AUTO: Timothy Sipples is out of the office until August 16, 2010.

I am out of the office until 08/16/2010. I am on vacation and have no access to e-mail. For urgent issues, please contact my manager: David Byron/Australia/IBM I have received your e-mail and will reply when I return. Note: This is an automated response to your message "IBM-MAIN Digest - 5 Au

Re: z/OS V1.11 and DFHSM performance

On Fri, 6 Aug 2010 18:16:32 -0700, Gibney, Dave wrote: >> -Original Message- >> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On >> Behalf Of Pinnacle >> Sent: Friday, August 06, 2010 5:39 PM >> To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu >> Subject: Re: z/OS V1.11 and DFHSM performance

Re: z/OS V1.11 and DFHSM performance

> -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On > Behalf Of Pinnacle > Sent: Friday, August 06, 2010 5:39 PM > To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu > Subject: Re: z/OS V1.11 and DFHSM performance > > - Original Message - > From: "Lizette Koehler" >

Re: z/OS V1.11 and DFHSM performance

- Original Message - From: "Lizette Koehler" Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main Sent: Friday, August 06, 2010 5:14 PM Subject: Re: z/OS V1.11 and DFHSM performance We are probably about the same RSU Level. I will check on Monday to be more accurate. What WLM class is your DFHSM runn

Re: Who are the TOP Mainframe Tapesubsystems Vendors?

No STK developed ICEBERG (RAID 6 architecture); Kodeack (RAID 5 architecture) and Arctic Fox (Solid State device) which FROZEN DOG never got out of development. The VSM is RAID 6 architecture under the covers and yes SUN bought STK then Oracle bought SUN/STK. The point I am try to make is there

Re: z/OS V1.11 and DFHSM performance

WLM class is STCLO. HSM, currently dormant, has a DP is F0, often runs at E9. When I got here HSM was running at STCHI, IIRC. I had the performance person lower it. The IBM reccommendation is for HSM to run above Batch and below the Onlines. Of course I can't find that documented anywhere. Tha

Re: z/OS V1.11 and DFHSM performance

> -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On > Behalf Of Lizette Koehler > Sent: Friday, August 06, 2010 2:14 PM > To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu > Subject: Re: z/OS V1.11 and DFHSM performance > > We are probably about the same RSU Level. I will c

Re: z/OS V1.11 and DFHSM performance

We are probably about the same RSU Level. I will check on Monday to be more accurate. What WLM class is your DFHSM running at? Lizette > > I didn't run into this one. What level of z/OS 1.11 did you convert to? > I went at RSU1005 plus one fix to IDGZILLA marked RSU1006. > > Dave Gibney ---

Re: z/OS V1.11 and DFHSM performance

Just for the record. We had a similar problem and the culprit turned out to be Tivoli Allocation Optimizer. On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 5:06 PM, Gibney, Dave wrote: > I didn't run into this one. What level of z/OS 1.11 did you convert to? > I went at RSU1005 plus one fix to IDGZILLA marked RSU1006. >

Re: z/OS V1.11 and DFHSM performance

I didn't run into this one. What level of z/OS 1.11 did you convert to? I went at RSU1005 plus one fix to IDGZILLA marked RSU1006. Dave Gibney Information Technology Services Washington State University > -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.e

Re: z/OS V1.11 and DFHSM performance

What I have found out so far is our Primary Space management gets started and then all of a sudden, DFHSM, is running at 60% or higher cpu utilization. In fact, RMF shows it PROC: 96% And it stays that way until I cancel DFHSM. STOP has no affect. So something is definitely going on. If IBM fin

Re: History of Hard-coded Offsets (Was: TSSO problems)

Ted MacNEIL started this latest sub-discussion within this thread with: > I was one of the ones, in Canada, complaining about the constant > changes in geometry. 3330->3350->3380->3390 (and don't forget > 'compatability' mode. Seymour J. Metz responded to Ted: > Because you didn't use system ser

Re: Question on size of IEFBR14 and z/OS V1.11

In , on 08/04/2010 at 11:16 PM, Barbara Nitz said: >The recommendation has been for some time to code region only on the >job card. Whose recommendation? Where? -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT ISO position; see We don'

Re: I'm amazed

In , on 08/05/2010 at 10:59 AM, zMan said: >You seem ... angry and hostile. I tend to get that way when someone responds "nonsense" without even understanding what they're responding to. >I hope you feel better soon! I hope your reading skills improve soon. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Me

Re: z/OS V1.11 and DFHSM performance

I am running into a strange situation where occasionally when DFHSM is recalling ML2 data for A user (not many just one) according to SDSF it is going to 50% + cpu utilization Maybe if you look at the FSR type5's FSRCPU to determine HSM perspective of CPU usage and FSRTRKW to see how many tr

Re: z/OS V1.11 and DFHSM performance

There are many fixes for ALL products with 1.11. Check IBMLink or open an incident. --Original Message-- From: Lizette Koehler Sender: IBM Mainframe Discussion List To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu ReplyTo: IBM Mainframe Discussion List Subject: z/OS V1.11 and DFHSM performance Sent: Aug 6, 2010

Re: linkage conventions

On Fri, 6 Aug 2010 01:30:56 +, john gilmore wrote: >I find > >. . . B can never determine. B documents its requirements and >assumes that its caller has met these requirements . . . > >curiously unsatisfying. > >How and, in particular, where B is to document its requirements >is left up

Re: z/OS V1.11 and DFHSM performance

I am in the process of doing that. But for some reason every time I open a ticket to HSM or SMS they throw me over the wall to Q&A. I was also inquiring to see if anyone else has seen this issue. However, off to IBM I go. Lizette > Hal Merritt wrote: Subject: Re: z/OS V1.11 and DFHSM perfo

Re: z/OS V1.11 and DFHSM performance

No APARs, so I would assume a new problem. Take a dump the next time it happens. and open the ETR. This does sound like an unintended tight cpu loop. On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 9:52 AM, Hal Merritt wrote: > Open a software PMR: "Excessive CPU during ML2 Recall". Let IBM tell you what > they need.

Re: z/OS V1.11 and DFHSM performance

Open a software PMR: "Excessive CPU during ML2 Recall". Let IBM tell you what they need. That's why we pay them the big bucks :-) -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Lizette Koehler Sent: Friday, August 06, 2010 9:38 AM To:

z/OS V1.11 and DFHSM performance

I am running into a strange situation where occasionally when DFHSM is recalling ML2 data for A user (not many just one) according to SDSF it is going to 50% + cpu utilization. I am not sure what I need to do to isolate a performance issue in DFHSM like this. Could someone provide me wit

Re: Migration to z/os 1.11 causes Paging in DB2 DBM1 address space

YMMV, DB2 version upgrades take far longer than z/OS releases. I can go from ServerPac order to production in a few months, but a new DB2 version typically takes 9-12 months. I have only 4 LPARs total, but there are about 20 DB2 subsystems (5 production). >>> "Joel C. Ewing" 8/6/2010 9:20 AM

Re: Migration to z/os 1.11 causes Paging in DB2 DBM1 address space

Hey Joel, yeah I realised after I sent it that was probably a "senior" moment. We've been chasing customers re DB2, but that would have been to get them off V7. D'oh. Shane ... On Fri, 2010-08-06 at 08:20 -0500, Joel C. Ewing wrote: > DB2 V8 EoS is 2012-04-30, light years away by comparison, an

Re: Migration to z/os 1.11 causes Paging in DB2 DBM1 address space

On 08/05/2010 08:27 PM, Shane wrote: > I would have thought DB2 might be a more pressing issue for a business. > > Shane ... > > On Thu, 2010-08-05 at 23:42 +0300, Mike Shorkend wrote: > >> z/os 1.9 is going out of service in September IIRC. We have to migrate to >> z/os 1.11 before then. >> The

Re: linkage conventions

On Fri, 6 Aug 2010 01:30:56 +, john gilmore wrote: >There is a sense in which all is now clear (or at least very much clearer). The exchanges between Tom Marchant and Peter Relson were very helpful. > >What remains is probably intractable, but I find > >. . . B can never determine. B do

Re: DB2 8 for z/OS End of Service Date

On 08/05/2010 10:08 AM, Timothy Sipples wrote: > To provide ample warning, IBM has announced the End of Service date for DB2 > 8 for z/OS: > > http://www.ibm.com/common/ssi/rep_ca/9/897/ENUS910-169/ENUS910-169.PDF > > The EoS date is April 30, 2012. If you haven't started your DB2 upgrade > yet,

Re: Where what to do next - Load modules missing from PDS

Thanks for the ideas. 1. IMS is taken down once a month for maintenance and the compress of the library is done at this time. 2. The person who said that it would not be a program not found was correct it is a load failure. We have not had any load failures, so a compress has not been done. 3.

Re: Migration to z/os 1.11 causes Paging in DB2 DBM1 address space

On Fri, 6 Aug 2010 02:45:37 +, Ted MacNEIL wrote: >>An increase of HSA could keep you from activating an LPAR, but that's all. > >Since they are now independent, why? > To be more clear: "could have". Before, HSA counted in customer total storage. But my point was that HSA never could h

Re: Where what to do next - Load modules missing from PDS

On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 16:04:30 -0400, William Bishop wrote: >Had the modules been updated recently? If so, was there an Endevor >package backout done? When Endevor backs out a package, the load module actually stays in the PDS. It is renamed to a name with hex characters that make it (almost) u

Xpeditor

Hi, We are facing one issue, is that thru the Xpeditor the Async transactions we are not able to trigger, but thru the background transaction CEDX we are able to capture and the transactions are triggered correctly. Any idea of what could be the problem? The Xped settings are as below. ---

Re: Linkage conventions (was Re: z/OS 1.12 beta sites)

Cheers Tom, thanks for fighting the good fight. And Peter for the time and patience. These sort of exchanges must go on all the time - principally within IBM I guess. Too little of the "meat and gristle" makes its way into the public arena. Hence misconceptions accrete. Interesting read. Shane ..

Re: SMS question

"Vernooij, CP - SPLXM" wrote in message news:<3310ac9d797ec94db8d89ccabdea47a702a80...@kl1221tc.cs.ad.klmcorp.ne t>... > "Ted MacNEIL" wrote in message > news:<1086025626-1281046879-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-135 > 11872...@bda026.bisx.prod.on.blackberry>... > > >Why is it that you