Your suggestion fixed it. Thanks.
Charles
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf
Of Brian Kennelly
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 3:19 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: SMF Exit suppression question
That is an accurate
McKown, John wrote:
>This "idea" was inspired by the recent posts about the IEFU8n SMF exits.
[ ... snipped for brevity for posting here ... ]
>Would such an API be generally useful to the community? Or am I off in the
parking lot again?
Good idea, if you can give your records to be selected
This "idea" was inspired by the recent posts about the IEFU8n SMF exits.
Writing and debugging this type of exit can require a good level of knowledge
and skill. So what occurred to me is a new facility for receiving SMF records
at/near generation time. It could not be used to modify the records
Here is the relevant documentation from the *Installation and Tuning
Reference*:
The SUBSYS specification overrides the SYS specification. Use SUBSYS to make
> exceptions to your SYS specification for particular subsystems.
...
> When you associate new exit routines with SMF exits through PROGxx
: Thursday, September 23, 2010 3:19 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: SMF Exit suppression question
That is an accurate recap. (I ran into this one myself.)
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send
m-m...@bama.ua.edu] On
> Behalf
> Of Brian Kennelly
> Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 2:29 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
> Subject: Re: SMF Exit suppression question
>
> Each defined subsystem has its own set of dynamic exits. If you have not
> defined a separate TS
times"? Under what circumstances?
>
> Charles
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On
> Behalf
> Of Brian Kennelly
> Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 12:12 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
> Subject: Re: SMF Exit
t;
> Charles
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On
> Behalf
> Of Brian Kennelly
> Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 12:12 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
> Subject: Re: SMF Exit suppression question
>
,80))?
>
> Charles
>
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On
> Behalf
> Of Charles Mills
> Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 11:59 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
> Subject: SMF Exit suppression question
>
> I'v
Perhaps I need an explicit SUBSYS(TSO,TYPE(30,80))?
Charles
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf
Of Charles Mills
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 11:59 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: SMF Exit suppression question
I&#x
Kennelly
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 12:12 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: SMF Exit suppression question
Did you install the exits in SYSTSO?
SYSTSO.IEFU83
SYSTSO.IEFU84
SYSTSO.IEFU85
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / sign
Did you install the exits in SYSTSO?
SYSTSO.IEFU83
SYSTSO.IEFU84
SYSTSO.IEFU85
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 11:59, Charles Mills wrote:
> I've got an exit that installs on SYS.IEFU83, 4 and 5. On my test system
> and
> several customer systems it works as expected. However, on one customer
> (z/OS V
I've got an exit that installs on SYS.IEFU83, 4 and 5. On my test system and
several customer systems it works as expected. However, on one customer
(z/OS V1R7 FWIW, although I have tested on V1R7 successfully) I am seeing
*some* of the expected records but not all. The exit is installed first on
t
13 matches
Mail list logo
