I'm having a disagreement with IBM Support for a product. I need to quote
chapter and verse (of doc that may not even exist) on the use of FORCE. I
have found a situation that requires use of FORCE if parts of Unix System
Services are brought down prior to shutting the product down.
On 8/16/06, Patrick O'Keefe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm having a disagreement with IBM Support for a product. I need to quote
chapter and verse (of doc that may not even exist) on the use of FORCE.
FORCE doc:
http://publibz.boulder.ibm.com/cgi-bin/bookmgr_OS390/BOOKS/
On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 20:30:52 -0400, Gabriel Tully <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>...
>What was the reason code on the EC6? There are some nasty looking ones on
>the list. Maybe the USS is trying to protect it's integrity?
>...
We are in the process of reworking our system shutdown and did not have
IBM Mainframe Discussion List wrote on 08/16/2006
07:01:12 PM:
> I'm having a disagreement with IBM Support for a product. I need to
quote
> chapter and verse (of doc that may not even exist) on the use of FORCE.
I
> have found a situation that requires use of FORCE if parts o
I would agree with the originator of this question that any required use
of FORCE is a bug. The possible consequences of FOCREing an address
space are severe and are not within the scope of 'normal' operation. If
you need to issue a FORCE then you have a problem and it should be fi
>I would agree with the originator of this question that any required use of
>FORCE is a bug.
I disagree. Sometimes you have to FORCE. For example, you have an address space
swapped out.
CANCEL won't take effect until it swaps back in.
So, you cannot restart it until it's gone.
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Ted MacNEIL
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 8:11 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Use of FORCE
>I would agree with the originator of this question that any required
use of FORCE
>I'm not saying that we never issue a FORCE, but we do it as a last resort and
>keep a close eye on the system after we issue it. Again, this is NOT normal it
>is a bug to have to issue a force.
Again, I disagree.
Most of the issues with FORCE went away 20 years ago.
And, there are many reasons
Behalf Of Ted MacNEIL
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 8:46 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Use of FORCE
>I'm not saying that we never issue a FORCE, but we do it as a last
resort and keep a close eye on the system after we issue it. Again, this
is NOT normal it is a bug to have to
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 12:11:06 +, Ted MacNEIL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>I would agree with the originator of this question that any required use
of FORCE is a bug.
>
>I disagree. Sometimes you have to FORCE. For example, you have an address
>space swapped out.
Ar
ry long time since I played with RTM at that level.
Regards,
Steve Thompson
I'm having a disagreement with IBM Support for a product. I need to
quote
chapter and verse (of doc that may not even exist) on the use of FORCE.
I
have found a situation that requires use of FORCE if parts of
>I must be doing something wrong then since we have seen several problems in
>the past couple of years (certainly less than 20 years) with using FORCE.
We are using it at least twice a month, unfortunately.
One business-critical task is taking a S0C4 occasionally, and won't cancel
since it's swa
>So you consider an unscheduled IPL to be part of "normal operation?"
Who said we had any?
Maybe we've been lucky?
When in doubt.
PANIC!!
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAI
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ted MacNEIL
> Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 8:54 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: Use of FORCE
>
>
> >I must be doing something wrong then
>This is likely not possible, but have you considered writing an assembler
>routine which does an ATTACHX on the actual program.
Unfortunately, it's not possible.
The main reason is, we are out-sourced and our provider doesn't have the smarts.
Nor, do they like modifying vendor code.
When in do
I think this should have gone to the list?
After all, I mis-typed.
Had ARM in the wrong order.
--Original Message--
To: Gabriel Tully
Sent: Aug 17, 2006 10:07
Subject: Re: Use of FORCE
>Shouldn't it be:
>CANCEL
>FORCE ,ARM
> * if ARM does not work then
>FOR
A.EDU
Subject: Re: Use of FORCE
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ted MacNEIL
> Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 8:54 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: Use of FORCE
>
>
> >I must be
This should have gone to the list too:
In addition, there are several things I check before I issue any kind of
FORCE:
- Check SRVCLASS for low priorty
- Check RMF for waits
- Check WTOR
- Check GRS contention
- Check for SMC (step must complete) status in D A,taskname
- Check to see if task ha
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 01:28:34 -0400, Jim Mulder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>...
> I looked at the PMR, and it does not mention a dump of the
>address space in question after the CANCEL was done. A dump would be
>required to figure out what is going on before trying to decide if there
>is a probl
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Patrick O'Keefe
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 10:06 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Use of FORCE
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 01:28:34 -0400, Jim Mulder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrot
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 12:11:06 +, Ted MacNEIL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>I would agree with the originator of this question that any required use
of FORCE is a bug.
>
>I disagree. Sometimes you have to FORCE. ...
I didn't mean to imply that FORCE should not be used.
IBM Mainframe Discussion List wrote on 08/17/2006
11:06:29 AM:
> On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 01:28:34 -0400, Jim Mulder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> >>...
> > I looked at the PMR, and it does not mention a dump of the
> >address space in question after the CANCEL was done. A dump would be
> >requi
Jim Mulder quoth;
> I make no statements about the safety of using FORCE. The
ramifications
> of any asynchronous abnormal termination depend on what was going on
when
> the termination occurred. That is true FORCE, CANCEL , DETACH, etc.
As Jim says, there are lots of "interesting" cases that
In
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
on 08/17/2006
at 12:11 PM, Ted MacNEIL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>I disagree. Sometimes you have to FORCE.
Sure, and sometimes you have to IPL. When those things happen, they
mean that something is broken.
>Not since MVS/XA came out.
ROTF,LMAO!
>A lot of problems wer
>
> Do you have anything constructive to offer? He did the FORCE at the
> time, now he'd like the vendor to fix the problem before it happens
> again.
>
> --
> Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
>From what I've gathered, this product is not very popular, in the sense
of having a
In
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
on 08/17/2006
at 06:22 PM, Jim Mulder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>Others may be ramifications of the design
>of the thing being Canceled.
If the thing being cancelled is an IBM component then it's still an
IBM bug.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
on 08/18/2006
at 08:04 AM, "McKown, John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>This is, again, why I like "Open Source" software.
Back before OCO we didn't have open source but customers had access to
the source code and could legally send enhancements and fixes to other
customer
27 matches
Mail list logo
