Time to standardize our change management procedures. We're looking into
SCLM to accomplish this.
Let me describe the application system we wish to migrate to SCLM. This
app system runs on z/OS. It has batch and online source, copybook and load
libraries. The files have the following naming con
Shmuel Metz , Seymour J. wrote:
That's still wrong. The SVC instruction caused an interrupt, period.
It was up to the SVC SLIH to index into the SVC table, etc. There was
no SVC Assist feature on the S/360.
To add to the fun, CP/67 and VM used the Diagnose instruction as a
means for a problem[1]
On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 01:05:45 +0900, Timothy Sipples wrote:
>Theoretically would it be technically possible to run a second level (or
>even third level, if necessary) instance of backlevel VM, then OS/390 1.3
>within that, matching up the version combinations according to the
>published lists?
No.
On Fri, 9 Feb 2007 16:20:42 -0800, Edward Jaffe
>There is no option in z/VM to run a guest in ESA/390 mode on a machine
>supporting z/Architecture. IOW, if the guest understands z/Architecture,
>it will issue the SIGP to run that way and there's no way in z/VM to
>prevent that or "hide" the fact t
Ron Hawkins wrote:
Brian,
We are quoting the same reference - your quote is directly below mine.
IBM are putting the cost of space as a priority, whereas Mainstar are
putting performance. It really depends on just how busy the MCDS is.
How long does a CA split take? It depends on the CI size,
On Sat, 2007-02-10 at 20:28 -0600, Mark Zelden wrote:
> >I couldn't find a place with a recommendation for HFS allocation. So I'd
> >like to hear your opinions about it. Do you prefer SMS or non-SMS? Why?
>
> Non-SMS. Then you can treat it just like and other sysres data set
> and indirectly cata
Thanks,
I should have known that. I feel pretty dumb now. I kept looking in
http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?MVS-OEdf/dss manuals because I
"thought" it should be there.
Thanks again,
Brian
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / sig
On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 14:46:51 +0100, Víctor de la Fuente
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I'm here again. Hope one day I can be the answerer...
>
>I couldn't find a place with a recommendation for HFS allocation. So I'd
>like to hear your opinions about it. Do you prefer SMS or non-SMS? Why?
>
Non-SMS.
Theoretically would it be technically possible to run a second level (or
even third level, if necessary) instance of backlevel VM, then OS/390 1.3
within that, matching up the version combinations according to the
published lists?
Totally unsupported, of course. IMHO do it only if you absolutely
On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 16:05:49 -0500, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you
wrote:
>We need to upgrade an old OS/400 system, and need to go to 5.1 as an
>interim step, and cannot get the disks anywhere. Would anybody have
>access to a copy of the CD for this release.
If someone has a copy, have IBM or the su
On Fri, 9 Feb 2007 21:57:12 -0500, Walter Farrell wrote:
>On 2/9/2007 12:00 PM, Steve Rawlins wrote:
>> I work at a small company where our z9 is used just for our development and
>> testing, not a production
environment. So I sometimes am my own sysadmin, sysprog, security officer, etc.
>>
>>
I'm here again. Hope one day I can be the answerer...
I couldn't find a place with a recommendation for HFS allocation. So I'd
like to hear your opinions about it. Do you prefer SMS or non-SMS? Why?
Also, I found that if you choose SMS, at time of SSA definition you can't
place the catalog for t
12 matches
Mail list logo
