Re: SMF in System Logger

2008-04-14 Thread Skip Robinson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject .EDU> Re: SMF in System Logger

Re: SMF in System Logger

2008-04-14 Thread Mark Zelden
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 10:20:02 -0700, Skip Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Structure size is a crap shoot. I get rather >frequent XCF warnings that the structure is above the high water mark of >80% recommended by IBM, but the system catches up within seconds. See past rants ... er ..posts on

Re: SMF in System Logger

2008-04-14 Thread Jim Holloway
On 04/14/2008 01:20 PM, Skip Robinson wrote: > I presented a user session at SHARE Orlando based on experience with our > z/OS 1.9 sandbox image. In the meantime, we have migrated SMF Logger to our > development system, which gets very busy and therefore creates way more SMF > data than the sand

Re: SMF in System Logger

2008-04-14 Thread Skip Robinson
cc Discussion List <[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject .EDU>

Re: SMF in System Logger

2008-04-14 Thread Vernooy, C.P. - SPLXM
"Jim Holloway" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED] com>... > We are beginning to test SMF in logstreams and so far, so good. Like > others have mentioned, I really, really want the ability > to delete records from the logstream programmatically after I've extracted > th

SMF in System Logger

2008-04-13 Thread Jim Holloway
We are beginning to test SMF in logstreams and so far, so good. Like others have mentioned, I really, really want the ability to delete records from the logstream programmatically after I've extracted them, but I can wait. Based on our experiences with VSAM SMF recording over the years we've d