Re: Can TOD (STCKE) be compressed into 12 bytes

At 12:17 -0600 on 02/26/2009, Victor Gil wrote about Re: Can TOD (STCKE) be compressed into 12 bytes: So, here's what I think the application should do: 1) determine the current day-of-week [Sun=0,...,Sat=6]; store as byte#1 [snip] This would require only 11 bytes and should be unique within a

Re: Setting weights via the HMC

> Where can I find information about setting weights and how to determine how > to distribute them accross our LPARs. Can anyone point me in the right > direction. I have worked with MDF and PR/SM since they first came out over 20 years ago. And, I'm amazed that somebody is still asking such a

Re: SYMDEF length limitations

On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 15:23:25 -0600, Patrick O'Keefe wrote: > >It would probably best be implemented as a whole new capability - >a new kind of system symbolic (that maybe can't be used in JCL >or parmlib). > ITYM "can be used in JCL, but not in PARMLIB." Regardless, I more agree with Ed J.'s comme

Re: SYMDEF length limitations

On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 14:12:08 -0800, Edward Jaffe wrote: >... >Why would existing definitions suddenly "break" if the length >restriction on symbolic values was removed? Seems to me that it >would be a transparent change. >... Nothing currently working would break ... until you change a symbol

Re: 3490E cartridges

Pete Borton wrote: We are having problems locating supplies of 3490E tape cartridges in the UK. Imation say they have been 'end of life'd. Does anyone know an alternative supplier ? Could we write 3590E's on a 36-track drive ? You might consider upgrading to 3590s. They're denser, faster,

Re: Can TOD (STCKE) be compressed into 12 bytes (cp:1140)

Peter Relson/Poughkeepsie/i...@ibmus wrote on 02/27/2009 07:48:40 AM: > >>>without losing its sysplex-wide uniqueness > >>STCK/STCKF/STCKE values are not sysplex-wide unique. > > > >Isn't that what the TOD Programmable Field (bits 112-127) is for? > > I believe the answer is "no".. The programmab

CICS RENTPGM Parameter (Was: CEECRINI+X'2BC' abend...)

Chase, John wrote: Current releases (8.x) of Xpediter will work fine with RENTPGM=PROTECT. Not being very CICS savvy, I decided to look up this parameter in TFM. It says: |RENTPGM Storage for the read-only DSAs, RDSA and ERDSA, is obtained from | key-0, non-fetch protected stor

Re: HSM full dump

because our shop didn't have the tape management system like RMM, therefore we search all catalog information to determine that the tape can be scratched or not. On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 3:08 AM, Schwarz, Barry A wrote: > How did you try to catalog the DSN? What error message did you receive > whe

Re: Setting weights via the HMC

gsg wrote: Where can I find information about setting weights and how to determine how to distribute them accross our LPARs. Can anyone point me in the right direction. PR/SM Planning. -- Edward E Jaffe Phoenix Software International, Inc 5200 W Century Blvd, Suite 800 Los Angeles, CA 900

Re: SYMDEF length limitations

Patrick O'Keefe wrote: Miguided nor not, one or more of the above have been thrown out. You could submit a formal request to have this restriction lifted but I bet it won't get very far. Changing the code to remove the restriction is probably trivial. Validating that change didn't break some

Setting weights via the HMC

Where can I find information about setting weights and how to determine how to distribute them accross our LPARs. Can anyone point me in the right direction. TIA -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instruction

Re: Can TOD (STCKE) be compressed into 12 bytes

Edward Jaffe wrote: Bob Rutledge wrote: says that the 64-bit time returned by repeated STCKs are also guaranteed to be unique. Also true. The only problem with STCK is the chance that, on an ultra-fast machine, it might have to delay execution to ensure the uniqueness documented in POO. It

Re: Native 3592 tape and TS7700

For what it's worth, I got confirmation from my IBM storage specialist that the DR guy is wrong, you cannot use a VTS to read a native 3592 tape. >>> Scott Rowe 2/26/2009 8:46 PM >>> That's my position also, but we actually got this message from our DR provider: "As per our conversation earlier

Re: SYMDEF length limitations

On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 11:08:39 -0600, Paul Gilmartin wrote: >... >And to enforce the misguided restriction on other users of system >symbols is throwing the baby out with the bath. >... Miguided nor not, one or more of the above have been thrown out. You could submit a formal request to have thi

Re: service.boulder.ibm.com ftp down ?

It's back ??? Dave Gibney Information Technology Services Washington State University > -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On > Behalf Of Gibney, Dave > Sent: Friday, February 27, 2009 10:23 AM > To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu > Subject: serv

Re: Tape Stealing in z/OS with CBR4000I

On 27 Feb 2009 11:54:41 -0800, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote: >Would changing the disposition from CATLG to PASS help? (You would have to >add a catalog step at the end of the job.) I have used DISP=(NEW,CATLG),VOL=(,RETAIN) > >-Original Message- >From: Lizette Koehler >Sent: Frid

Re: Cobol: Maximum number of FD Statements

> I wonder how COBOL would do if you did try to have more > than 3273 files opened at the same time? IKJ56866I DATA SET DOTCWS.CTLIB NOT ALLOCATED, CONCURRENT ALLOCATIONS EXCEEDED This was using BPXWDYN to allocate the files. I did not try to open them just allocate. Oddly, the return code w

Re: Fw: Cobol: Maximum number of FD Statements

That actually raises an "interesting question". As the limit of FD's is larger than the limit of DD's allowed in a job step *AND* COBOL now supports dynamic allocation, I wonder how COBOL would do if you did try to have more than 3273 files opened at the same time? wow - that would certainly b

Re: Fw: Cobol: Maximum number of FD Statements

Of course you could have a program that deals with 65535 different files/dd's and just opens the ones it needs based on some sort of parm. And isn't the system limit based on single unit DD's. If you concatenate or span volumes the limit could be much smaller. -Original Message- Bill

Re: Can TOD (STCKE) be compressed into 12 bytes

Bob Rutledge wrote: says that the 64-bit time returned by repeated STCKs are also guaranteed to be unique. Also true. The only problem with STCK is the chance that, on an ultra-fast machine, it might have to delay execution to ensure the uniqueness documented in POO. STCKF was invented for pr

Re: Cobol: Maximum number of FD Statements

So what error are you getting that leads to this question? Lizette > >Hello everybody, > >Our installation is running z/OS 1.8, IBM Enterprise COBOL for z/OS 3.4.1. If >I'm missing something here, let me know. > >I've looked in our Cobol language reference and the programming guide and of >co

Fw: Cobol: Maximum number of FD Statements

That actually raises an "interesting question". As the limit of FD's is larger than the limit of DD's allowed in a job step *AND* COBOL now supports dynamic allocation, I wonder how COBOL would do if you did try to have more than 3273 files opened at the same time? I certainly wouldn't want to co

Re: Cobol: Maximum number of FD Statements

Thanks much! Regards, Eric Verwijs Programmer Analyst | Programmeur-analyste CPP/ OAS/ IA Production Support Team | Équipe de soutien à la production RPC / SV / IA -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of

Re: Can TOD (STCKE) be compressed into 12 bytes

Absolutely true for repeated STCKEs. However, "Two executions of STORE CLOCK or STORE CLOCK EXTENDED, possibly on different CPUs in the same configuration, always store different values of the clock if the clock is running." says that the 64-bit time returned by repeated STCKs are also guarante

Re: Cobol: Maximum number of FD Statements

According to the Language Reference manual (Appendix 1.2) you can have 65,535 "SELECT filename..." statements. On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 2:00 PM, wrote: > Hello everybody, > > Our installation is running z/OS 1.8, IBM Enterprise COBOL for z/OS 3.4.1. If > I'm missing something here, let me know.

Re: Tape Stealing in z/OS with CBR4000I

Would changing the disposition from CATLG to PASS help? (You would have to add a catalog step at the end of the job.) -Original Message- From: Lizette Koehler Sent: Friday, February 27, 2009 5:32 AM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: Tape Stealing in z/OS with CBR4000I Running z/OS V1.9

Re: Cobol: Maximum number of FD Statements

According to the "compiler limits" appendix of the language reference at the answer is 65,535. -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu]on Behalf Of frederick.ver

Re: Cobol: Maximum number of FD Statements

65535 Language Reference Appendix B. Compiler Limits -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of frederick.verw...@hrsdc-rhdsc.gc.ca Sent: Friday, February 27, 2009 2:01 PM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: [IBM-MAIN] Cobol: Maximum

Re: HSM full dump

How did you try to catalog the DSN? What error message did you receive when it was not cataloged? HSM will manage the tape according to the options you specify in ARCCMDxx. Why do you want to catalog it? -Original Message- From: Tommy Tsui Sent: Friday, February 27, 2009 1:27 AM To: IB

Cobol: Maximum number of FD Statements

Hello everybody, Our installation is running z/OS 1.8, IBM Enterprise COBOL for z/OS 3.4.1. If I'm missing something here, let me know. I've looked in our Cobol language reference and the programming guide and of course, searched the web. If the answer's there, I've not found it. How many FD/S

Re: CEECRINI+X'2BC' abend S0C4-10 in CICS/TS 3.2

> -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of John McKown > > On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 11:26:41 -0500, Barkow, Eileen wrote: > > >see if CICS ptf UK40899 is on the system. >From a very recent APPLY CHECK for TS 3.2: UK40899 SUPD PTFSUPBYUK4

Xpeditor (Re: CEECRINI+X'2BC' abend S0C4-10 in CICS/TS 3.2)

On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 12:27:48 -0600, Chase, John wrote: >> Any pointers? Oh, we are running RENTPGM=NOPROTECT because (IIRC) >Xpeditor >> won't work otherwise. > >Current releases (8.x) of Xpediter will work fine with RENTPGM=PROTECT. > >-jc- Thanks! I'll mention that to the main CICS person

Re: service.boulder.ibm.com ftp down ?

We've been trying all day. Bob Shannon -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/i

Re: CEECRINI+X'2BC' abend S0C4-10 in CICS/TS 3.2

> -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of John McKown > > I have looked on IBMLink and got no hits on this. So I thought I'd ask for > any ideas. We are running z/OS 1.8 on a z9BC. CICS/TS is release 3.2. We > have two different programs which abend with an S0

service.boulder.ibm.com ftp down ?

Trying to get current holddata. Worked yesterday. Dave Gibney Information Technology Services Washington State University -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu wi

Re: SMF reporting question

>Our annual SAS and MXG renewal in Australia is under AU$10,000. Not sure what >the up front fee was. MXG renewal is the same as up-front. $1500 US, the last time I acquired it. SAS renewal was 15% of the original, at the same time. - Too busy driving to stop for gas! --

Re: Tape Stealing in z/OS with CBR4000I

Oh good, I am not alone. I am pushing IBM at the moment to try and rectify this condition. However, I felt I was in a losing battle. Seems I was correct. I will redo our side and leave poor over worked IBM alone. Lizette > >On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 08:32:23 -0500, Lizette Koehler wrote: > >>Ru

Re: Tape Stealing in z/OS with CBR4000I

On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 08:32:23 -0500, Lizette Koehler wrote: >Running z/OS V1.9 with JES2, GRS, and CA1 > >I have a production batch job that has been running fine for months passing >a tape from one step to the next.  Now it is receiving CBR4000I messages >indicating that the tape is already mounte

Re: SYMDEF length limitations

On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 09:59:32 -0600, Wayne Driscoll wrote: >I would assume the issue is that the code in MSI and NIP that reads the >parmlib members doesn't have support for expansion of buffers, recall that >PARMLIB is limited to 80 byte records, and if symbol substitution results >in IPL failure,

Re: CEECRINI+X'2BC' abend S0C4-10 in CICS/TS 3.2

uk40899 was superceded by uk42915. but as far as i can see, there is still an outstanding LE fix which is supposed to be out in June. -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Lester, Bob Sent: Friday, February 27, 2009 11:46 AM To: I

Re: CEECRINI+X'2BC' abend S0C4-10 in CICS/TS 3.2

> -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On > Behalf Of Barkow, Eileen > Sent: Friday, February 27, 2009 9:27 AM > To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu > Subject: Re: CEECRINI+X'2BC' abend S0C4-10 in CICS/TS 3.2 > > see if CICS ptf UK40899 is on the syst

It Can Be Done

I know there is has been a lot of discussion about NOT applying maintenance to a live system. Since today is my last day at Washington University, I wanted to install the current SMP/E version to the z/OS 1.9 system I am in the middle of installing. I didn't want to take the time to create a n

Re: CEECRINI+X'2BC' abend S0C4-10 in CICS/TS 3.2

On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 11:26:41 -0500, Barkow, Eileen wrote: >see if CICS ptf UK40899 is on the system. No, it is not. > >if so, LE fix in pk73422 is required for z/os 1.9 - there may also be >something for z/os 1.8. the apar does not exactly match your problem but >there are known LE problems. no

Re: SYMDEF length limitations

Yeah, this is the kind of thing I was thinking of. >>> Wayne Driscoll 2/27/2009 10:59 AM >>> I would assume the issue is that the code in MSI and NIP that reads the parmlib members doesn't have support for expansion of buffers, recall that PARMLIB is limited to 80 byte records, and if symbol su

Re: Tape Stealing in z/OS with CBR4000I

-Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Lizette Koehler Sent: Friday, February 27, 2009 7:32 AM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: Tape Stealing in z/OS with CBR4000I Running z/OS V1.9 with JES2, GRS, and CA1 I have a production ba

Re: CEECRINI+X'2BC' abend S0C4-10 in CICS/TS 3.2

see if CICS ptf UK40899 is on the system. if so, LE fix in pk73422 is required for z/os 1.9 - there may also be something for z/os 1.8. the apar does not exactly match your problem but there are known LE problems. no fix is available for pk73422 yet. -Original Message- From: IBM Mainfram

Re: SYMDEF length limitations

Wayne, My intent was to eliminate the need to allocate, open, read, and parse the parmlib and read directly from SYMDEF call of rexx. ;-) Could save some lines of code and CPU... Itschak On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 5:59 PM, Wayne Driscoll wrote: > I would assume the issue is that the code in MSI a

Re: SYMDEF length limitations

I would assume the issue is that the code in MSI and NIP that reads the parmlib members doesn't have support for expansion of buffers, recall that PARMLIB is limited to 80 byte records, and if symbol substitution results in IPL failure, you have a major problem.

CEECRINI+X'2BC' abend S0C4-10 in CICS/TS 3.2

I have looked on IBMLink and got no hits on this. So I thought I'd ask for any ideas. We are running z/OS 1.8 on a z9BC. CICS/TS is release 3.2. We have two different programs which abend with an S0C4-10 in CEECRINI at offset x'2BC'. The abending instruction is L 4,4(,4) which is preceeded by a L 4

Re: SMTP

had TNF/VMCF not set correctly...thanks all -- Email Disclaimer This E-mail contains confidential information belonging to the sender, which may be legally privileged information. This information is intended only for t

Re: SYMDEF length limitations

Well, the way I see it, they had a whole lot of different modules reading PARMLIB that they needed to convert to using system symbols. The use of a substitution routine that did not cause the record to be extended, this probably save an enormous amount of work. >>> Paul Gilmartin 2/27/2009 10

Re: SMTP

The following note appears in the manual: "The SMTP server uses the Pascal socket API, so VMCF must be started for the server to successfully initialize. If VMCF is not started, message EZY1980E will be issued and the server will terminate." Also the following note appears in the messages manual f

Re: ISPCFIGU versus ISPCFIG, ISPF configuration table

Hi all, TSO ISPVCALL;TSO ISPVCALL is great, thanks for the hints. As far as I could see our old user module has 'ISPF exits enabled.. YES'. Now I need to check which ISPF exits are installed at our site Remark: As far as I could see and test the Option 1 of ISPCCONF does not analyze the load

Re: FTP alternative needed

Don't shoot the messenger, the network folks are asking me this question. We transmit all our sensitive within a secure network and the 1 file we send out is public info. You know how those network types are..LOL thanks Mace On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 4:27 PM, Patrick O'Keefe wrote: > On Wed, 25 Feb

Re: SYMDEF length limitations

On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 09:28:02 -0500, Scott Rowe wrote: >Don't think JCL, think PARMLIB. > Think... PARMLIB... Think... OK. I have thought PARMLIB. What came to my mind was that the substitution techniques used in JCL processing to substitute a symbol value longer than that symbol's name ough

Re: SYMDEF length limitations

Don't think JCL, think PARMLIB. >>> "Smith, Sean M" 2/26/2009 3:47 PM >>> The issue comes into play though when you use SYMBOLS in started task JCL. If the Symbol fits that would seem fine but it would be possible for the substitution text to be longer and thus cause a JCL error. Sean -O

Re: Can TOD (STCKE) be compressed into 12 bytes

Bob, >From the POP quote you've posted earlie: "the value in bit positions 64-103 of the clock (bit positions 72-111 of the storage operand) is always nonzero" This is because, a single "machine" [identified by TOD Programmable Register, bits 112-127] may have multiple CPUs - so the bits 64

Re: Unicode on demand and DB2 CCSID change

Problem solved. The problem was a one of an actual error in translation from code page 500 to 1146. Specifically, the tilde character was converted from x'A1' in code page 500 to x'BD' in code page 1146 when it should have been x'BC', so the translation tables for that conversion are in error. Th

Re: Unicode on demand and DB2 CCSID change

On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 1:30 PM, Mark Zelden wrote: > > Hmmm. I checked the archives as the quickest way to find the APAR / PTF > I am about to quote, and I saw my reply was to you on Dec. 16th 2008. > > > Do you have the SRB support APAR on? The original APAR / PTF was > OA14231 / UA27251 but t

Tape Stealing in z/OS with CBR4000I

Running z/OS V1.9 with JES2, GRS, and CA1 I have a production batch job that has been running fine for months passing a tape from one step to the next.  Now it is receiving CBR4000I messages indicating that the tape is already mounted on a different drive. The previous step is (,CATLG) and VOL=(,

Re: Unicode on demand and DB2 CCSID change

On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 10:40:10 +, Jim McAlpine wrote: >On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 10:24 AM, Jim McAlpine wrote: > >> Cross posted to IBM-MAIN and DB2-L. >> >> I'm doing a CCSID change from CP500 to CP1146 (UK plus euro) in preparation >> for a move to DB2 Version 8. I've already successfully done

Re: Can TOD (STCKE) be compressed into 12 bytes

>>>without losing its sysplex-wide uniqueness >>STCK/STCKF/STCKE values are not sysplex-wide unique. > >Isn't that what the TOD Programmable Field (bits 112-127) is for? I believe the answer is "no".. The programmable information is for making the value unique within a system across different CPUs

Re: z/OS 1.9 installation restore of USS file failure

In our real root, /etc and /var are already symbolic links, pointing to a /etc ZFS and a /var ZFS filesystem If I clone that root to the /Service directory for maintenance, those symbolic links to /etc and /var still exist, and pointing to their original location, /etc and /var and NOT to the /Se

Re: 3490E cartridges

Pete, No, you cannot use 3590 cartridges on a 3490 type drive. They are NOT compatible. Russell -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu]on Behalf Of Pete Borton Sent: Friday, February 27, 2009 4:49 AM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: 3490E car

Re: SMF reporting question

> On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 11:05 -0800, Gibney, Dave wrote: > > > What's SAS on Winders cost? I thought it was pretty cheap, almost pocket > > change? > > Funnily enough, within the last week I had some-one who had migrated SAS > off the mainframe mention that the Windoze solution was (now) also > c

Re: 3490E cartridges

Crispin Hugo Systems Programmer Macro 4 We have been using Admil for years. . very good. Try sa...@admil.co.uk or 01202 823533 Also try MEDIA RESOURCES TEL (01889) 503100. Also try Nicholas Tomkinson-Hill - Sales Director Tel: 01889 503100 Fax: 01889 503101 e-mail: mailto:n...@media-r

3490E cartridges

We are having problems locating supplies of 3490E tape cartridges in the UK. Imation say they have been 'end of life'd. Does anyone know an alternative supplier ? Could we write 3590E's on a 36-track drive ? Thanks Pete -- F

Re: Unicode on demand and DB2 CCSID change

On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 10:24 AM, Jim McAlpine wrote: > Cross posted to IBM-MAIN and DB2-L. > > I'm doing a CCSID change from CP500 to CP1146 (UK plus euro) in preparation > for a move to DB2 Version 8. I've already successfully done this for > another DB2 subsystem on z/OS 1.4 without unicode on

Unicode on demand and DB2 CCSID change

Cross posted to IBM-MAIN and DB2-L. I'm doing a CCSID change from CP500 to CP1146 (UK plus euro) in preparation for a move to DB2 Version 8. I've already successfully done this for another DB2 subsystem on z/OS 1.4 without unicode on demand. We are now z/OS 1.7 and I believe I have unicode on de

Out of Office

I will be out of the office starting 27/02/2009 and will not return until 02/03/2009. I will respond to your message when I return. Please contact Conor Fahy at 13200 or Mike Green at 11561 or Emma Murphy at 11945 if it is urgent. For Toastmasters information please contact Mary Behan at 12579 or

HSM full dump

hi all, Is it possible to catalog all FULL dump tape backup in during dump cycle in HSM. I found it will not catalog after the FULL dump completed. SAHSM is non-sms managed IEC205I SYS8,HSM1,HSM1,FILESEQ=1, COMPLETE VOLUME LIST, 892 DSN=SAHSM.DMP.SUNDAY.VSAPP17.D09058.T194416,VOLS=TP7783, TOTA