Hello,
I migrated my first system to z/OS v1.9 this past weekend, and my
Operations staff noticed that the SDSF "I" screen, and its column
labeled POS appears to be broken. In looking at this same screen on a
1.8 sys
Just want to give an udpate on this issue. IBM has opened OA26013 for me, if
anyone else is interested.
Curt
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: G
>Just want to give an udpate on this issue. IBM has opened OA26013 for me,
if anyone else is interested.
>
>Curt
IBM opened for me OA24615 a while ago and they had us test PK69442 week
before last which did not help the issues. They are back looking at traces,
dumps, etc, we supplied. It is th
Correction: the PTF was AK69442.jim
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ib
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Curt Thompson
>
> Hello,
>
> I migrated my first system to z/OS v1.9 this past weekend,
> and my
> Operations staff noticed that the SDSF "I" s
Have you re-assemed ISFPARMS, any exits, umods, etc with the correct
macro levels?
Have you removed module ISFLPA from LPALIB/LPALST?
I migrated my first system to z/OS v1.9 this past weekend, and my
Operations staff noticed that the SDSF "I" screen, and its column
labeled POS appea
On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 15:31:33 -0500, Curt Thompson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Hello,
>I migrated my first system to z/OS v1.9 this past weekend, and my
>Operations staff noticed that the SDSF "I" screen, and its column
>labeled POS appears to be broken. In looking at this same screen on a
>1.8 sys
IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Mainframe cc
Discussion List
<[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject
Hi,
POS appears to be working fine for us (with 5 jobs waiting in class O,
and 27 in class P). There is also a Wpos column for positions within WLM
service classes, but that appears sensibly filled as well. I presume you
reworked any ISFPRM customisation from the ISFPRM01 defaults. This
particular
Skip Robinson wrote:
There was a fundamental and as far as I know undocumented change in SDSF
for 1.9.
[snip]
All users of SDSF at 1.9+ should look at OA25498 , which mentions the new
Extended Status SSI interface. A number of anomalies are or might be
attributable to this functional change.
10 matches
Mail list logo