In , on 07/26/2010
at 05:00 PM, J R said:
>Also, ISTR that when someone deleted procedure "S", the process still
>worked. In other words, the proc not found JCL error was still good
>enough to drive allocation. But perhaps I'm misremembering. :(
That was certainly true in OS/360 and SVS
In
<2016465832-1280165760-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-5717886...@bda026.bisx.prod.on.blackberry>,
on 07/26/2010
at 05:36 PM, Ted MacNEIL said:
>I worked on the last MVS 3.8 (before qualifiers such as SE, SP, XA,
>ESA, etc), before SE1 came along.
No. You've garbled your chronolog
our point.
Ron
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On
Behalf Of
> Ed Gould
> Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 9:10 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
> Subject: Re: [IBM-MAIN] EMC Timefinder Snap and Dealloc
>
> Ron:
>
Ron:
--- On Wed, 7/28/10, Ron Hawkins wrote:
From: Ron Hawkins
Subject: Re: EMC Timefinder Snap and Dealloc
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Date: Wednesday, July 28, 2010, 1:54 AM
Bill,
Sample from syslog:
NC000 PE01 10208 23:51:26.99 HAWKINS 0210 V 8000-807F,OFFLINE
MR000 PE01
day, July 26, 2010 11:17 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
> Subject: Re: [IBM-MAIN] EMC Timefinder Snap and Dealloc
>
> On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 18:08:20 +, Bill Fairchild wrote:
>
> > This is why I think that a VARY command
> should not simply
Hi Lizette,
I think EMC gives us a choice with this parameter:
AUTOMATIC_DEALLOC|AUTO_DEAlloc(YES|NO)
The AUTOMATIC_DEALLOC parameter allows or disallows
automatic issuance of an S DEALLOC command to z/OS when a
device VARY ONLINE or VARY OFFLINE appears to be hung. z/OS
sometimes requires a job
eleted procedure "S", the process still worked.
In other words,
the proc not found JCL error was still good enough to drive allocation. But
perhaps I'm misremembering. :(
> Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 12:50:22 -0700
> From: john.p.donne...@nsc.com
> Subject: Re: EMC Timef
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 12:50:22 -0700, Donnelly, John P
wrote:
>...back in the early days this individual deleted member X, an IEFBR14,
thinking was just some junk floating around...30 years later still here
about it...
>
>John Donnelly
That's what comments are for:
SYS2.PROCLIB(X) - 01.00
...@nsc.com
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of
Ted MacNEIL
Sent: Monday, July 26, 2010 11:32 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: EMC Timefinder Snap and Dealloc
>No SuperHero with neither powers nor motivation.
>
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 14:50:20 -0400, Lizette Koehler wrote:
>However, the main question I have is - Is it still necessary to do this?
According to EMC they indicated that the reason they added the S DEALLOC was
because varies were taking upto 6 mins. So the use of S DEALLOC was to
speed that pro
Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of
Lizette Koehler
Sent: Monday, July 26, 2010 1:50 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: EMC Timefinder Snap and Dealloc
... Is it still necessary to do this? According to EMC they indicated that the
reason they added the S DEALLOC w
It is still possible to build commands like: V
(,,,,,,,),OFFLINE
The start command is not needed, and should be eliminated. If there are any
developers left working on that product that know what they are doing they will
agree, at least once they know the facts.
You all - as always - have provided wonderful history for I/O processing.
I think the use of one character procs goes back to Punch cards. Too many
holes - too little action...
However, the main question I have is - Is it still necessary to do this?
According to EMC they indicated that the re
>De-train them that a start command is no longer necessary (see Mark Zelden's
>26 Jul 2010 11:36:29 post).
Having not worked in ops, since before 1.7, I missed.
But, I agree.
>Write a start command preprocessor that looks for "S X" and, when found, does
>a WTOR that says "Are You Sure" and igno
It is certainly no standard here.
At my shop, entering "S X" at the console results in:
S X
$HASP100 XON STCINRDR
*BEK452I JOB X - JOB HAD A JCL ERROR
IEFC
>- Old START DEALLOC" job no longer needed to get devices processed
This is a good thing.
A better thing would be for timefinder to stop doing it.
Or, at least query the release an do it only on less than 1.7, if they're still
around.
-
I'm a SuperHero with neither powers, nor motivation!
Kimota
e with it.
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of
Ted MacNEIL
Sent: Monday, July 26, 2010 1:32 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: EMC Timefinder Snap and Dealloc
>No SuperHero with neither powers nor motivation.
>Ju
>No SuperHero with neither powers nor motivation.
>Just a SuperSkeptic who no longer trusts in dogmatism.
I am not dogmatic, and I agree that vary processing could be MUCH smarter.
But, unfortunately, almost every SYSPROG I know uses S X to clear out the VARY
PENDING.
What can you do?
-
I'm a
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 11:56:48 -0500, Brian Peterson
wrote:
>On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 11:36:29 -0500, Mark Zelden wrote:
>
>> Several shops I have been at (including my first
>>exposure to MVS) had a proc called "X" which was a copy of DEALLOC.
>>The operator would "VARY xxx
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 18:08:20 +, Bill Fairchild wrote:
> This is why I think that a VARY command
should not simply add a command to a queue for "later processing" but should
rather process the command immediately and fully, or at least immediately
start the process
ll Fairchild
Rocket Software
-
No SuperHero with neither powers nor motivation. Just a SuperSkeptic who no
longer trusts in dogmatism.
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of
Ted MacNEIL
Sent: Monday, July 26, 2010 12:41 PM
To
>One problem with X is that some installations may have had a procedure named X
>that was not trivial and did real, useful, productive work.
Since every shop I've worked in (starting in 1981) had X as DEALLOC clone, why
would any SYSPROG allow a 'productive' X, when it's a de facto standard for
>The operator would "VARY xxx,OFFLINE" then "S X" to "kick in" deallocation.
>This goes back to at least MVS SP (which was the first
MVS I worked on).
I worked on the last MVS 3.8 (before qualifiers such as SE, SP, XA, ESA, etc),
before SE1 came along.
It was SOP, then.
-
I'm a SuperHero with
Doing "anything" thousands of times is very likely NOT a good idea. Sounds
like a serious problem with MFE 7.0 to me.
I don't know the history of DEALLOC. From SMP/E on z/OS 1.11:
Entry Type: PROC Zone Name: MVST100
Entry Name: DEALLOC
Brian Peterson asked:
> Maybe someone ... on this list more familiar with the oddities
> of OS/360, could ... explain what DEALLOC is/was intended to
> accomplish.
Simply ensure that "Allocation" got control. Only Allocation
would actually (for example) vary a DASD volume offline. To
make it ha
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 10:54:48 -0500, Brian Peterson
wrote:
>Doing "anything" thousands of times is very likely NOT a good idea. Sounds
>like a serious problem with MFE 7.0 to me.
>
>I don't know the history of DEALLOC. From SMP/E on z/OS 1.11:
>
Really? I thought you had more history in MVS th
Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of
Mark Zelden
Sent: Monday, July 26, 2010 11:36 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: EMC Timefinder Snap and Dealloc
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 10:54:48 -0500, Brian Peterson
wrote:
>Doing "anything" thousands of times is very lik
bject: Re: EMC Timefinder Snap and Dealloc
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 11:36:29 -0500, Mark Zelden wrote:
> Several shops I have been at (including my
first
>exposure to MVS) had a proc called "X" which was a copy of DEALLOC.
>The operator would "VA
Don't even need a proc. Just issue 'S X'. That is enough to drive
allocation.
So, every shop had a PROC named "X" or "Z" or something that
the operators could remember, so all that had to do was type
"S X". The "X" PROC included only a single EXEC statement,
For PGM=IEFBR14.
---
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 11:36:29 -0500, Mark Zelden wrote:
> Several shops I have been at (including my first
>exposure to MVS) had a proc called "X" which was a copy of DEALLOC.
>The operator would "VARY xxx,OFFLINE" then "S X" to "kick in"
>deallocation. This goes back
--Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of
Lizette Koehler
Sent: Monday, July 26, 2010 6:52 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: EMC Timefinder Snap and Dealloc
EMC decided that when the SNAP function occurs on a volume, they would issue
the
I have a concern of the way the EMC Software - Timefinder Snap - under
Mainframe Enabler Software 7.0 works.
EMC decided that when the SNAP function occurs on a volume, they would issue
the S DEALLOC proc (Yes IEFBR14) to get IOS to vary the volume offline
sooner. I am not sure if that is a good
32 matches
Mail list logo