Has anyone experienced all dynamic PAV activity just stopping?
RMF reports are showing me that there have been "zero" changes to our alias
assignments for the past couple weeks. Lickily our PAVs are currently spread
out enough over the production UCBs that we have not had terrible
performance
The MCLs were applied on May 2.
On Thu, 4 Jun 2009 16:47:59 +0200, Vernooy, C.P. - SPLXM
wrote:
>>
>
>When was your MCL upgrade?
>Our last upgrade was first half of April and I still see PAVs moving.
>
>Kees.
--
For IBM-MAIN
Yea, we checked the IODF and the WLM policy. No changes there. Last IODF
change was earlier in April and everything is still set for PAV in there and in
the WLM policy.
I liked the idea of reactivating the policy, but I checked and we have
activated new policies with minor changes a couple ti
We have HyperPAV implemented on one test box. It is actually working fine.
Only the WLM dynamic PAV is not working (on the rest of the dasd farm).
Still working with IBM support. They are a little stumped so far, but have
been able to find that the root problem is that the DBVT (Device Block
It was an OS problem after all, and not due to the MCLs.
APAR OA29370 has been opened.
We have been over the 65535 device boundry for a long time, but the bug
became exposed when I deleted over 5000 addresses the week before via
dynamic iogen activate. The PAV assignment code broke because of t
Per IOCDS.
Many of our addresses are open systems dasd (for FDR backup purposes).
Dave
On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 08:53:32 +0200, Vernooy, C.P. - SPLXM
wrote:
>>
>
>Just out of curiosity: 65535 devices per what? IOCDS, storage device?
>Makes me feel working in a small shop...
>
>Kees.
>**
Regarding the z9, does anyone have a view on running subcapacity engines
vs. full capacity engines?
For example, considering the following:
z9-508 has 352 MSUs (2613 MIPs)
z9-705 has 363 MSUs (2633 MIPs)
The 705 is using 5 full capacity PUs and the 508 is using 8 subcap PUs.
Is there any notice
Thanks Eric, I appreciate the answer.
I should clarify my question.
I agree with you, except that the 705 being a 5-way with full capacity engines
vs. a 508 being a 8-way with subcapacity engines.
Workload considerations aside for the moment, do you know if there is any
sizable amount of CPU los
I assume you mean the offload datasets? They are recommended by IBM to
be in a user catalog via alias. No sense in polluting the mastercat with all
of
those.
If you meant the logger couple datasets, then they should stay in your master
catalog.
Dave
On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 12:37:14 -0400, Mu
I'm sure most people here know this answer already, but I am curious.
What is the JES2 songbook?
Thanks,
Dave
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GE
On Thu, 7 Jun 2007 07:38:52 -0500, Mark H. Young
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>You lead a sheltered life Dave. Sorry, couldn't resist.
You are correct :)
I really need to get to a SHARE conference some day!!!
--
For IBM-MAIN s
Yea, sounds great on the surface. But according to my IBM rep you now must
purchase your memory for the z9 in a minimum block of 16Gb!!!
>You missed one other simple benefit of the z9. The memory is 20% cheaper
per 8GB ($8,000 vs. $10,000). Granted, it is a small thing, but a benefit
nevertheles
Take a look at number of logical processors assigned in your image
profiles.
Looks like you have 8 physical processors in the CPC and 7 logical
processors assigned to partition POD.
Since your other images report the same for both fields I assume you have 8
logical processors assigned to those ima
Patrick,
I can't speak for ACF2 or RACF, but the conversion to Top Secret is
incredibly simple. One of the TSS manuals has a chapter on how to do it.
It is as simple as running a batch job to perform the conversion.
HTH, Dave
--
Pulled up this old question from the archives.
I am facing the same problem that Paul detailed below.
Looks like nobody had an answer then, does anyone have any idea now?
Thanks,
Dave
On Tue, 17 Sep 2002 11:24:46 -0500, Paul Ip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>I am trying to use REXX to r
On Thu, 2 Jun 2005 09:06:44 -0500, Mark Zelden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>Is DITTOU defined in IKJTSOxx as an authorized command? I just tried
>the code you quoted on one of our systems and it worked. On the other hand,
>if I used DITTOA or DITTO I get the same failure as those are both
>define
I actually did open an ETR with the ISPF folks at IBM about a year ago on
this.
You are correct, I was told it was an issue with ISPF 3.4 and indeed, WAD.
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send em
17 matches
Mail list logo
