On 6/08/2015 12:49 PM, Timothy Sipples wrote:
All that said, I see way too many cases of operators/sysprogs/managers
perversely trying to economize on memory, some perhaps remembering the
"good old days" when "Hello World!" required only a few bytes. For better
or worse, that hasn't been true for
I have not looked at the latest info but I still believe there is a
*LIMIT* to the amount of MS that one can buy per box. I also think
there is a limit to MVS MS. I don't recall what it is but (they did
increase it) there is still a practical limitation as to MVS MS.
I am not suggesting that
Well, it doesn't break sewers.
http://www.snopes.com/sports/football/flush.asp
England turns on 1.75 million TEA KETTLES at the end of Eastenders each weekday.
FIVE hydroelectric plants go from 0% to 100% in 5 minutes to power them.
http://www.geek.com/news/tea-time-in-britain-causes-predictable-m
I have seen the advice to avoid garbage collection in batch from IBMers
before. I don't understand it, and I am curious to know where it is
coming from. I doubt it is endorsed by the JVM developers. I suspect it
might just be that suddenly we can measure memory management overhead,
where it is
I have heard that also about the Beatles on Ed Sullivan, the MASH episode where
Col Blake was killed, and the MASH finale itself
Chris hoelscher
Technology Architect
Database Infrastructure Services
Technology Solution Services
123 East Main Street
Louisville, KY 40202
choelsc...@humana.com
Hum
Hi John,
You might consider changing modifying your stance when it comes to the z13
processors. Although the z13 actually has a slower chip, the processor is
faster (partly) because of how they utilize memory. In the z13, IBM has
lowered the price of storage so that you can get about three ti
(I'm traveling on Friday.) I've heard that during Superbowl commercial breaks,
municipal water pressure drops measurably.
.
.
.
J.O.Skip Robinson
Southern California Edison Company
Electric Dragon Team Paddler
SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager
626-302-7535 Office
323-715-0595 Mobile
jo.skip.robin...
http://www.lucidenergy.com/how-it-works/
More power!
In a message dated 8/6/2015 2:48:49 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
john.archie.mck...@gmail.com writes:
And I shudder to think what would happen here if every toilet were flushed
at the same instant.
At least recognize it's a tuning opportunity. We lost some granularity
going to WLM but there are still
knobs in place to effect thruput. Cheryl's Goal Tender (at
_www.watsonwalker.com_ (http://www.watsonwalker.com) ) product can tell you
if your
perceptions are meeting your expectations. Wi
Kolusu. The input files are FB only , so and you are right the conversion is
not needed. I removed that and still there is no change. We are using Syncsort
here.
Thanks
Ron T
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive acc
Ron,
Since you are using VTOF, I am guessing that your input files are VB and
if they are indeed VB pay attention to the matching key field positions
you have specified and correct it. You need to realize that for VB files
that the actual data starts from position 5. It would be nice if you
s
Hi
I have 2 files as below, need to compare them and get all the unmatched records
. I used join keys but getting in the output prevoius week records only.
Previous Week File
|AV012620009 | 0.68|
|AV012621410 | 1.09|
|AV012621504 |
Well, I can disagree with that on a practical level to some extent.
Upgrading memory can sometimes, cost wise, be more like needing so much
more electric power that the power company needs to run a higher capacity
line to your business and you must then install better / new equipment to
support it.
As I remember from Barry Merrill... memory should be treated like
electricity or plumbing. You should never run out. To put it another way,
if you are doing physical paging, buy more memory. It is cheap by
comparison to the I/O and cycles needed for physical paging. (Hopefully
this has not ch
That’s interesting, a few days ago there was a posting that it was going in the
opposite direction, that EMC was going to buyout VMWARE
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Itschak Mugzach
Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2015 2:
On Thu, 6 Aug 2015 15:24:34 +0200, R.S. wrote:
> I have noticed discrepancy between RMM db and OAM + Library Manager db.
> In RMM I see the tape S1 as SCRATCH, but OAM claims it is PRIVATE.
> 3494 interface also claims the volume is in PRIVATE category.
> What should I do to reconcile the stat
With CA-1 I have the option to synchronize the status of a tape or group of
tapes from the CA-1 TMC to the TCDB, which will also update the status in the
library database. Does RMM have a similar function?
Otherwise you can update the tape in the TCDB with ISMF, by setting it to
SCRTCH there. Th
I have noticed discrepancy between RMM db and OAM + Library Manager db.
In RMM I see the tape S1 as SCRATCH, but OAM claims it is PRIVATE.
3494 interface also claims the volume is in PRIVATE category.
What should I do to reconcile the status of the tape?
The tape should be scratch.
Any clu
Capital Cities Communications purchased the much larger American Broadcasting
Company in 1985.
Thank You
Dan Blake
dbl...@fdic.gov
FDIC ISC-3 CSC O&M Service Delivery | Room B4072
O: (703) 516-5497 | BB: (703) 314-0501 | M: (703) 946-2967
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discuss
19 matches
Mail list logo
