Thanks Mike,
It appears there was a corruption issue with the catalog in question. I guess
the messaging was less elegant than we might have anticipated.
Appreciate your input...
--- On Sun, 9/12/10, Patrick Falcone wrote:
from: Mike Schwab
Subject: Re: ASG Zeke: Insufficient index data sp
I am out of the office until 09/27/2010.
I am on vacation. Limited access to mailbox. Do not hesitate to call on my
mobile: + 48 601606821.
Note: This is an automated response to your message "Re: ASG Zeke:
Insufficient index data space storage" sent on 13/9/10 0:09:01.
This is the only notifi
On 12 Sep 2010 17:39:50 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
> Micheal:
>
>If you only want a single TCB to dominate a CPU, you may want to go back
>to OS/360 (Sequential Scheduling System - circa 1966). It only supported
>a single task at a time.
>
>I fail to understand why you want to u
Micheal:
If you only want a single TCB to dominate a CPU, you may want to go back
to OS/360 (Sequential Scheduling System - circa 1966). It only supported
a single task at a time.
I fail to understand why you want to undo 44 years of technological
advancement in this area. And you have fail
I don't see any exit associated with Event it just moves the ECB to a TABLE
maybe better
then a hardloop
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of
Robert A.
Rosenberg
Sent: Sunday, September 12, 2010 5:06 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.ed
If EVENTS causes the dispatcher to dispatch another TCB then I don't want to it
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of
Robert A.
Rosenberg
Sent: Sunday, September 12, 2010 5:06 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: Issuing W
On Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 11:21 AM, Patrick Falcone
wrote:
> Where having an issue with Zeke on 1.9 with Zeke
>
> Z17U8E Insufficient index data space storage
>
> Any ideas...
Three ideas to try. Increase primary allocation. Increase region
size. Increase index allocation
--
Mike A Schwab, Spri
>Its only for testing
Testing what?
If you're not going to put it in Production, what is the purpose?
-
I'm a SuperHero with neither powers, nor motivation!
Kimota!
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructio
At 01:42 -0400 on 09/12/10, michealbutz wrote about Re: Issuing WTOR
SVC In Multitask Environment:
WTOR 'WAIT AND DON'T GIVE CONTROL TO ANOTHER TASK.',REPLY,1,RESPECB
So instead of doing a WAIT ECB=RESPECB AFTER THE WTOR
HARDLOOP DS 0H
TM RESB
Its only for testing
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of
Mike Myers
Sent: Sunday, September 12, 2010 1:49 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: Issuing WTOR SVC In Multitask Environment
Actually, I don't know how you can
Its only for testing
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of
Stan Weyman
Sent: Sunday, September 12, 2010 1:05 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: Issuing WTOR SVC In Multitask Environment
<< WTOR 'WAIT AND DON'T GIVE
Actually, I don't know how you can prevent giving up the processor
unless you mask off all interrupts and maintain a dispatching priority
of 255 and even that would probably only work n a uni-processor LPAR.
Even the hard loop in the example doesn't prevent preemption by higher
priority work
<< WTOR 'WAIT AND DON'T GIVE CONTROL TO ANOTHER TASK.',REPLY,1,RESPECB
So instead of doing a WAIT ECB=RESPECB AFTER THE WTOR
HARDLOOP DS 0H
TM RESBECB,X'40'
BNO HARDLOOP
>>
Can you imagine if everyone did this to get
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Rick Fochtman
>
>
-
>
> > WTOR 'WAIT AND DON'T GIVE CONTROL TO ANOTHER
TASK.',REPLY,1,RESPECB
> >So instead of doing a WAIT ECB=RESPECB AFTER THE
From my experience the compare function uses alot of CPU resources. You
might want to try running it when the CPU usage of the lpar is less.
Joel Wolpert
Performance and Capacity Planning consultant
WEBSITE: www.perfconsultant.com
- Original Message -
From: "gsg"
We're running File
---
Hi,
The WTOR generates a SVC 35
In a multitask environment this would cause the dispatcher to give control
to another
task while waiting for a operator reply
Is there some way of making sure that the dispatcher doesn't
-
WTOR 'WAIT AND DON'T GIVE CONTROL TO ANOTHER TASK.',REPLY,1,RESPECB
So instead of doing a WAIT ECB=RESPECB AFTER THE WTOR
HARDLOOP DS 0H
TM RESBECB,X'40'
BNO
Where having an issue with Zeke on 1.9 with Zeke
Z17U8E Insufficient index data space storage
Any ideas...
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message:
Thanks for the link to Martin Packer's page.
HiperBatch is the perfect example of a facility that gives MVS/zOS such a
tremendous advantage over other platforms. When will IBM stop chasing rainbows
and pay attention to the pot of gold already in its hands?
Where Batch Pipes was complicated and
Micheal:
Agreed, issuing the SVC 35 causes control to be passed to the SVC
routine. But there is not a task switch, as the SVC runs under the same
TCB as the program that issued it. So the dispatcher is not involved.
The SVRB is added to the request block (RB) stack of the TCB under which
Which File Manager? (Which version?) There are performance improvements
straight up through and including the latest release, so your mileage will
vary.
- - - - -
Timothy Sipples
Resident Enterprise Architect
STG Value Creation & Complex Deals Team
IBM Growth Markets (Based in Singapore)
E-Mail: t
after i try memlimit equal 0m the step passed.it failed when memlimit
equal nolimit.any idea?
2010/9/12, Lizette Koehler :
> It would help to have the complete message posted and any details on what is
> being sorted?
>
> Also, you will probably need to open an ETR with IBM on the S0C1.
>
> Lizett
22 matches
Mail list logo
