SAPR, and other *official* IBM statement don't tell you true about technical possibilities.
Look at z/900 and z/800 machines. For z/800 the oldest supported "MVS" system was OS/390 2.9, not because earlier versions were unable to run - simply because V2R9 was the oldest *supported* version of the
John D. Slayton wrote:
According to the article below by thr Fair Isaac study, they quoted as
this as the current California DMV's Automation Fee Systems below:
As QUOTED by the article above like this below:
"DMV vehicle registration fee systems are deployed across two
different systems. The D
On 11 Feb 2007 13:25:41 -0800, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
>Hi,
>I know this is not the place to ask questions about IMS but I cannot find
>the right place. I registered with IMS-L but I haven't received any mail
>from it yet... I'm not sure whether it's dead or not.
>
>I'm trying to write
Hi,
I know this is not the place to ask questions about IMS but I cannot find
the right place. I registered with IMS-L but I haven't received any mail
from it yet... I'm not sure whether it's dead or not.
I'm trying to write a CICS cobol program to access IMS database.
I have configured the conne
Jim Mulder wrote:
z890, z990, and z9 machines have a 2-level TLB. Nothing
lower than OS/390 2.10 will run reliably on a machine with a 2-level
TLB because lower releases than 2.10 do not do some of the necessary
TLB purges. I have heard some speculation that you might be able to
get around
At the risk of repeating myself, from the archives:
http://bama.ua.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0604&L=ibm-main&P=R6444&I=1&X=60035737B3F62727F2&Y=d10jhm1%40us.ibm.com
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2006 00:56:20 -0400
Reply-To: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
Sender: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
In a message dated 2/11/2007 7:51:15 A.M. Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sorry - that last post was sent to the wrong place.
>>
Minor correction to TZ-Tampa is Eastern TZ and one hour AHEAD of Oskosh in
Central
-
If performance of a frequently-updated, on-line KSDS file is your major
concern, I would recommend experimenting with various values of CA free
space to keep CA splits low, but leaving no CI free space. Allow those
areas of the file undergoing in
-
Normally Mark and I are pretty much on the same wavelength. Here we
diverge a little.
PDSE targets on the res - no question.
HFSs I allocate on an SMS pool - too many problems in the past with VSAM
on the res, so I started with HFS on SMS, and l
re:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007d.html#29 old tapes
and for total (internet) topic drift collection of old email mentioning
nsfnet related
activity from the 80s
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/lhwemail.html#nsfnet
1jan83 was the technology/protocol conversion from the old arpanet host-to-h
Shmuel Metz , Seymour J. wrote:
It is. I have the complete free SCRIPTW; I don't know whether Waterloo
has put the chargeable version in the public domain or whether it is
still proprietary.
the original script was done at the science center in the mid-60s by
stu madnick for cms using runoff-li
Sorry - that last post was sent to the wrong place.
Eric Bielefeld
Sr. Systems Programmer
Lands' End
608-935-4680
Dodgeville, Wisconsin
Eric Bielefeld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Shane,
>
> I was wondering if you are at Share this week.
Hi Shane,
I was wondering if you are at Share this week. I wish I was, but as a
contractor in my 3rd month at Lands End and in the middle of a big project to
convert to z/OS 1.7, I know they wouldn't want me to take the time off. Also,
I'd have to pay for everything myself like you do.
On
On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 05:27:31 -0600, Bruno Sugliani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Long time ago , when HFS multivolume was announced (dfsms 1.5 i think), this
>multivolume thing was only allowed on SMS managed volumes .
>Has this restriction been lifted ?
AFAIK, you sill need to SMS manage it if you
On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 13:34:13 +1000, Shane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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. The
On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 09:44:54 +0100, Víctor de la Fuente
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>---
>Ok!
>Seeing that there is no agreement on one of the ways, I'd choose the one I
>think would be better for my installation, which is no-SMS.
>
>Thank you
Jerry,
Your criteria sounds pretty much like something that SCLM can handle quite
easily. There is an SCLM group available on Yahoo Groups, which the SCLM
development team appear on, and that's a valuable resource for anyone who
has to set up and maintain SCLM, the project definitions, and the lan
---
Ok!
Seeing that there is no agreement on one of the ways, I'd choose the one I
think would be better for my installation, which is no-SMS.
Thank you very much!
2007/2/11, Shane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On Sat, 2007-02-10 at 20:28 -0600,
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?
We used to do exactly that! We ran VSE
19 matches
Mail list logo
