Radoslaw,
For small XCF signalling message sizes, CTC will give performance very
close and sometimes even better than a CF structure. This behavior is sort
of documented in a WSC Flash.
Gil.
On 11/4/05, R.S. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I created sandbox sysplex within one CPC (shared CPs for
Gil Peleg wrote:
Radoslaw,
For small XCF signalling message sizes, CTC will give performance very
close and sometimes even better than a CF structure. This behavior is sort
of documented in a WSC Flash.
Gil.
For XCF signaling, CTCs can provide better performance because, unlike a
Tnx Ed and Jim for taking the time and info.
I got an offline email pointing to IDCSS01 as an interface
to obtain those info. Working on this.
For the archive
This interface is documented in the
z/OS V1R6.0 DFSMSdfp Advanced Services
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 11/04/2005
at 02:20 PM, Charles Mills [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
The problem appears to be that the customer's job is finding the
original IRXCMPTM in SYS1.LINKLIB rather than the alias for the one
in SEAGALT because it's in the wrong library or list (see previous
In [EMAIL PROTECTED],
on 11/04/2005
at 08:06 AM, Knutson, Sam [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
This is perfectly safe since z/VM will enforce read only access if
that is the way a disk is attached you are not violating any sharing
rules.
FSVO safe. It will certainly protect the R/O volumes, but, as
In [EMAIL PROTECTED],
on 11/04/2005
at 12:00 AM, Ted MacNEIL [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
But, supported means they will fix problems, bugs, and usability
issues.
Then some free software is supported and some chargeable software is
not, including software for which you pay a support fee.
--
The customer is apparently going to try that but is/was resistant to MLPA
for some reason. Maintenance headache or some such. I'm not a sysprog, and
I'm not the customer, so my ability to argue this position is limited.
Charles
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
don't you have a preventive maintenance philosophy there? We've had that
fix on since April this year.
Well, I am not responsible for the maintenance policy (which is mainly
'never touch a running system' unless it has a problem). We had ordered zOS
1.6 back in February and wanted to be much
Sine I am right now in just this area:
Here ACTRT spits out a WTO with the step completion code that everyone wants
to see in the JESMSGLG (not JESYSMSG). Using IEFYS would move the location
of the message in the output to JESYSMSG, I think.
Using a WTO with ROUTCDE 11 (only) is not a good idea
9 matches
Mail list logo
