instructions per second"? They are really basically the same number, just different unit of measure. Either one could be used to compare one dimension of performance between two processors and that is about all. The raw REXXCPS numbers are getting so large now (2,622,295 in the example) that they are cumbersome so the MIPS numbers are a bit more convenient. Of course, pretty soon we may have to start using BIPS (Billions of .). Let's see, what word can we find that starts with "B" that means "Meaningless"? Mike Hammock -- From: "Les Koehler" Sent: Friday, June 10, 2011 12:58 PM To: Subject: Re: REXXCPS EXEC That's an interesting observation, but what does it have to do with how much work a regular VM userid can get done using Rexx? That's the whole point of REXXCPS. Les Mike Hammock wrote: I have found in the past that dividing the REXX CPS number by 1800 gives an approximation(!) of the general MIPS rating. Those of you with access to various systems might want to see if this comes anywhere to close for your system. This would make the system below (2622295 CPS) about 1456 MIPS. Just remember that REXXCPS is a single thread; it can only test a single processor/core. If you have a multi-processor system you have to multiple by the number of processors and "adjust" for N-way "interference". Mike Hammock -- From: "Bruce Hayden" Sent: Friday, June 10, 2011 10:12 AM To: Subject: Re: REXXCPS EXEC I ran it on a 2817-742 (i.e. a z196): rexxcps - REXXCPS 2.1 -- Measuring REXX clauses/second - REXX version is: REXX370 4.02 01 Dec 1998 System is: CMS Averaging: 100 measures of 100 iterations Calibration (empty DO): 0.1351 secs (average of 100) Spooling trace NOTERM Spooling now back on TERM Total (full DO): 0.03813453 secs (average of 100 measures of 100 iterations) Time for one iteration (1000 clauses) was: 0.0003813453 seconds Performance: 2622295 REXX clauses per second Ready; T=3.76/3.76 10:06:06 But - you're probably more interested in the numbers after compiling the exec. (I noticed in the table that it also has the results after the exec is compiled.) rexxcpsc - REXXCPS 2.1 -- Measuring REXX clauses/second - REXX version is: REXXC370 4.02 23 Dec 1999 System is: CMS Averaging: 100 measures of 100 iterations Calibration (empty DO): 0.0467 secs (average of 100) Spooling trace NOTERM Spooling now back on TERM Total (full DO): 0.00707880 secs (average of 100 measures of 100 iterations) Time for one iteration (1000 clauses) was: 0.70788 seconds Performance: 14126688 REXX clauses per second Ready; T=0.69/0.69 10:06:10 On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 6:18 AM, Les Koehler wrote: I'm curious... Has anyone with real mainframe hardware (no emulation) recently run REXXCPS that MFC wrote way back when? See: http://speleotrove.com/misc/rexxcpslist.html for his collection of data. If you've never seen REXXCPS, there's a link to it at the top of the page. Just remove the hash-bang usr/bin to run it on a VM userid. Les -- Bruce Hayden z/VM and Linux on System z ATS IBM, Endicott, NY
Re: REXXCPS EXEC
That's an interesting observation, but what does it have to do with how much work a regular VM userid can get done using Rexx? That's the whole point of REXXCPS. Les Mike Hammock wrote: I have found in the past that dividing the REXX CPS number by 1800 gives an approximation(!) of the general MIPS rating. Those of you with access to various systems might want to see if this comes anywhere to close for your system. This would make the system below (2622295 CPS) about 1456 MIPS. Just remember that REXXCPS is a single thread; it can only test a single processor/core. If you have a multi-processor system you have to multiple by the number of processors and "adjust" for N-way "interference". Mike Hammock -- From: "Bruce Hayden" Sent: Friday, June 10, 2011 10:12 AM To: Subject: Re: REXXCPS EXEC I ran it on a 2817-742 (i.e. a z196): rexxcps - REXXCPS 2.1 -- Measuring REXX clauses/second - REXX version is: REXX370 4.02 01 Dec 1998 System is: CMS Averaging: 100 measures of 100 iterations Calibration (empty DO): 0.1351 secs (average of 100) Spooling trace NOTERM Spooling now back on TERM Total (full DO): 0.03813453 secs (average of 100 measures of 100 iterations) Time for one iteration (1000 clauses) was: 0.0003813453 seconds Performance: 2622295 REXX clauses per second Ready; T=3.76/3.76 10:06:06 But - you're probably more interested in the numbers after compiling the exec. (I noticed in the table that it also has the results after the exec is compiled.) rexxcpsc - REXXCPS 2.1 -- Measuring REXX clauses/second - REXX version is: REXXC370 4.02 23 Dec 1999 System is: CMS Averaging: 100 measures of 100 iterations Calibration (empty DO): 0.0467 secs (average of 100) Spooling trace NOTERM Spooling now back on TERM Total (full DO): 0.00707880 secs (average of 100 measures of 100 iterations) Time for one iteration (1000 clauses) was: 0.70788 seconds Performance: 14126688 REXX clauses per second Ready; T=0.69/0.69 10:06:10 On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 6:18 AM, Les Koehler wrote: I'm curious... Has anyone with real mainframe hardware (no emulation) recently run REXXCPS that MFC wrote way back when? See: http://speleotrove.com/misc/rexxcpslist.html for his collection of data. If you've never seen REXXCPS, there's a link to it at the top of the page. Just remove the hash-bang usr/bin to run it on a VM userid. Les -- Bruce Hayden z/VM and Linux on System z ATS IBM, Endicott, NY
Re: REXXCPS EXEC
Lightly loaded, uncapped 1-engine z800: Performance: 174831 REXX clauses per second/1800 = 97 bogomips (fairly accurate) Lightly loaded, capped3-engine z10: Performance: 1700261 REXX clauses per second/1800 = 944 bogomips (dunno) Mike Walter Aon Corporation The opinions expressed herein are mine alone, not my employer's. "Les Koehler" Sent by: "The IBM z/VM Operating System" 06/10/2011 05:18 AM Please respond to "The IBM z/VM Operating System" To IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU cc Subject REXXCPS EXEC I'm curious... Has anyone with real mainframe hardware (no emulation) recently run REXXCPS that MFC wrote way back when? See: http://speleotrove.com/misc/rexxcpslist.html for his collection of data. If you've never seen REXXCPS, there's a link to it at the top of the page. Just remove the hash-bang usr/bin to run it on a VM userid. Les The information contained in this e-mail and any accompanying documents may contain information that is confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply e-mail and then delete this message, including any attachments. Any dissemination, distribution or other use of the contents of this message by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. All messages sent to and from this e-mail address may be monitored as permitted by applicable law and regulations to ensure compliance with our internal policies and to protect our business. E-mails are not secure and cannot be guaranteed to be error free as they can be intercepted, amended, lost or destroyed, or contain viruses. You are deemed to have accepted these risks if you communicate with us by e-mail.
Re: REXXCPS EXEC
On Friday, 06/10/2011 at 10:25 EDT, Mike Hammock wrote: > Just remember that REXXCPS is a single thread; it can only test a single > processor/core. If you have a multi-processor system you have to multiple > by the number of processors and "adjust" for N-way "interference". I.e. It's just another instance of bogomips. Treat it the same way. Alan Altmark z/VM and Linux on System z Consultant IBM System Lab Services and Training ibm.com/systems/services/labservices office: 607.429.3323 mobile; 607.321.7556 alan_altm...@us.ibm.com IBM Endicott
Re: Duplicate CP Monitor records TCPIP
Hi Bill, The IP stack hasn't been stopped, at least as far as I know. The last tim e the stacks were stopped was due to a VM IPL. If indeed multiple buffers were created, would it make sense that the sam e data is reported in all buffers? I would expect, if new buffers were crea ted for the devices the data in the newest buffers would be incremented with the new data and the old buffers would stay on their old values. Regards, Berry.
Re: Again IOCDS and dynamic activation.
Hello Tom, I believe that I am correct in stating the following: The configuration statements in the SYSTEM CONFIG file are used basically during z/VM IPL to create your system's configuration. A subsequent activation of a new IODF/IOCDS is not really associated to the SYSTEM CONFIG statements. Since you defined the real device numbers of 4xxx to only be offline at IPL (and IPL is the operative word here), upon activation of a new IOCDS/IODF, these devices are available to the system during device discovery and as a result become online. The best way to avoid this is to define the 4xxx devices as 'Not Accepted' causing z/VM not to pay any attention to these devices during IPL and activation processing. The SYSTEM CONFIG statements are used to create your working configuration for the current IPL of z/VM. Subsequent dynamic activations of new configurations do not necessarily adhere to the SYSTEM CONFIG statements with the 'Not Accepted' category being the exception. Hope this helps. Raymond E. Noal EMC² where information lives Phone: (508) 249-4076 Ext: 44076 From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU] On Behalf Of Tom Huegel Sent: Friday, June 10, 2011 9:18 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Again IOCDS and dynamic activation. I am having a problem with dynamic activation of the IOCDS by z/OS. This is what is in my SYS CONFIG file. Devices , Offline_at_IPL -, Sensed -, NotAccepted CC00-CDFF, Online_at_IPL 0020-002F, 00B0-00B2, D509-D50F, D52B-D52F and in my AUTOLOG1 profile. ADDRESS COMMAND CP SET DEVICES NOTACCEPTED '1000-' ADDRESS COMMAND CP SET NEW_DEVICES INIT OFF After IPL everything is fine, the devices I want ONLINE are online and those I want OFFLINE are offline. But when a new IOCDS is activated the group of devices I am trying to keep offline 4xxx become ONLINE.. The devices added by the new IOCDS (E0xx) are OFFLINE. Am I missing something? Is this the way it is supposed to work? Is there a way to prevent this from happening? Thanks
Re: REXXCPS EXEC
I have found in the past that dividing the REXX CPS number by 1800 gives an approximation(!) of the general MIPS rating. Those of you with access to various systems might want to see if this comes anywhere to close for your system. This would make the system below (2622295 CPS) about 1456 MIPS. Just remember that REXXCPS is a single thread; it can only test a single processor/core. If you have a multi-processor system you have to multiple by the number of processors and "adjust" for N-way "interference". Mike Hammock -- From: "Bruce Hayden" Sent: Friday, June 10, 2011 10:12 AM To: Subject: Re: REXXCPS EXEC I ran it on a 2817-742 (i.e. a z196): rexxcps - REXXCPS 2.1 -- Measuring REXX clauses/second - REXX version is: REXX370 4.02 01 Dec 1998 System is: CMS Averaging: 100 measures of 100 iterations Calibration (empty DO): 0.1351 secs (average of 100) Spooling trace NOTERM Spooling now back on TERM Total (full DO): 0.03813453 secs (average of 100 measures of 100 iterations) Time for one iteration (1000 clauses) was: 0.0003813453 seconds Performance: 2622295 REXX clauses per second Ready; T=3.76/3.76 10:06:06 But - you're probably more interested in the numbers after compiling the exec. (I noticed in the table that it also has the results after the exec is compiled.) rexxcpsc - REXXCPS 2.1 -- Measuring REXX clauses/second - REXX version is: REXXC370 4.02 23 Dec 1999 System is: CMS Averaging: 100 measures of 100 iterations Calibration (empty DO): 0.0467 secs (average of 100) Spooling trace NOTERM Spooling now back on TERM Total (full DO): 0.00707880 secs (average of 100 measures of 100 iterations) Time for one iteration (1000 clauses) was: 0.70788 seconds Performance: 14126688 REXX clauses per second Ready; T=0.69/0.69 10:06:10 On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 6:18 AM, Les Koehler wrote: I'm curious... Has anyone with real mainframe hardware (no emulation) recently run REXXCPS that MFC wrote way back when? See: http://speleotrove.com/misc/rexxcpslist.html for his collection of data. If you've never seen REXXCPS, there's a link to it at the top of the page. Just remove the hash-bang usr/bin to run it on a VM userid. Les -- Bruce Hayden z/VM and Linux on System z ATS IBM, Endicott, NY
Re: REXXCPS EXEC
I ran it on a 2817-742 (i.e. a z196): rexxcps - REXXCPS 2.1 -- Measuring REXX clauses/second - REXX version is: REXX370 4.02 01 Dec 1998 System is: CMS Averaging: 100 measures of 100 iterations Calibration (empty DO): 0.1351 secs (average of 100) Spooling trace NOTERM Spooling now back on TERM Total (full DO): 0.03813453 secs (average of 100 measures of 100 iterations) Time for one iteration (1000 clauses) was: 0.0003813453 seconds Performance: 2622295 REXX clauses per second Ready; T=3.76/3.76 10:06:06 But - you're probably more interested in the numbers after compiling the exec. (I noticed in the table that it also has the results after the exec is compiled.) rexxcpsc - REXXCPS 2.1 -- Measuring REXX clauses/second - REXX version is: REXXC370 4.02 23 Dec 1999 System is: CMS Averaging: 100 measures of 100 iterations Calibration (empty DO): 0.0467 secs (average of 100) Spooling trace NOTERM Spooling now back on TERM Total (full DO): 0.00707880 secs (average of 100 measures of 100 iterations) Time for one iteration (1000 clauses) was: 0.70788 seconds Performance: 14126688 REXX clauses per second Ready; T=0.69/0.69 10:06:10 On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 6:18 AM, Les Koehler wrote: > I'm curious... Has anyone with real mainframe hardware (no emulation) > recently run REXXCPS that MFC wrote way back when? > > See: > > http://speleotrove.com/misc/rexxcpslist.html > > for his collection of data. > > If you've never seen REXXCPS, there's a link to it at the top of the page. > Just remove the hash-bang usr/bin to run it on a VM userid. > > Les > -- Bruce Hayden z/VM and Linux on System z ATS IBM, Endicott, NY
Re: REXXCPS EXEC
z196: Performance: 2714887 REXX clauses per second z10:Performance: 1732967 REXX clauses per second Marcy -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU] On Behalf Of peter.w...@ttc.ca Sent: Friday, June 10, 2011 7:02 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: [IBMVM] REXXCPS EXEC Well, I just tried it on our z9 BC E01: rexxcps - REXXCPS 2.1 -- Measuring REXX clauses/second - REXX version is: REXX370 4.02 01 Dec 1998 System is: CMS Averaging: 100 measures of 100 iterations Calibration (empty DO): 0.00014319 secs (average of 100) Spooling trace NOTERM Spooling now back on TERM Total (full DO): 0.91546694 secs (average of 100 measures of 100 iterations) Time for one iteration (1000 clauses) was: 0.0091546694 seconds Performance: 109234 REXX clauses per second Ready; It would be fun to try on an uncapped z196 (not that I'm ever likely to see one of those). Peter -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU] On Behalf Of Les Koehler Sent: June 10, 2011 06:18 To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: REXXCPS EXEC I'm curious... Has anyone with real mainframe hardware (no emulation) recently run REXXCPS that MFC wrote way back when? See: http://speleotrove.com/misc/rexxcpslist.html for his collection of data. If you've never seen REXXCPS, there's a link to it at the top of the page. Just remove the hash-bang usr/bin to run it on a VM userid. Les The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review retransmission dissemination or other use of or taking any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient or delegate is strictly prohibited. If you received this in error please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. The integrity and security of this message cannot be guaranteed on the Internet. The sender accepts no liability for the content of this e-mail or for the consequences of any actions taken on the basis of information provided. The recipient should check this e-mail and any attachments for the presence of viruses. The sender accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail. This disclaimer is property of the TTC and must not be altered or circumvented in any manner.
Re: z/VM 5.4 FTP Installation ... ? ...
On Friday, 06/10/2011 at 07:51 EDT, Malcolm Beattie wrote: > > (2) Have you ever done it using non-offset-0 minidisks? > > Yup, multiple times. Shouldn't cause any problems at all. Just so > long is there's enough room on the resulting minidisks to fit a > "whole mod-3 minus a few cylinders" or "whole mod-9 minus a few > cylinders". I forget the exact number (there's a table in one of > the manuals) but I'm pretty sure the installation lets you shave > more than one cylinder from a whole mod3 or mod9--i.e. it doesn't > use, need or care about the last 2-3 cyls on the volumes you give it. The system layout is explicitly designed to occupy no more than n-1 cyls. This was done to accommodate non-fullpack minidisk installation. Hmmm... this isn't made clear in the Program Directory. A simple FLASHCOPY with relocation will take care of getting it production-ready in, um, a flash. As it were. Alan Altmark z/VM and Linux on System z Consultant IBM System Lab Services and Training ibm.com/systems/services/labservices office: 607.429.3323 mobile; 607.321.7556 alan_altm...@us.ibm.com IBM Endicott
Re: REXXCPS EXEC
Well, I just tried it on our z9 BC E01: rexxcps - REXXCPS 2.1 -- Measuring REXX clauses/second - REXX version is: REXX370 4.02 01 Dec 1998 System is: CMS Averaging: 100 measures of 100 iterations Calibration (empty DO): 0.00014319 secs (average of 100) Spooling trace NOTERM Spooling now back on TERM Total (full DO): 0.91546694 secs (average of 100 measures of 100 iterations) Time for one iteration (1000 clauses) was: 0.0091546694 seconds Performance: 109234 REXX clauses per second Ready; It would be fun to try on an uncapped z196 (not that I'm ever likely to see one of those). Peter -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU] On Behalf Of Les Koehler Sent: June 10, 2011 06:18 To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: REXXCPS EXEC I'm curious... Has anyone with real mainframe hardware (no emulation) recently run REXXCPS that MFC wrote way back when? See: http://speleotrove.com/misc/rexxcpslist.html for his collection of data. If you've never seen REXXCPS, there's a link to it at the top of the page. Just remove the hash-bang usr/bin to run it on a VM userid. Les The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review retransmission dissemination or other use of or taking any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient or delegate is strictly prohibited. If you received this in error please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. The integrity and security of this message cannot be guaranteed on the Internet. The sender accepts no liability for the content of this e-mail or for the consequences of any actions taken on the basis of information provided. The recipient should check this e-mail and any attachments for the presence of viruses. The sender accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail. This disclaimer is property of the TTC and must not be altered or circumvented in any manner.
Re: Duplicate CP Monitor records TCPIP
If these are the result of multiple links, I would think the link names would be different. This is a long shot, but is it possible that this TCP/IP stopped unexpectedly at some point in time and was restarted without an IPL or Logoff/Logon? The Stack identifies which buffers the CP monitor will collect by issuing a diagnose x'DC' during intialization. It's almost like multiple bufferes got created. Bill Bitner - z/VM Customer Focus and Care - IBM Endicott - 607-429-3286
Again IOCDS and dynamic activation.
I am having a problem with dynamic activation of the IOCDS by z/OS. This is what is in my SYS CONFIG file. Devices , Offline_at_IPL -, Sensed -, NotAccepted CC00-CDFF, Online_at_IPL 0020-002F, 00B0-00B2, D509-D50F, D52B-D52F and in my AUTOLOG1 profile. ADDRESS COMMAND CP SET DEVICES NOTACCEPTED '1000-' ADDRESS COMMAND CP SET NEW_DEVICES INIT OFF After IPL everything is fine, the devices I want ONLINE are online and those I want OFFLINE are offline. But when a new IOCDS is activated the group of devices I am trying to keep offline 4xxx become ONLINE.. The devices added by the new IOCDS (E0xx) are OFFLINE. Am I missing something? Is this the way it is supposed to work? Is there a way to prevent this from happening? Thanks
Re: z/VM 5.4 FTP Installation ... ? ...
I've dug around in the EXECs - two points come to light ...
I failed to invoke DVDPRIME with the, 'server' option ('DVDPRIME ( SERVER')
- therefore :DVDSOURCE in £PRIME£ £FILE£ was loaded with, 'DVD' rather than,
'SERVER' and consequently INSTDVD was not aware that it should skip the RSU
installation step.
So 8484 Mea Culpa.
I also noticed that there's an undocumented response to the 8484 message -
reply, 'SKIP' and it continues as if the RSU step had been completed.
I reckon that I'm back on track.
:-)
Re: z/VM 5.4 FTP Installation ... ? ...
Hi Malcolm, > Did you see/do the top of page 70: > > > If installing from a: > > ... > > FTP server directory, upload the contents of both the z/VM system > > DVD and the RSU DVD to a new directory on the FTP server. > > ... > > Upload the contents of each DVD to the directory. After the > > contents of the z/VM system DVD have been uploaded, upload the > > contents of the RSU DVD to the same directory, overwriting any > > duplicate flies. > Oops ... missed that bit ... (Not actually a concern, as soon as the installed system will IPL the first thing to happen will be an RSU update using the latest RSU, but now content that I know what I missed re RSU-shipped-with-the-DVD's. Thanks.) However, I doubt that'll suppress the HCPIRU8484R - what am I doing that I'm getting this message during an FTP install? > > >> (2) Have you ever done it using non-offset-0 minidisks? > > > Yup, multiple times. Shouldn't cause any problems at all. Just so > > long is there's enough room on the resulting minidisks to fit a > > "whole mod-3 minus a few cylinders" or "whole mod-9 minus a few > > cylinders". I forget the exact number (there's a table in one of > > the manuals) but I'm pretty sure the installation lets you shave > > more than one cylinder from a whole mod3 or mod9--i.e. it doesn't > > use, need or care about the last 2-3 cyls on the volumes you give it. > I know from previous experiences (and a review of the minidisk maps) that you're definitely OK with 'whole-mod-x-minus-1'. I'm nervous about the bit that is documented on Page 117 that's doing directory updates and messing with 2CF1 / CF1 and 22CC / 2CC - if this involves DEFINE MDISK commands and the process assumes that the, 'target' is at offset 0 then things aren't going to work at all well. (I'm dubious about this whole stated need for DEFINE MDISK - not at all sure that it's really a requirement - one of the things that I'm trying to discover empirically.) The fact that you've successfully installed to non-offset-zero gives me confidence and is, frankly, what I expect ... but the manual is especially unhelpful regarding this possibility. Now I'm OK regarding RSU, I reckon that my big, 'next step' is to eliminate the HCPIRU8484R - if I can get past that point then the remaining roadblocks should - with luck - be relatively minor. > > > Thanks. Jeff
Re: z/VM 5.4 FTP Installation ... ? ...
Jeff Gribbin writes: > INSTDVD runs and happily loads up the system minidisks, exactly as per th > e > manual until it gets to the end of the, 'base' system load. At this poin > t, > it issues MSG > > HCPIRU8484R PLEASE PLACE THE SYSTEM RSU DVD IN THE DRIVE, THEN TYPE GO TO > > CONTINUE OR TYPE EXIT TO QUIT. > > This message is 'unexpected' - the manual indicates that it should > > only be issued if installing from a DVD drive and it also indicates that > a > reply of, 'EXIT' will cause the installation NOT to complete. Hi Jeff, I've found it helpful to think of what the manual refers to as "DVD Installation" as "Installation using the files on the DVD media". That helps me remember that what matters to the installation is the actual files rather than spinning disk whether they are fetched from the DVD in the HMC, files on a z/VM FTPSERVE, files on a local Linux guest's ftp server, files from a remote ftp server or even files put onto a local CMS minidisks and made visible at next-level (with that last one being the only one I haven't tried myself). > Reviewing the manual I noted that on Page 98, in the summary box, it says > > that in this step I will, 'Upload the contents of the z/VM System DVD and > > the RSU DVD to an FTP Server directory' ... but I have found no instructi > ons > or procedure that actually does anything with the RSU DVD. Did you see/do the top of page 70: If installing from a: ... FTP server directory, upload the contents of both the z/VM system DVD and the RSU DVD to a new directory on the FTP server. ... Upload the contents of each DVD to the directory. After the contents of the z/VM system DVD have been uploaded, upload the contents of the RSU DVD to the same directory, overwriting any duplicate flies. That's the part that tells you the vital information that the files from the first DVD and the RSU DVD must be combined and that it's the files from the RSU DVD which can (and must) overwrite any original one shipped by the first DVD. > (1) Has anyone actually installed z/VM 5.4 using an FTP Server directory? Yup, many times. > -and- > (2) Have you ever done it using non-offset-0 minidisks? Yup, multiple times. Shouldn't cause any problems at all. Just so long is there's enough room on the resulting minidisks to fit a "whole mod-3 minus a few cylinders" or "whole mod-9 minus a few cylinders". I forget the exact number (there's a table in one of the manuals) but I'm pretty sure the installation lets you shave more than one cylinder from a whole mod3 or mod9--i.e. it doesn't use, need or care about the last 2-3 cyls on the volumes you give it. --Malcolm -- Malcolm Beattie Mainframe Systems and Software Business, Europe IBM UK
z/VM 5.4 FTP Installation ... ? ...
Hmm - In the words of Tom Wolfe, I'm either, 'Stretching the envelope' or I've, 'Augured in' ... For the first time, I'm attempting a z/VM 5.4 installation 2nd level from an FTP Server Directory (as opposed to straight off the DVD or via DDR). Irrelevant but maybe of passing interest, the FTP Server in question is o n a z/OS system. Also - to, 'stretch the envelope' I'm attempting the installation onto offset-1 minidisks (that is, 3338-cylinder 3390's each starting at real cylinder 1 of a 3390-3 volume). My reference is GC24-6099-05. I have some small issues with the manual (which I'll turn into a RCF once the exercise is complete) but I had successfully worked through the installation process up to the point where one runs INSTDVD ... INSTDVD runs and happily loads up the system minidisks, exactly as per th e manual until it gets to the end of the, 'base' system load. At this poin t, it issues MSG HCPIRU8484R PLEASE PLACE THE SYSTEM RSU DVD IN THE DRIVE, THEN TYPE GO TO CONTINUE OR TYPE EXIT TO QUIT. This message is 'unexpected' - the manual indicates that it should only be issued if installing from a DVD drive and it also indicates that a reply of, 'EXIT' will cause the installation NOT to complete. Hmm indeed. Reviewing the manual I noted that on Page 98, in the summary box, it says that in this step I will, 'Upload the contents of the z/VM System DVD and the RSU DVD to an FTP Server directory' ... but I have found no instructi ons or procedure that actually does anything with the RSU DVD. So, now my questions to the community ... (1) Has anyone actually installed z/VM 5.4 using an FTP Server directory? -and- (2) Have you ever done it using non-offset-0 minidisks? No panic on any of this - it's a semi-academic exercise and I'm sure that I can knife-and-fork a successful installation on my own, but I'm intereste d in trying to build a practical student exercise where each student does their own installation by simply following the manual and therefore, of course, I very much want to avoid getting into those, 'Well this is not a real situation' conversations that so often crop up during teaching exerc ises. So, feedback please --- am I missing something and this process works-as-documented or, from your experience in using it, are there undocumented, 'considerations' that I need to take into account? With, as always, thanks in anticipation Jeff
REXXCPS EXEC
I'm curious... Has anyone with real mainframe hardware (no emulation) recently run REXXCPS that MFC wrote way back when? See: http://speleotrove.com/misc/rexxcpslist.html for his collection of data. If you've never seen REXXCPS, there's a link to it at the top of the page. Just remove the hash-bang usr/bin to run it on a VM userid. Les
