I am out of the office until 09/01/2010.
Note: This is an automated response to your message "IBM-MAIN Digest - 19
Aug 2010 to 20 Aug 2010 (#2010-232)" sent on 8/21/10 0:00:03.
This is the only notification you will receive while this person is away.
-
I am out of the office until 08/23/2010.
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 - 19
Aug 2010 to 20 Aug 2010 (#2010-232)" s
Regardless of how many CPs an LPAR may allow there may be an operating
system restriction to a smaller number.
It happens that at this point in time z/OS (1.11) is a bit ahead of the
LPAR limit so that it can support what is allowed within the LPAR.
I don't know about other operating systems.
Peter Relson wrote:
Regardless of how many CPs an LPAR may allow there may be an operating
system restriction to a smaller number.
It happens that at this point in time z/OS (1.11) is a bit ahead of the
LPAR limit so that it can support what is allowed within the LPAR.
I don't know about oth
W dniu 2010-08-21 15:30, Steve Comstock pisze:
Peter Relson wrote:
Regardless of how many CPs an LPAR may allow there may be an operating
system restriction to a smaller number.
It happens that at this point in time z/OS (1.11) is a bit ahead of
the LPAR limit so that it can support what is all
R.S. wrote:
W dniu 2010-08-21 15:30, Steve Comstock pisze:
Peter Relson wrote:
Regardless of how many CPs an LPAR may allow there may be an operating
system restriction to a smaller number.
It happens that at this point in time z/OS (1.11) is a bit ahead of
the LPAR limit so that it can suppor
---
Regardless of how many CPs an LPAR may allow there may be an operating
system restriction to a smaller number.
It happens that at this point in time z/OS (1.11) is a bit ahead of the
LPAR limit so that it can support what is
Trying to RECEIVE ORDER the latest & greatest JAVA maintenance. The
Java 6.0 maintenance (31- and 64-bit) came down fine, but the Java 5.0
PTFs both gave this error message:
GIM69230E ** PTF UK59131 WAS SPECIFIED ON THE CONTENT OPERAND FOR ORDER
ORD00011
BUT WAS NOT FOUND BY THE SERV
Did the literal that originally gave John Baker trouble contain an odd number
of hexadecimal digits?
If so, why? The A2B builtin function now permits character-string images of
bit strings to be constructed very readily.
John Gilmore Ashland, MA 01721-1817 USA
W dniu 2010-08-21 17:18, Steve Comstock pisze:
R.S. wrote:
W dniu 2010-08-21 15:30, Steve Comstock pisze:
Peter Relson wrote:
Regardless of how many CPs an LPAR may allow there may be an operating
system restriction to a smaller number.
It happens that at this point in time z/OS (1.11) is a b
R.S. wrote:
W dniu 2010-08-21 17:18, Steve Comstock pisze:
R.S. wrote:
W dniu 2010-08-21 15:30, Steve Comstock pisze:
Peter Relson wrote:
Regardless of how many CPs an LPAR may allow there may be an operating
system restriction to a smaller number.
It happens that at this point in time z/OS
On 21 August 2010 11:18, Steve Comstock wrote:
> Sure. But what is acheivable as delivered if you ordered
> 32 of the largest z196's?
The largest salesman's bonus in IBM history?
Tony H.
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / a
In a message dated 8/21/2010 9:07:59 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
t...@harminc.net writes:
The largest salesman's bonus in IBM history?
>>
Would it top the one who sold Walmart a service contract?
--
For IBM-MAIN subscri
13 matches
Mail list logo
