Raju,
If memory serves me correctly, with IBM DASD aren't you required to define
the first two ranks as R5 6D+1P+1S, where S is the floating Dynamic Spare?
Ron
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
Behalf Of Raju Reddy
Sent: Friday,
Leonardo,
Try the Type 64 subtype 64 record.
Be aware that some addresses do not write an interval record, so best to
include an IPL in your data collection.
This will allow you to split directory processing our from the total IO
count.
Type 14/15 records do not show the dataset name in a
Did you mean 42 subtype 6?
Yifat
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
Behalf Of Ron Hawkins
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 11:04 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Improve LLA/VLF usage
Leonardo,
Try the Type 64 subtype
Hello!
From time to time (certain days in a month) we hit group or system limit. We
have different types of workload defined in WLM. Among others, most batch jobs
have the lowest priority. At the peek times they apparently get no CPU
resources, but when we make report at the end of the day,
As always EXCP counts in SMF records are a movable feast: They are
what the access method wants them to be. :-)
Type 42-6 is probably a better bet - and will give a guesstimate of
bufferability from the cache statistics.
Cheers, Martin
Martin Packer,
zChampion, Principal Systems Investigator,
Since the chicken and egg situation was (correctly) mentioned, I'll
point out that user groups might consider asking for something like:
allow ETCON and/or ATSET not to require supervisor state and/or system key
if a suitable RACF profile is defined that gives the user suitable
authorization
We use LPAR Group Capacity to cap our system to 35 MSUs, for cost reasons.
We often have our LPARs capped by WLM. Sometimes for hours. But it is
mainly during cycle, when we have little CICS demand. However, on month
end, we experience this capping during the day. We have never had a CICS
is slow
Wow, thank you everyone for your replies!
I will do that for a development system. My hope is not high, but let's see if
we get any measurable performance improvement.
Really appreciated,
Leonardo Vaz
--
For IBM-MAIN
On Tue, 2013-02-19 at 04:53 -0600, Natasa Savinc wrote:
There are two opinions amoung our sysprogs: one is that we should
cancel all low priority workload in order to help our online get all
the resources, the other is that that is not necessary, as batch isn't
getting any online's CPU
edgould1...@comcast.net (Ed Gould) writes:
We were desperate for UCB's and even looked at the 8100's but it was a
nightmare (programming and maintenance (software long story and I will
explain offline if requested)).
re:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013b.html#56 Dualcase vs monocase. Was:
Hello all,
We are in the process of reviewing XCF definitions, like getting rid of XCF
signaling though CTCs and we are wondering if we have too many classes defined.
Do you think it’s best to have just a couple of classes defined or to have them
more fine-grained?
Can anyone send me their
On 2/19/2013 7:54 AM, Peter Relson wrote:
Since the chicken and egg situation was (correctly) mentioned,
A chicken and egg situation exists only for people who don't
understand evolution (a bird not quite a chicken laid a mutated egg that
grew into a chicken). I'm amazed that more than 150
If you want to think in those terms, fish existed before birds. And fish
lay eggs (caviar?). So the egg preceded the chicken. Come to think of it,
arthropods may have preceded fish. And they lay eggs too. Eggs came way
before chickens. A chicken is just a right sized dinosaur. grin/
On Tue, Feb
It's really not more complicated. Higher priority work always gets the
computing cycles it needs, except as it relates to competition at the same or
higher priorities. Low priority cannot contribute any resources, since it
doesn't have anything that higher priority work needs.
In other
Why do you want to get rid of the CTC connections? Do you need them for
something else?
Are these SCTCs or FCTCs? If yes, there are times when these may be faster
than the CF.
I also recommend 3 Transport Classes: 1K, 8K and 20/32K, with the last one
being the default.
zNorman
-Original
Thx very much to all of your hints, A.Cecilio.
On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 11:51 PM, retired mainframer
retired-mainfra...@q.com wrote:
Then it really is a 3380. But since you probably don't have a SLED it is
actually an emulated 3380. No z/OS utility can change that. If you want
it
to be a
On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 09:48:23 -0600, Leonardo Vaz leonardo@cn.ca wrote:
Hello all,
We are in the process of reviewing XCF definitions, like getting rid of XCF
signaling though CTCs and we are wondering if we have too many classes defined.
Do you think it’s best to have just a couple of
This is the title of the lead article in today's print edition of the
New York Times.
Those of you who do not see The New York Times regularly can find it at
http://nytimes.com
The article is a very long, detailed one; but it will repay your attention.
Not mentioned in it is strong evidence
On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 09:25:17 -0800, Norman.Hollander
norman.hollan...@desertwiz.biz wrote:
Why do you want to get rid of the CTC connections? Do you need them for
something else?
Are these SCTCs or FCTCs? If yes, there are times when these may be faster
than the CF.
I also recommend 3
Thank you very much Norman and Mark. I can't believe I'm hearing great advice
from these great people.
Yes, we use Ficon, but we are looking into simplifying things, using only one
of the methods, share the COUPLExx member. As Mark said, try to make our DR
life easier.
Thanks for the advice, I
Mr Puddicombe,
'We' may well be doing things of this sort to Chinese sites. Certainly
there is evidence that the AmericanGovernment or its surrogates have
done such things to the Iranian isotope-separation centrifuges.
My notion was to inform. I did not mean to suggest moral outrage. I
feel
In the creation model, chickens (or at least the chicken kind) were directly
created by God. Then they had eggs.
Mark Hammond
-Original Message-
From: Gerhard Postpischil [mailto:gerh...@valley.net]
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 10:16 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re:
Because they are sized correctly and will not cause the re-sizing exercise. If
all the messages fit,
Then the default doesn't matter. But resizing the largest one means less
resizing elsewhere.
If you are resizing more than 10% of your messages, that could be a very large
number and long
Time
On 02/19/2013 11:25 AM, Gerhard Adam wrote:
It's really not more complicated. Higher priority work always gets the
computing cycles it needs, except as it relates to competition at the same or
higher priorities. Low priority cannot contribute any resources, since it
doesn't have anything
On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 10:44 AM, Mark Hammond markhamm...@ateras.comwrote:
In the creation model, chickens (or at least the chicken kind) were
directly created by God. Then they had eggs.
Please do not take offence I'm not point fingers at religion, but merely
remembering the genius of
I have to disagree. I often hear this, but there's no resources to give.
Other than MPL adjustments, almost all of the major WLM decisions are simply a
matter of setting dispatching priorities. There can never be a situation of
where a lower priority [lower DP] unit of work can pre-empt a
On Monday 18 February 2013 23:20:46 Ed Gould wrote:
Most places I have worked the use of ALTER was banned in the
standards manual.
Ed
Not this place; my mentor chastised me for using structured methods
(he
didn't understand it). :-P
Leslie
You are starting way too late. Living beings are the way the protiens
in the primordial soup have created to replicate themselves.
Sometimes the replicated protiens are slightly different, and most of
the altered protiens don't replicate as well and a few protiens form a
competing branch.
On
_BBC - Future - Science Environment - Diamond idea for quantum computer_
(http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20130218-diamond-idea-for-quantum-computer)
SciFi-You get engaged? Nah, it's my new PC. 3 teraflops, 8 terabytes of
memory and 16 petabytes of storage in the bracelet.
Share your opinions, experiences, lessons learned and fresh approaches as a
speaker at SHARE in Boston, August 11-16, 2013. SHARE welcomes and encourages
both first-time submitters and seasoned presenters to take part in this leading
enterprise technology event. The deadline to submit a
In 5122552c.3010...@acm.org, on 02/18/2013
at 10:22 AM, Joel C. Ewing jcew...@acm.org said:
Having a few devices that supported dual case didn't necessarily
make it economically reasonable to adopt dual case. There was
considerable (more than a decade) overlap between use of card
equipment
Resent with manual reference.
In 5122552c.3010...@acm.org, on 02/18/2013
at 10:22 AM, Joel C. Ewing jcew...@acm.org said:
Having a few devices that supported dual case didn't necessarily
make it economically reasonable to adopt dual case. There was
considerable (more than a decade) overlap
I am sure I am missing something very simple but I have been at this for hours
and not making any progress so I hope someone simply knows what to do and can
tell me.
I am attempting to use the IBM Debug Tool (version 11.1) to debug an HLASM
program. I assembled and linked it using the debug
In
a90e503c23f97441b05ee302853b0e628645c29...@fspas01ev010.fspa.myntet.se,
on 02/18/2013
at 02:48 PM, Thomas Berg thomas.b...@swedbank.se said:
Do you imply that these features is promoting/helping obfuscating ?
It's not the features that are bad in those instances, but rather the
syntax for
On 2/19/2013 7:19 PM, Donald Likens wrote:
I am sure I am missing something very simple but I have been at this for hours
and not making any progress so I hope someone simply knows what to do and can
tell me.
I am attempting to use the IBM Debug Tool (version 11.1) to debug an HLASM
program.
On 2/19/2013 8:20 PM, George Young wrote:
On 2/19/2013 7:19 PM, Donald Likens wrote:
I am sure I am missing something very simple but I have been at this
for hours and not making any progress so I hope someone simply knows
what to do and can tell me.
I am attempting to use the IBM Debug Tool
Most times wrong WLM settings lead to problems in stc's getting dispatched
incorrectly. Is online running longer on a transaction basis or how do you
know that online is being hurt by your low prio batch. If you problems persist
you can send me some smf data and then we can talk in more detail
Natasa,
you didn't say what your definition of lowest priority is. Since years
we have a constrained system with capping periods and the same problem as
you, that batch gets more CPU resources than expected, even during
capping. What we see is that Online workload doesn't match it's goal and
38 matches
Mail list logo
