Well, Z/OS isn't alone in grappling with the idiocies of time
management:
http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2012/03/how-a-leap-year-bug-could-topple-microsofts-azure-cloud-service.ars?utm_source=rssutm_medium=rssutm_campaign=rss
Dale Miller
John Gilmore wrote:
even though, as I believe, the the offender's code itself commits no
substantive offense it it is, I think, guilty of the admittedly much
subtler offense of providing a template for others, who are bent on
mischief, to use.
If the PFLIH hook is (as it has been described
At 3/1/2012 06:46 PM, Skip Robinson wrote:
For years we ran a 'channel extender' product call RDS. It worked by
front-endng FLIH for I/O interrupts to determine whether the I/O was
to or from a supported device as defined to RDS. If not, the I/O was
passed along for normal processing. If so,
David Cole and I are, I think, in substantive agreement about the
offensive character of this ISV's scheme.
That said, the situation we confront would be much worse if this
scheme had been used to do real mischief. It has not, and we can take
some small comfort---It is only small comfort--- in
Hi Dana
For me this script:
/* REXX */ .
say 'Content-type: text/html' .
say '' .
say 'PRE' .
say 'test jes interface' .
say '' .
rc=isfcalls('ON') .
.
/*/ .
/* Issue the WHO command */ .
/*/ .
Address SDSF ISFEXEC WHO .
.
The URL that Dale Miller provided contains the text
begin extract
One possibility is that the certificates Azure relied on allotted
years consisting of only 365 days, rather than the 366 days that are
needed once every four years to account for leap years. If that error
affected Azure
Thanks Miklos,
Perhaps since we are different releases:
MVS=z/OS 01.11.00
JES=z/OS1.11
SDSF=HQX7760
explains the different behaivor. But I have worked around this issue. My
remaining issue is that I cannot get the REXX to successfully read a sysout
dataset allocated via the SDSF 'SA'
I did not see the message that you are quoting below from Shmuel. We were
running a printer from the spooler. I thought that it was a model 1401
printer,
but I could be wrong.
We were definitely running OS/360, not DOS/360. We ran OS/360 during the day
to
convert 1401 AUTOCODER programs
On 3/2/2012 2:23 PM, Dana Mitchell wrote:
Thanks Miklos,
Perhaps since we are different releases:
MVS=z/OS 01.11.00
JES=z/OS1.11
SDSF=HQX7760
explains the different behaivor. But I have worked around this issue. My
remaining issue is that I cannot get the REXX to successfully read a
It could be that the spooler was really a resident writer. I was just a newby
programmer, and know that we were told that requiring more than a certain
amount
of memory required a major operations change and was frowned on.
It was definitely not DOS/360. It was OS/360 and used JCL with DCBs,
Yes, and from a vendor stand point, since the Ported Tools are NOT standard
install, you cannot depend upon them being available at the site.
Lloyd
- Original Message
From: Scott Ford scott_j_f...@yahoo.com
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Sent: Thu, March 1, 2012 4:09:07 PM
Subject: Re: How
I'm using a REXX from SCLM panels. The program issues a F cicsregn,cemt s
prog(arg1) phasein
It's ISFP but 'online TSO' under the covers.
Thanks.
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to
Gil,
That method yields,
3 *-* arg1 = 'PS0903A'
L PS0903A
5 *-* /* ADDRESS tso */
6 *-* /* Call CICSCMDT ARG1
On Fri, 2 Mar 2012 07:48:53 -0600, Betsy Jeffery betsy_jeff...@mgic.com wrote:
Gil,
That method yields,
3 *-* arg1 = 'PS0903A'
L PS0903A
5 *-* /* ADDRESS tso */
6 *-* /* Call CICSCMDT ARG1 */
8 *-* address TSO call CICSCMDT 'ARG1'
L call
David,
Perfect-hash schemes are often very useful for match-seeking. They
are not, however, usable for bound-seeking--here specifically
GLB-seeking--operations that evaluate a step function. Very few of
the search arguments--STCKE/TOD-clock values--for which a bound is
sought are even present
I'm beginning to think it can't. I think Rob Scott is correct - I should write
a stub using IKJEFTSR. I found the following from Walt Farrell in a different
list:
Therefore, since Rexx itself is not running authorized, your Rexx exec cannot
simply call another program and have that program
Betsy:
I would first try as Walt and Gil suggested the command syntax you provided was
incorrect.
Retest after the above change.
I would also do a ' D PROG,APF '. To verify the load lib is authorized like you
think..
HTH
Sent from my iPad
Scott Ford
Senior Systems Engineer
From RACF Macros and Interfaces: 5( 5) 1 Binary Data set level number
(00-99).
The only meaning I know for dataset level is the ISPF 3.4 meaning of
partial name.
What is a dataset level *number*?
Charles
--
For IBM-MAIN
On 3/2/2012 1:29 AM, David Cole wrote:
If the PFLIH hook is (as it has been described earlier in these threads) a
mechanism by which a non-authorized process can become authorized, then its
very existence is a substantive offense in and of itself. It is not just a
template, it doesn't just
At 3/2/2012 10:25 AM, Edward Jaffe wrote:
On 3/2/2012 1:29 AM, David Cole wrote:
If the PFLIH hook is (as it has been described earlier in these
threads) a mechanism by which a non-authorized process can become
authorized, then its very existence is a substantive offense in
and of itself. It
I believe there is a batch ISMF component called Naviquest (or something
similar) but have never used it. I tend to use dcollect when I need that kind
of information.
Jerry Whitteridge
Lead Systems Programmer
Safeway Inc.
925 951 4184
If you feel in control
you just aren't going fast enough.
Thanks for te initiative.
I certainly going to subscribe myself to this forum.
Arye.
On 1 March 2012 23:21, Steve Comstock st...@trainersfriend.com wrote:
On 3/1/2012 1:54 PM, SHARE LVM Team wrote:
I've created a new LISTSERV list for the discussion of running in an IBM
System z Ensemble
On 3/2/2012 9:09 AM, David Cole wrote:
At 3/2/2012 10:25 AM, Edward Jaffe wrote:
The real question is whether an unintended third party can use the code to
become authorized.
Yes. That absolutely is the real question.
And absolutely, that is what Bill Fairchild's post asserts.
So that
Hello George,
I beleive you should try the TAPECORE forum for your kind of question.
Arye.
On 23 February 2012 23:16, Henke, George george.he...@hp.com wrote:
Does the IBM 7720/7740 copy just the blocks that have changed or all the
data for offsite backup?
Have to transmit 9 TB compressed
In a6b9336cdb62bb46b9f8708e686a7ea00e924b3...@nrhmms8p02.uicnrh.dom,
on 03/01/2012
at 03:01 PM, McKown, John john.mck...@healthmarkets.com said:
Curiousity, what do you mean by proper integration of Unix Services
in MVS?
E.g., all classic MVS programs able to read and write Unix files, both
In 2359544078384233.wa.betsyjefferymgic@bama.ua.edu, on
03/01/2012
at 03:45 PM, Betsy Jeffery betsy_jeff...@mgic.com said:
* The REXX itself is not allowed (by the Info Security folks) to
issue the commands.
Do they know about the surrogate issuing the commands on your behalf?
If they
Lloyd
... When we used PCP on the Model 40 with 64K.
Back in 1967/8, a colourful customer on the patch to which I belonged was
running PCP on a 64K machine and it may have been a 360/40. Our ace young
salesman had been responsible for this! IIRC this was considered the opposite
of the leading
Wow a blast from the past for me
Sent from my iPad
Scott Ford
Senior Systems Engineer
www.identityforge.com
On Mar 2, 2012, at 1:40 PM, Chris Mason chrisma...@belgacom.net wrote:
Lloyd
... When we used PCP on the Model 40 with 64K.
Back in 1967/8, a colourful customer on the patch to
On Fri, 2 Mar 2012 08:38:57 -0800, Charles Mills charl...@mcn.org wrote:
From RACF Macros and Interfaces: 5( 5) 1 Binary Data set level number
(00-99).
The only meaning I know for dataset level is the ISPF 3.4 meaning of
partial name.
What is a dataset level *number*?
It's the value the
On Fri, 2 Mar 2012 08:34:50 -0600, Betsy Jeffery betsy_jeff...@mgic.com wrote:
I'm beginning to think it can't. I think Rob Scott is correct - I should
write a stub using IKJEFTSR. I found the following from Walt Farrell in a
different list:
Therefore, since Rexx itself is not running
Walt, thanks.
Your installation assigns the meaning of the value.
Can you elaborate a little on what the intent was, or how shops generally
use Level?
Charles
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf
Of Walt Farrell
Sent: Friday,
chrisma...@belgacom.net (Chris Mason) writes:
Back in 1967/8, a colourful customer on the patch to which I belonged
was running PCP on a 64K machine and it may have been a 360/40. Our
ace young salesman had been responsible for this! IIRC this was
considered the opposite of the leading edge
A broader question: has anyone ever used Level for anything? Does anyone
have a DSD profile with any non-zero number? I don't think we do.
.
.
JO.Skip Robinson
SCE Infrastructure Technology Services
Electric Dragon Team Paddler
SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager
626-302-7535 Office
323-715-0595
Sorry if people feel that times have been beaten to death.
Environment is started task.
In accordance with an earlier thread I am setting _TZ to 'EST5EDT' rather
than the configured null so that strftime(%z) works as expected.
I just discovered that that is throwing my local times off by 7
Are you comparing your results to the time in the system console?
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 3:33 PM, Charles Mills charl...@mcn.org wrote:
Sorry if people feel that times have been beaten to death.
Environment is started task.
In accordance with an earlier thread I am setting _TZ to 'EST5EDT'
I would suggest that the HW clock is 7 minutes off of GMT
snip
In accordance with an earlier thread I am setting _TZ to 'EST5EDT'
rather
than the configured null so that strftime(%z) works as expected.
I just discovered that that is throwing my local times off by 7 minutes.
Does that make ANY
Are you comparing your results to the time in the system console?
I'm comparing my results to the timestamps on the system messages in the job
log (and also comparing my after setenv times to my before setenv
times).
Charles
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
I would suggest that the HW clock is 7 minutes off of GMT
What then would account for my times being right before I issue the setenv,
and the times being right everywhere else (such as system message
timestamps).
That's a serious question -- how could that be?
Charles
-Original
W dniu 2012-03-02 17:38, Charles Mills pisze:
From RACF Macros and Interfaces: 5( 5) 1 Binary Data set level number
(00-99).
The only meaning I know for dataset level is the ISPF 3.4 meaning of
partial name.
What is a dataset level *number*?
Wild guess: It not dataset level, it's just level
Charles,
Whats happening in your code between the two
Sent from my iPad
Scott Ford
Senior Systems Engineer
www.identityforge.com
On Mar 2, 2012, at 4:58 PM, Charles Mills charl...@mcn.org wrote:
off?
--
For IBM-MAIN
Whats happening in your code between the two
Darned little. I can parametize whether I set _TZ or not and what I set it
to and so it is easy to run debugging experiments. I can run the code with
or without setting _TZ, and it works fine if I do not set _TZ. There is
nothing else that I do along
Charles,
I was curios about what was going on...it could be a bug ..
Sent from my iPad
Scott Ford
Senior Systems Engineer
www.identityforge.com
On Mar 2, 2012, at 5:43 PM, Charles Mills charl...@mcn.org wrote:
PST
--
For
Charles Mills wrote:
Sorry if people feel that times have been beaten to death.
Environment is started task.
In accordance with an earlier thread I am setting _TZ to 'EST5EDT' rather
than the configured null so that strftime(%z) works as expected.
I just discovered that that is throwing my
FWIW, if I set _TZ to EST5:07EDT then all of my output is correct.
???
Makes no sense.
Charles
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf
Of Scott Ford
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2012 2:51 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: Why _TZ
12062 19:01:40.12 TSU02110 0090 IEE136I LOCAL: TIME=19.01.40
DATE=2012.062 UTC: TIME=00.08.40
DATE=2012.063
Well, by George, I think you've got it. They have UTC set 7 minutes ahead of
reality.
Does this make sense to anyone?
I will
It probably means that an operator reset the local time at the
console. Or someone placed an odd value in your SYS1.PARMLIB(CLOCKxx)
In article 07f601ccf8d1$6c093da0$441bb8e0$@mcn.org you wrote:
12062 19:01:40.12 TSU02110 0090 IEE136I LOCAL: TIME=19.01.40
DATE=2012.062 UTC: TIME=00.08.40
Local time is right. The hardware clock is 7 minutes fast.
CLOCK00:
OPERATOR NOPROMPT
TIMEZONE W.05.07.00
ETRMODE YES
ETRZONE NO
ETRDELTA 10
SIMETRID 00
Why would a shop do this?
Charles
-Original Message-
From: IBM
And the answer from those who know is
It happened during the POR last Thursday and we're talking with IBM to
figure out why a POR would do that to us.
Thanks all for your patience with YATQ (yet another time question).
Charles
On 03/02/2012 06:44 PM, Charles Mills wrote:
And the answer from those who know is
It happened during the POR last Thursday and we're talking with IBM to
figure out why a POR would do that to us.
Thanks all for your patience with YATQ (yet another time question).
Charles
In absence of
On Fri, 2 Mar 2012 19:31:55 -0600, Joel C. Ewing wrote:
On 03/02/2012 06:44 PM, Charles Mills wrote:
And the answer from those who know is
It happened during the POR last Thursday and we're talking with IBM to
figure out why a POR would do that to us.
Thanks all for your patience with YATQ
On 02/03/2012 08:36 PM, Joel C. Ewing wrote:
In absence of sysplex timer or the like, the processor TOD clock is set
only at POR and is set based on the HMC clock, which may in turn sync
once a day with the SE clock.
The SE is sync'd to the CEC TOD and the HMC is sync'd to the SE.
The SE is
On 03/02/2012 09:41 PM, George Kozakos wrote:
On 02/03/2012 08:36 PM, Joel C. Ewing wrote:
In absence of sysplex timer or the like, the processor TOD clock is set
only at POR and is set based on the HMC clock, which may in turn sync
once a day with the SE clock.
The SE is sync'd to the CEC TOD
Doesn't hurt to train the OPER's on 'What NOT to DO' either.
In a message dated 3/2/2012 10:26:18 P.M. Central Standard Time,
jcew...@acm.org writes:
but if management asks if it is a must
have additional expense or a feature you can live without, in many
cases the latter response
On 3/2/2012 8:25 PM, Joel C. Ewing wrote:
Particularly now that STP is just a matter of code rather than hardware, it
makes less and less sense (from the customer's viewpoint of course) for this
to be a chargeable feature, which was still the case when I last checked. As
long as it is a
54 matches
Mail list logo
