AUTO: James Obrizok is out of the office (returning 04/27/2009)

I am out of the office until 04/27/2009. If you require immediate assistance, please contact my backup Fernando Vega on 1-404-238-4580 or Jon Regitsky on 1-404-238-3134. Thank you. Note: This is an automated response to your message IBM-MAIN Digest - 23 Apr 2009 to 24 Apr 2009 (#2009-114)

AUTO: Steven M Payne is out of the office (returning 04/26/2009)

I am out of the office until 04/26/2009. For emergenices please call my IBM follow-me number 404-487-1405. Thanks. Note: This is an automated response to your message IBM-MAIN Digest - 23 Apr 2009 to 24 Apr 2009 (#2009-114) sent on 4/24/09 22:00:04. This is the only notification you will

Re: APPN Connection z/os - AHHC / LLC2.

Norbert Note that from the time of support for MPC CTC in devices such as the 2216, the term AHHC was formally changed to ANNC, that is, host to host became node to node for obvious reasons. Have you defined both your APPN nodes as Network Nodes? The simplest configuration is to have one

Re: Slightly off topic power limits

I was just thinking how anti business the power limits imposed by PGE are. I'm not sure if the limits are being imposed because of being on a fault line, or just because they don't have enough power generation in that area. If you were a large business with sites in multiple states, where would

Re: Decreasing an HFS

Dennis, I would approach this from the other direction and allocate your down-sized HFSs at the space you desire, mount them along with your source HFSs, and copy from source to destination with PAX. Mount your Java file systems at their usual locations, create and mount your

Re: APPN Connection z/os - AHHC / LLC2.

Hello Chris ! first of all, thank you for your detailed answer !!! The nodes are defined as NN and with HPR=NO, is a simulation and after that we must connect a VSE with z/OS, this is the reason for HPR=NO. I guess in my problem is irrelevant, because the same nodes work ok with ANNC

IBM ip addresses changing - official announcement

a week or so there was discussion about IBM public internet addresses changing for Boulder servers and the need for official notification. I received a zSeries Red Alert on this. anyone needing official notification on this issue can find it at

RECEIVE ORDER ERROR

Been getting this all weekend trying RECEIVE ORDER with CONTENT(RECOMMENDED). Am I the only one? HTTP/1.1 500 Internal Server Error. Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2009 01:33:27 GMT. Server: IBM_HTTP_Server/6.0.2.33 Apache/2.0.47 (Unix). Content-Length: 797. Content-Type: text/xml; charset=utf-8.

Re: RECEIVE ORDER ERROR

Ed, No. I opened a problem with IBM. The problem is caused by a DFHSM PTF. Here's the circumvention from IBM: I've asked our developers to investigate what we can do to clear up this problem with the cancelled PTF that is co-req'd by the PTFs in SDM and DSS. HSM PTF's UA46642 UA46641

Re: RECEIVE ORDER ERROR

Field, Alan C. wrote: Ed, No. I opened a problem with IBM. The problem is caused by a DFHSM PTF. [snip] I downloaded these PTFS then my RECEIVEORDER worked. That did it! Thanks! -- Edward E Jaffe Phoenix Software International, Inc 5200 W Century Blvd, Suite 800 Los Angeles, CA