Re: Question about PARMDD

Just out of curiosity, looking at "MVS JCL" for MVS/SP from Dec. 1984 on archive.org. It is a combined Guide and Reference, FWIW. Says Length: The entire information passed must not exceed 100 characters. Charles -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List

Re: Question about PARMDD

100 forever. No harm in maxing at 144. Charles -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Clark Morris Sent: Monday, February 27, 2017 6:20 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Question about PARMDD [Default] On 27 Feb

Re: Question about PARMDD

[Default] On 27 Feb 2017 07:44:46 -0800, in bit.listserv.ibm-main bill.wood...@gmail.com (Bill Woodger) wrote: >On Monday, 27 February 2017 15:00:03 UTC+1, Allan Staller wrote: >> No. IBM chose not to break thousands upon thousands of programs that were >> perfectly happy with 100 byte parm

Re: z/OS 2.2 Question

Nothing unless you had it turned off before Did you mean you are going from 1.13 to 2.2? Steve -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of John Mattson Sent: Monday, February 27, 2017 9:24 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU

Re: PDS/E improperly shared and updated between monoplexes :(

Thanks Carmen and Lizette. I had thought that it was at least ok from the updating Lpar, but it is not. I wasn't aware of IEBPDSE, thanks. It just confirms the corruption from all three Lpars. Since it seems to be a real physical corruption, I will work with the owner to recreate it. >

Re: PDS/E improperly shared and updated between monoplexes :(

Two thoughts. 1) Try using IEBPDSE on the file. 2) Can you copy it to another PDSE? Lizette > -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On > Behalf Of Gibney, Dave > Sent: Monday, February 27, 2017 1:24 PM > To:

Re: PDS/E improperly shared and updated between monoplexes :(

Restore from a backup, I've not found a way to correct the error like the PDS tools can, maybe others will chime in with a good way to fix the corrupted PDS/E I've found this happened on a system that was not part of a sysplex, the PDSESHARING(EXTENDED) was turned on 1) don't share the PDS/E

PDS/E improperly shared and updated between monoplexes :(

I know it's improper and doesn't work and shouldn't have happened. But it did. Important jobs now get: IEC036I 002-A4,IGC0005E, And IEA995I SYMPTOM DUMP OUTPUT SYSTEM COMPLETION CODE=0F4 REASON CODE=0024 TIME=12.02.23 SEQ=00630 CPU= ASID=002A PSW AT TIME OF ERROR 075C0001

Re: z/OS V2R2 ZFS file system question

Thank you very much for the reply. -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Mark Jacobs - Listserv Sent: Monday, February 27, 2017 2:02 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: z/OS V2R2 ZFS file system question The

Re: z/OS V2R2 ZFS file system question

The numeric values in the owner and group fields of the directory entry are resolved into text from your security system. The UID value resolves back to IBMUSER and the GID to OMVSGRP. You can list the actual numeric values by using the ls command with the -n option. The #1 indicates that

Re: Question about PARMDD

Paul Gilmartin wrote: You're suggesting that a transcript or summary of those discussions is available. Can you cite? Thanks. I suggested neither one, so I am a bit puzzled about how you inferred that. What I wrote was, "In fact, there was a protracted discussion right here in

z/OS V2R2 ZFS file system question

Hello all, in the z/OS ZFS file system for OMVS there are many directories, such as: NAME SIZE TYPE MODIFIEDATTRIBUTES etc 12 File

Re: Question about PARMDD

@Gil points out to me off-list that PARMDD can be longer than 100 per the message I was replying to but not PARM=. Well then, yes, that is consistent with what I was saying. Had I designed it I would have just made PARM= longer than 100 subject to a binder-set bit. Charles -Original

Re: Assembly Error IEAMSCHD I can't see it may be you can and can Help thanks

I made a stupid mistake Joe Reichman Joe Reichman   IT Specialist Master Files Division New Carrollton Federal Building, B7-182 OS:IT:AD:CP:I:IB Flex M,T,Th,F Home office (240) 863 - 3965 Office (240) 613-4350 Cell (917) 748-9693 TOD M - F  7:30 am - 4:00 pm -Original Message-

Re: Question about PARMDD

Well that was my recollection but looking at https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/SSLTBW_2.2.0/com.ibm.zos.v2r2.ieab600/iea3b6_Syntax89.htm It says Length: The length of the subparameters passed must not exceed 100 characters: So I thought I imagined the below. Charles -Original

Re: Question about PARMDD

On Mon, 27 Feb 2017 06:47:14 -0500, John Eells wrote: >Paul Gilmartin wrote: > >> http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/475/756/7ab.jpg >> >> ... what the users wanted was a PARM on the EXEC statement longer than 100 >> bytes. >> Somehow, IBM couldn't understand. > > >We

Re: Question about PARMDD

On Mon, 27 Feb 2017 16:27:51 +, Windt, W.K.F. van der (Fred) wrote: >But how would support for a longer parameter possibly break an existing >program? The program is passed the address of a binary half word (the length >of the content of the parm) followed by that content. Even if a much

Re: Question about PARMDD

On Mon, 27 Feb 2017 09:18:04 -0800, Charles Mills wrote: >Admittedly poor technique, but a program allocates a 100-byte buffer. It >moves the parm info into that buffer using an executed MVC or an MVCL >without first verifying that the length is no more than 100. Conceivably a >security exposure:

Re: Question about PARMDD

Admittedly poor technique, but a program allocates a 100-byte buffer. It moves the parm info into that buffer using an executed MVC or an MVCL without first verifying that the length is no more than 100. Conceivably a security exposure: many exposures start with buffer overrun. What I think I

Re: Question about PARMDD

Sorry, Allan, one of those occasions when reading all of the words prior to jumping is good... -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO

Re: Question about PARMDD

But how would support for a longer parameter possibly break an existing program? The program is passed the address of a binary half word (the length of the content of the parm) followed by that content. Even if a much longer parm was supported nothing would change for a program that is

Re: Question about PARMDD

">No. IBM chose **not to break** thousands upon thousands of programs that were perfectly happy with 100 byte parm fields, provided via JCL. > They added a new mechanism for those program, where 100 bytes was not > sufficient." My reply was to Gil who was complaining about IBM's

Re: Question about PARMDD

On Monday, 27 February 2017 15:00:03 UTC+1, Allan Staller wrote: > No. IBM chose not to break thousands upon thousands of programs that were > perfectly happy with 100 byte parm fields, provided via JCL. > They added a new mechanism for those program, where 100 bytes was not > sufficient. >

Re: Assembly Error IEAMSCHD I can't see it may be you can and can Help thanks

>I just cut and past the "RTMRADDR" from the documentation site >and it assembled don't understand What documentation site has this typo? Otherwise, you did not cut and paste (or your "paste" has some sort of auto-incorrect). Peter Relson z/OS Core Technology Design

Re: z/OS 2.2 Question

Greetings, Steve. I am going from 1.3 to 2.2 also, and would like to ask you to expand on your reply. I understand the question... but not the answer. What changed in Hyperbatch? >From:Steve Beaver >Subject: Re: z/OS 2.2 Question >Were you aware that Hype-Batch woke

Re: z/OS 2.2 Question

How about this: http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=isg1OA50806 I don't have the PTF applied yet and we are a few weeks away from applying it all the way in production. How significant is this impact? Regards, Srinivas G -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List

Re: z/OS 2.2 Question

Steve, We have relatively small machines, most effects (and benefit) from hyperdispatch is achieved with large, multi-core, multi-book machines. However we did not notice any problems after turning it on. Kees. > -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List

Re: z/OS 2.2 Question

Kees, Where are you seeing degradation?. In your system overall, or in one system such as CICS, DB2, etc Steve -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Vernooij, Kees (ITOPT1) - KLM Sent: Monday, February 27, 2017 2:12 AM

Re: Question about PARMDD

No. IBM chose not to break thousands upon thousands of programs that were perfectly happy with 100 byte parm fields, provided via JCL. They added a new mechanism for those program, where 100 bytes was not sufficient. On Wed, 22 Feb 2017 11:16:33 -0600, Juergen Kehr wrote: > >since a while

Re: Question about PARMDD

Paul Gilmartin wrote: On Wed, 22 Feb 2017 11:16:33 -0600, Juergen Kehr wrote: since a while we're using the new PARMDD keyword for our DB2 subsystems. http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/475/756/7ab.jpg ... what the users wanted was a PARM on the EXEC statement longer than

GSE UK - Free Event - Large Systems

The agenda for the Large Systems Working Group mid-year meeting has begun to take shape, so far the sessions are: * New Functions - The Return of the SPE * z/OS 2.3 Preview Announcement * Implementing service via PC call We have 2 presentation slots remaining! If you want to get

Re: Getting initializesecuritycontext 0x80090326 attempting to connect to DALLAS

On 27/02/2017 06:10 PM, Binyamin Dissen wrote: I am using QWS3270 Secure V4.4.4 with TlsV1 Does not work. I only know enough about TLS to be dangerous :-) But the APAR seems to be removing support for old insecure ciphers. To establish a session the client and host need to agree on a

Re: z/OS 2.2 Question

Hyperbatch was already default in 1.13. Kees. > -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On > Behalf Of Steve Beaver > Sent: 25 February, 2017 18:04 > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: Re: z/OS 2.2 Question > > Were you aware that