On Wed, May 09, 2018 at 08:29:14AM -0500, John McKown wrote:
> This is interesting. Reminds me a bit of IBM's newest "Pervasive
> Encryption".
>
> https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/06/20/amd_epyc_launch/
>
[...]
>
> You simply cannot effectively read one VM's memory contents from a
> different
Allowing reentrant programs to be writable for fetches from
non-APF-authorized data sets / concatenations was something that had to be
maintained for compatibility, but was not felt to have sufficient
justification to accommodate for "new cases".
"New cases" include loads via BPX1LOD and loads
Exactly.
Presumably less overhead to just set the pointer (or whatever) rather than
actually loading and deleting a record.
Charles
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Paul Gilmartin
Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2018 10:38 PM
W dniu 2018-05-28 o 12:16, Peter Hunkeler pisze:
I've been asked by my storage colleagues if I knew the impact of using DFSMS's
Data Set Separation feature. I don't. Does anyone used it? Any pros and cons to
share?
While the number of data sets to keep separated is low, SMS will still need
I've been asked by my storage colleagues if I knew the impact of using DFSMS's
Data Set Separation feature. I don't. Does anyone used it? Any pros and cons to
share?
While the number of data sets to keep separated is low, SMS will still need to
search the list for *every* new allocation. How
> On May 28, 2018, at 12:38 AM, Paul Gilmartin
> <000433f07816-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
>
> No, no! The suggestion was that it should automagically add one record,
> *then*delete*it*.
> (Others have said this suffices.) Or, in a shortcut initialize the data set
> in such a
