McKown, John pisze:
[...]
And there is at least one "gotcha". That is with the JES2 checkpoint. It needs to be $ACTIVATEd to the Z2 level because 1.9 can't use the older, R4, level. We ran into this with our 1.8 to 1.10 conversion. We were on the older level of the checkpoint due to a very old pro
That's the point Rick. Here, with this particular migration there isn't any
"required" toleration to perform for them. That doesn't mean that there
isn't any available to download, but none of it is "required" for their
conversion to be successful. For them (and a great number of sites) it's a
s
--
Okay, for the sake of argument, and to make this short, just what part of
migrating from 1.4 to 1.9 do you think is not supported? The move itself,
of course it is. The fall back? Just who do you think would support it if
the move
>From my perspective it isn't the install/fallback that is of primary
concern (though it IS a concern - consider if there's an ICF catalog
change and toleration PTF's are required), it's for sites with multiple
concurrent images that do crazy things like share spool or sysplex couple
data sets.
Rick, Rick, Rick. Supported, supported, supported. Fud, fud, fud. Here we
go again.
Okay, for the sake of argument, and to make this short, just what part of
migrating from 1.4 to 1.9 do you think is not supported? The move itself,
of course it is. The fall back? Just who do you think woul
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
> [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Rick Fochtman
> Sent: Monday, August 03, 2009 10:33 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
> Subject: Re: Any gotchas goi
Of course there is, although it's pretty much the same maintenance as for
coexistence. When a new release updates, e.g., SPOOL, the changes are
sometimes such as to break an old release unless there is coexistence
service installed.
--
In , on 07/22/2009
at 12:33 AM, Brian Westerman said:
>As for "falling
>back", there is no such kind of maintenance or support.
Of course there is, although it's pretty much the same maintenance as for
coexistence. When a new release updates, e.g., SPOOL, the changes are
sometimes such as to
Watch out for problems due to VSM ALLOWUSERKEYCSA. The default changes to
NO. When you first change over set this to YES, test your system , then let
it default and see what no longer works.
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / a
Fermat Ma wrote:
Get rid of 1byte console id.
No imbed, replicate for VSAM.
...and a lot more..
Existing data sets created using IMBED, REPLICATE, and KEYRANGE remain
supported for existing VSAM data sets in z/OS R9 just as they were in
z/OS R4. We have yet to announce a release in which t
>>No imbed, replicate for VSAM.
>>...and a lot more..
>>
>I thought this restriction was not yet enforced, even at z/OS 1.10.
It's not.
And, as of the last time I checked, you can still specify them under IDCAMS.
They are checked for syntax, but ignored.
The created file does not have the attribu
, John
Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 9:57 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: Any gotchas going from 1.4 to 1.9?
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
> [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Neal Eckhardt
> Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 8:01 AM
&g
=(/)
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of
Rick Fochtman
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 3:46 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: Any gotchas going from 1.4 to 1.9
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
> [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Neal Eckhardt
> Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 8:01 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
> Subject: Re: Any gotchas going from 1.4 to 1.9?
>
> On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 1
On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 16:27:18 +0800, Fermat Ma
wrote:
>No imbed, replicate for VSAM.
>...and a lot more..
>
I thought this restriction was not yet enforced, even at z/OS 1.10.
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive acces
Get rid of 1byte console id.
No imbed, replicate for VSAM.
...and a lot more..
there are release guides available online and you should take a serious look
into them.
Fermat
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 1:33 PM, Brian Westerman <
brian_wester...@syzygyinc.com> wrote:
> This is a real pet peeve of mi
This is a real pet peeve of mine and I've done a lot of these conversions
outside of the "IBM 3 release rule" with no problems. IBM doesn't require
you to perform the upgrade in multiple jumps, but a lot of people (even
within IBM) seem to have fallen under that misconception. As for "falling
bac
--
I didn't do an offload-reload because I've heard too many horror stories about
corruption in spool files. A friend did an upgrade wth offload-reload and spent
most of the following week trying to recover from the damage. It never
IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: Any gotchas going from 1.4 to 1.9?
That's a separate Address Space, not stack:) As of 1.9, the TN3270
server can't run in the TCPIP stack. I think the ability to separate
came with 1.7. I know that's where I did the separation in prep for 1.9.
tate University
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On
> Behalf Of Staller, Allan
> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 12:31 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
> Subject: Re: Any gotchas going from 1.4 to 1.9?
>
> A separate stack is re
A separate stack is required to operate TN3270 as of z/OS 1.9. The
TELNETPARMS, TELNETGLOBALS and BEGINVTAM blocks *MUST* be removed from
the TCP profile. A new task, (in my case TN3270) processes these
parameters. Check the 1.9 migration book under ' Migrate to the TN3270E
Telnet server that runs
Discussion List
07/21/2009 01:21 PM
Please respond to
IBM Mainframe Discussion List
To
IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
cc
Subject
Any gotchas going from 1.4 to 1.9?
Greetings all,
(I posted this on Google groups a while ago but would like to reach a
larger
audience.)
I've got a 1.4 system
Thanks, Allan.
What is TN3270 separation?
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archive
Thanks for the responses. I was concerned about the JES spool too but we
don't share spool between LPARs.
When I went from OS/390 2.9 to z/OS 1.4, I ran the 2.9 JES until after the OS
was considered stable. Then I did the ACTIVATE and followed that a few
weeks later by coming up with the ne
I can't think of any show stoppers, however, some items to be aware of
(they should all be in the migration manuals).
JES2 $ACTIVATE. This adds some control blocks to the checkpoint. It was
available IIRC at z/OS 1.4.
Of course sharing spool is "unsupported" between 1.4 and 1.9. I presume
you wer
If that JES is JES2, you'll want to review the material at
http://www-03.ibm.com/systems/z/os/zos/installation/zos17_jes2_migration.html
Bob
Bruce McKnight wrote:
Greetings all,
(I posted this on Google groups a while ago but would like to reach a larger
audience.)
I've got a 1.4 system th
lf Of Bruce McKnight
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 2:22 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Any gotchas going from 1.4 to 1.9?
Greetings all,
(I posted this on Google groups a while ago but would like to reach a
larger
audience.)
I've got a 1.4 system that needs to be upgraded to 1.9 before
Greetings all,
(I posted this on Google groups a while ago but would like to reach a larger
audience.)
I've got a 1.4 system that needs to be upgraded to 1.9 before we get our
new z10. Rather than going from 1.4 to 1.7 and then to 1.9, I'm considering
going straight to 1.9.
I've already got
28 matches
Mail list logo
