Re: SDB (system determined Blksize)

Every time you deal with a block you execute a bit of code to deblock the records. To fill a Mod 9 volumes to test TDMF I copied a large dataset with a small block size to a dataset with half track blocking on a spare volume, then copied the first data set to several other datasets to fill the

Re: The Mainframe vs. the Server Farm: A Comparison

July 22 to 28, 2007, across Iowa. http://www.bikejournal.com/journal.asp?month=7=2007 . Even got to speak to Mr. Porkchop and Lance Armstrong. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsIjLzLxe-o=93s I met the wife in Indiana just after the first book came out and they had finished their second

Re: z/OS 2.3 preview announcement (mailto:)

On Tue, 21 Feb 2017 15:13:32 -0600, Tom Marchant wrote: >Did anyone notice the z/OS 2.3 preview announcement today? >http://www-01.ibm.com/common/ssi/ShowDoc.wss?docURL=/common/ssi/rep_ca/5/897/ENUS217-085/index.html_locale=en > Where I see: o New support is added to SAF/RACF to convert a user

Re: RACF Database (was: Sample JCL for file transfer using NJE/TCPIP)

On Mon, 22 May 2017 17:44:16 -0500, Joel C. Ewing wrote: >RECFM PSU may prevent moving the database, but it doesn't block >deletion. After realizing this somewhat-essential data set wasn't >protected by an enqueue, we picked an installation started task that was >normally running all the time

Re: RACF Database (was: Sample JCL for file transfer using NJE/TCPIP)

On Mon, 22 May 2017 09:21:48 -0400, Robert S. Hansel (RSH) wrote: > >... then immediately closes them. > Why? Does it also FREE then? Why? -- gil -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to

Re: RACF Database (was: Sample JCL for file transfer using NJE/TCPIP)

RECFM PSU may prevent moving the database, but it doesn't block deletion. After realizing this somewhat-essential data set wasn't protected by an enqueue, we picked an installation started task that was normally running all the time (but which could be shut down if need be), and added an

Re: RACF Database (was: Sample JCL for file transfer using NJE/TCPIP)

Brief war story. Long before "z/OS", someone accidentally deleted (!!!) the primary RACF data base. It was not enqueued on as previously noted. Data was intact and the system hummed along, but there was no 'SYS1.RACF' in the catalog. Using backup listings, we figured out the exact location on

Re: RACF Database (was: Sample JCL for file transfer using NJE/TCPIP)

VSAM, for all its complex capabilities, seems to operate 'simply' at a very basic level of the OS. Think of SMF running very early in IPL. ICF catalogs are VSAM. I'm not sure it was always thus, but it seems now to have little trouble functioning within a minute or two of IPL LOAD. As Walt

Re: ATTACH with RSAPF=YES

As best I can tell (unless I missed it), the OP has not answered the question of whether they understand that after doing something to remove authorization from the space, they are OK with leaving the space unauthorized. If that is not the case, we might as well end the discussion because

Re: RACF Database (was: Sample JCL for file transfer using NJE/TCPIP)

On Mon, 22 May 2017 10:57:26 -0600, Paul Gilmartin (000433f07816-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu) wrote about "Re: RACF Database (was: Sample JCL for file transfer using NJE/TCPIP)" (in <507b5253-a062-4547-91f6-3de9e6f3b...@aim.com>): On 2017-05-22, at 10:01, Jesse 1 Robinson wrote: ...

Re: RACF Database (was: Sample JCL for file transfer using NJE/TCPIP)

On 2017-05-22, at 10:01, Jesse 1 Robinson wrote: > ... Nonetheless ACF2, based on VSAM, was well established ... > > ... In any case, a SAF product has to be available extremely early in IPL, > ... > How does ACF2, based on VSAM, meet this requirement of early availability? -- gil

Re: RACF Database (was: Sample JCL for file transfer using NJE/TCPIP)

First off, I take back my comment about the chronology of RACF and VSAM. I had no business making that assertion. I got into this biz in the late 70s. At that time there was plenty of VSAM around, although it was viewed by many sysprogs skeptically and unsuitable to hold the family jewels.

Re: RACF Database (was: Sample JCL for file transfer using NJE/TCPIP)

On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 8:21 AM, Robert S. Hansel (RSH) < r.han...@rshconsulting.com> wrote: > Gil, > > The RACF database is BDAM (Basic Direct Access Method) and has, to my > knowledge, always been so since it was first released in 1976. The index > records are stored in the database with the

Re: SDB (system determined Blksize)

On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 4:30 PM, Steve Smith wrote: > Considering the many layers of emulation and fakery between application and > actual recorded media these days, I highly doubt these considerations > matter much at all. While it makes sense to maximize BLKSIZE, that's a >

Re: Sample JCL for file transfer using NJE/TCPIP

> On May 21, 2017, at 5:12 AM, Elardus Engelbrecht > wrote: > > Paul Gilmartinwrote: > >>> Yes, I am using FTP to transfer my SMF data, RACF DB, etc. from several >>> LPARs to one LPAR, simply for archival purposes. >>> I can supply a sample JCL for FTP of SMF

Re: Sample JCL for file transfer using NJE/TCPIP

> > I am not sure about FTP such VSAM clusters. But if I want to FTP a > 'difficult' dataset or groups of datasets, I would rather use DFDSS DUMP or > TERSE and then transfer that dataset. On the receiving end, I would DFDSS > RESTORE or UNTERSE it. > For simplicity sake I would recommend

Re: SDB (system determined Blksize)

On Sun, 21 May 2017 16:15:08 +, Jesse 1 Robinson wrote: >The first (maybe only) hardware I know of that claimed no wasted >space was STK Iceberg, which was touted as being so virtual that >an emulated 3390 track actually left no unused track bits. I never >worked with one, but I heard

Re: RACF Database (was: Sample JCL for file transfer using NJE/TCPIP)

On Sun, 21 May 2017 14:19:39 -0500, Paul Gilmartin wrote: >On Sun, 21 May 2017 05:12:00 -0500, Elardus Engelbrecht wrote: >> >>>RACF (I'm less sure) is VSAM. >> >>No, it is PSU (PS and Unmovable). Other attributes are mandated by IBM. >> >"Unmovable" would seem to imply

Re: RACF Database (was: Sample JCL for file transfer using NJE/TCPIP)

Gil, The RACF database is BDAM (Basic Direct Access Method) and has, to my knowledge, always been so since it was first released in 1976. The index records are stored in the database with the profile (data) records, so it is completely self-contained. I know of no other product using this

Re: SDB (system determined Blksize)

On 05/19/2017 04:28 PM, R.S. wrote: > Just curious: the formulas can give fractional values. How to round them? > OK, I assume the physrec/trk should be rounded down, but what about D? > > Regards > -- > Radoslaw Skorupka > > --

Re: SRB question

That is a kind of poor design. What is the SRB doing? On Mon, 22 May 2017 08:44:12 -0400 Joseph Reichman wrote: :>Thanks I am going to Issue SYSEVENT TRANSSWAP and then OKSWAP in my AS while :>the SRB is running one question the doc for transswap says R1 will post an

Re: Assembler addressing issue

On Mon, 22 May 2017 10:50:23 +0300, Binyamin Dissen wrote: >:>> >:>Does it save one GETMAIN? Some advocate appending the workarea to >:>the register save area to save another GETMAIN. > >You should put the areas that will be mapped by the macro. The mapping macro >itself should not be placed in

Re: SRB question

Thanks I am going to Issue SYSEVENT TRANSSWAP and then OKSWAP in my AS while the SRB is running one question the doc for transswap says R1 will post an ECB when the Address Space is made NON-SWAPABLE And the return code is in R1 byte 3 isn't Byte 1 - 3 cleared when the ECB is posted Thanks

Re: SDB (system determined Blksize)

Ron Hawkins wrote: I would not recommend going to 32K as a blocking factor. Except, of course, for load libraries, the significant exception to this rule. -- John Eells IBM Poughkeepsie ee...@us.ibm.com -- For IBM-MAIN

Re: Processor cache utilization

http://www.redbooks.ibm.com/redpapers/pdfs/redp4727.pdf -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Assembler addressing issue

On Sun, 21 May 2017 14:24:39 -0500 Paul Gilmartin <000433f07816-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: :>On Sun, 21 May 2017 14:37:08 +0300, Binyamin Dissen wrote: :> :>>I fail to understand why you are placing the macro in the middle of your :>>workarea. I would typically place all mapping

Re: SRB question

On Sun, 21 May 2017 18:33:54 -0400 Joseph Reichman wrote: :>I was under the impression that when you scheduled a SRB with the STOEKN :>parm either on the SCHEDULE macro or on the IEAMSCHED macro the address :>space where you invoke the SCHEDULE/IEAMSCHED is :>The HOME

Re: ATTACH with RSAPF=YES

Thanks. Potentially there will be a lot of transactions so I will look into this, although starting the TMP after a fork() seems a bit fraught! -- Robin -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Paul Gilmartin Sent: 19 May

Re: Sample JCL for file transfer using NJE/TCPIP

Ok - this thread is now really drifting. ;-) Clark Morris wrote: >Since VSAM came in with virtual storage, are you saying RACF was on OS360? I don't know what to answer you, but RACF v1.1 came in September 1976. I'm not sure what operating system(s) were then active. Jesse Robinson wrote: