On Mon, 25 Oct 2021 12:41:20 -0500, Lionel B. Dyck wrote:
>...
>
How did "z/OS" morph into "ZDNT"? The HAL effect?
-- gil
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to
Farley,
They might monitor CBTtape. That's where I normally submit my feeble
attempts. And, of course, monitoring this forum.
>From what I've read, IBM's legal team is "vigorous". AI could probably
monitor these emails quite easily. I guess someone here could find an email
provider in a country
On 26/10/2021 6:01 am, Lionel B. Dyck wrote:
Eligible Resources shall not be used in development, test, or production
environments.
Is there a definition for a "development environment"? To me, "not to be
used in a development environment" is different to "not to be used for
development".
On Sun, 24 Oct 2021 at 12:11, Paul Gilmartin
<000433f07816-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
> What I believe most important is to clarify the distinction between address
> generation and storage access. It's easy to overlook this distinction
> because 99+% of instructions performing
I suspect that prohibiting open source development is an unintended
consequence. I also suspect that IBM will eventually amend the T to
explicitly say yeah or nay.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion
To me this is the key requirement:
"Eligible Resources shall not be used in development, test, or production
environments."
That says to me "not in your *company/employer's* environments". Again I say,
what is "learning" on a ZDNT instance but pure development?
As for denying the ability to
Here are the pertinent paragraphs:
The purpose of this Learning License Agreement (“Agreement”) is to make
available certain software,
resources, and/or cloud services for educational and non-commercial research to
any Individual wanting
to engage in educational activities solely related to
I'm still waiting to hear back from IBM Sales on getting the product. I
submitted my request to them almost 2-weeks ago, and all I've gotten back
(the same day) is an automated response email that says we will get back to
you.
Regards,
Mark Regan, K8MTR
*CTO1 USNR-Retired, 1969-1991*
*Nationwide
Thanks. Saves me the bother of wondering about it.
On Mon, Oct 25, 2021, 12:41 Lionel B. Dyck wrote:
> The T's's explicitly state that it is to be used for learning and may
> NOT be used for any kind of development - including Open Source.
>
> I've confirmed that with two sources.
>
>
Seems to me that shouldn't be an issue. "Development" is what one is supposed
to be learning, so writing and compiling programs and running tests is part of
the "learning" process.
I can only see an issue if a "learner" tried to market a product developed on
their personal ZDNT with back-end
That would discourage any hobbyist's use of it for sure. Hobbyists are
known for contributing to open source development without needing or
wanting to be paid. I wonder if IBM would allow the "Free and open-source
software" (FOSS) development method? Reference
Agree that this is disappointing. Many university students are interested in
learning and a great way is to create code for Open Source projects like Zowe
at the OpenMainframeProject and every year the first issue is to hold out a cup
and look for a system for them to work on.
Matt Hogstrom
The T's's explicitly state that it is to be used for learning and may NOT be
used for any kind of development - including Open Source.
I've confirmed that with two sources.
Disappointing ☹
Lionel B. Dyck <><
Website: https://www.lbdsoftware.com
Github: https://github.com/lbdyck
“Worry
The discussion also seems to meld inappropriately two related but
independent concepts:
- Running in AMODE 64
- Using the high halves of registers (such as for temporary storage, the
high parts of large integers, etc.)
It is certainly possible and I think common to do the latter without the
Specifically, see
http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/ibm/dasd/reference_summary/GX26-4577-0_3390_Reference_Summary_Jun89.pdf,
This reference Summary booklet contains on p10 the non-trivial
calculation formula for how many physical blocks will fit in a 3390
track, and also contains a chart on p18
And also remember that if the data sets are extended format then each physical
block is 32 bytes larger.
Lennie Dymoke-Bradshaw
https://rsclweb.com
‘Dance like no one is watching. Encrypt like everyone is.’
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of
Radoslaw
Thanks @Timothy and all.
I had already suggested to them that V2R2 was not a long-term strategy, and
that getting started NOW on a hardware purchase might well be in order.
I have pointed out the security risks of staying with V1R10 or even V2R2
already. As I put it to them "you don't want to
There used to be a command on the CBT tape to do track capacity calculations.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of
Radoslaw Skorupka [r.skoru...@hotmail.com]
There's a description of track capacity calculations in one of the DFSMS
manuals; there are all sorts of overhead factors that have to be taken into
account.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
W dniu 25.10.2021 o 16:44, Oscar pisze:
Hi there,
There's something I'm being missing, but acording to my numbers, there
should be 13, not 12:
Bytes per track: 56,664 bytes
Bytes accessible per track: 55,996 bytes
CI size: 4096
Physical record size: 4096 bytes
Physical records per track
Oscar,
Here is a great Redbook for VSAM, enjoy.
http://www.redbooks.ibm.com/abstracts/sg246105.html?Open
Stay Safe
> On Oct 25, 2021, at 10:54, Oscar wrote:
>
> Hi there,
>
> There's something I'm being missing, but acording to my numbers, there should
> be 13, not 12:
>
> Bytes per
You will take a performance hit (unless things have improved)
On Mon, 25 Oct 2021 09:04:02 -0500 John McKown
wrote:
:>Personally, I really would like the Linkage Stack to become generally
:>useful. So I could just use a BAKR to save state on entry and PC to return.
:>Not likely, but y can
Oscar,
What you're missing is what used to be called the IRG (Inter Record Gap) on
physical disk records.
Now, on modern 3390 formatted disks, it is a more complicated calculation
involving "cells," but it's the same idea; and only 12 4096 byte CIs will fit.
Harry
Inter-record gaps between each physical block take space on the track away from
data, not to mention count and key parts of each physical block (CKD means
count-key-data).
There is actually not any physical reason for IRG between physical blocks any
more since we no longer have physical 33x0
CA size and number of CI that fit in a CA
Stay Safe
> On Oct 25, 2021, at 10:54, Oscar wrote:
>
> Hi there,
>
> There's something I'm being missing, but acording to my numbers, there should
> be 13, not 12:
>
> Bytes per track: 56,664 bytes
> Bytes accessible per track: 55,996 bytes
> CI
Hi there,
There's something I'm being missing, but acording to my numbers, there
should be 13, not 12:
Bytes per track: 56,664 bytes
Bytes accessible per track: 55,996 bytes
CI size: 4096
Physical record size: 4096 bytes
Physical records per track (Bytes accessible per track / physical
Thanks, Found the issue.
Apparently my predecessors to share the EV file, in V9R3 they allowed this, in
V9R5, they stopped it.
So I didn’t notice that the tracker was not running on my controller LPAR.
Had to fix some JCL to point to the correct names and now everything is
working..
Ms
Personally, I really would like the Linkage Stack to become generally
useful. So I could just use a BAKR to save state on entry and PC to return.
Not likely, but y can dream. At least until I retire sometime next year.
Dates to get rid of our z9BC keep getting pushed back. But my boss says
he's
This discussion has morphed into a discussion of linkage conventions which
are clearly spelled out in the publications, such as with respect to save
area sizes and formats.
I suggest that those interested take the time to re-read those sections.
A "legacy" AMODE 24 or AMODE 31 routine will not
We are trying to improve our software product by including provision for
files in cylinder-managed space on EAV disks, and with using z/HPF to
access them.
'DFSMSdpf Advanced Services' (SC23-6861) helps somewhat for FTM8/9 labels,
but it does not go far enough, we feel.
Also detailed
Terri,
Did you turn on job submission under Service Functions?
And if not, be prepared for everything to run.
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of
Shaffer, Terri
Sent: Monday, October 25, 2021 7:28 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: IBM Z WORKLOAD
Was wondering if anyone could point me in the right direction.
Over the weekend we upgraded our last 2.2 LPAR to z/OS 2.4, so that I could IPL
my z/OS 2.5 system.
With that it was required that I update the scheduler from 9.3 to 9.5,
Allocated all the new files, did the upgrades, etc
And
And I can venture an unofficial answer to the licensing portion of the
question, I think
IBM abolished the "Single Version Charge" (SVC) limitation quite some time
ago, and both z/OS Version 1 and z/OS Version 2 should have the same
license charge. There's a possible bit of daylight if the
Correct. We installed node.js on our PCs in as part of the ZOWE CLI
installation. That is what we are concerned about. We do not understand whether
the reports I linked to may negatively affect us or not.
--
For IBM-MAIN
On Sun, 24 Oct 2021 05:40:29 -0500, Support, DUNNIT SYSTEMS LTD.
wrote:
The only area where this could possibly be used under z/OS is with node.js and
I don't know if the version which runs on z/OS uses this version or is one just
for z/OS. You would be running node.js if you run ZOWE and
35 matches
Mail list logo
