It's actually much more complex than that. Here's a little-known
story from a place I used to used to work some decades back. This did
not happen on an MVS system, but some other vendor's system with those
letters in a different order. One day that system crashed, I think
for no apparent
This is a vendor package. Upon asking they said they only support RLS for
sharing. So there are no other options.
On Wed, Mar 8, 2023, 2:58 PM Dale R. Smith
>
> IBM has a product called "CICS VSAM Transparency for z/OS" that claims you
> can migrate VSAM Files to Db2 Tables without having to
Hadn't considered that. Based on what the outsourcer has advised us I doubt
this has even crossed their mind.
On Thu, Mar 9, 2023, 6:19 PM Timothy Sipples wrote:
> The only other thing I can think of is that some operators (some
> outsourcers for example) might not have — or know how to perform
On Fri, 10 Mar 2023 23:17:09 -0600, Brian Westerman wrote:
>That's the main reason they want you to do these individually, they are really
>big.
>
I suspect it's a genuine functional dependency. Imagine a scenario:
PTFA upgrades the assembler by adding a new opcode.
PTFB contains a ++SRC
That's the main reason they want you to do these individually, they are really
big.
Brian
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Thanks, Matthew.
Bill, if my initial post asking you to stop deleting the context came across as
rude, I apologize. I didn't mean it that way, I didn't realize the listserv
web site automatically whacked the earlier parts of the thread by default.
Rex
-Original Message-
From: IBM
I use the LISTSERV web site. On the left there are two apostrophes (quote
marks). Those will include the entire thread (so far).
It is considered good practice to remove the IBM-MAIN stuff at the bottom.
Matthew
On Thu, 9 Mar 2023 18:33:08 -0500, Tony Harminc wrote:
>On Thu, 9 Mar 2023 at
On Fri, 10 Mar 2023 13:36:33 +, Seymour J Metz wrote:
>Maybe it's time for an RFE. Is there a business case for a new hold class to
>address this? something like MANUALPRE(UY12345)?
>
Not a new hold class, which would require multiple jobs with a BYPASS, but a
new sub-operand of PRE to
https://www.ibm.com/common/ssi/ShowDoc.wss?docURL=/common/ssi/rep_ca/1/897/ENUS122-001/index.html
IBM z16tm puts innovation to work while unlocking the potential of
your hybrid cloud transformation
IBM United States Hardware Announcement 122-001
April 5, 2022
Removal of support of the
The PTF I referenced. My smpwrk is a M54. The PTF is so large I had to add a
second volume to be able to get the PTF applied
Sent from my iPhone
No one said I could type with one thumb
> On Mar 10, 2023, at 06:52, Allan Staller
> <0387911dea17-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
>
>
On Thu, 9 Mar 2023 20:06:10 -0600, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
>On Thu, 9 Mar 2023 18:17:14 -0600, Tom Marchant wrote:
>
>>IBM has announced that Transactional execution will be removed.
>>
>Entirely? I read much earlier that it was being removed partially.
From the z16 announcement
Removal of
Maybe it's time for an RFE. Is there a business case for a new hold class to
address this? something like MANUALPRE(UY12345)?
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on
Was there a HOLD un the PTF with an explanation that it had to be on a separate
APPLY from the prereq?
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of
Barbara Nitz
The statement of direction is clear.
That stated direction is to remove the transactional execution facility.
I think that no information is yet available about "when" or whether it might
be done in stages.
Paul G wrote
>Transactional execution : software :: speculative execution : firmware.
See IO27985: GIM24608E ** SHELLSCR ENTRY BBLS1803 IS NEEDED TO PROCESS HFS
SYSMOD UI65815, BUT SHELLSCR BBLS1803 IS NOT IN THE SZMR0G ZONE.
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to
Classification: Confidential
Horse hockey
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of
Bill Giannelli
Sent: Thursday, March 9, 2023 3:52 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: WLM Couple dataset?
[CAUTION: This Email is from outside the Organization.
Classification: Confidential
D XCF,COUPLE,TYPE=WLM
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of
Mike Schwab
Sent: Thursday, March 9, 2023 2:24 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: WLM Couple dataset?
[CAUTION: This Email is from outside the Organization.
Classification: Confidential
I ask IBM and the said to install the PTFs serially to get around this issue.
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of
Steve Beaver
Sent: Thursday, March 9, 2023 1:14 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: FW: SMP)e
[CAUTION:
We re-INIT the CFRM, XCF, and LOGR at DR. The only one we reuse is WLM.
On Thu, Mar 9, 2023 at 8:41 PM Gabriel Tully wrote:
> Bill,
>
> IBM doesn't recommend mirroring the couple data sets [1]. There may not be
> serious ramifications for the WLM CDS, but it could be on the same volume
> with
Attila Fogarasi wrote:
>Also there are various solutions for immutable backups of z/OS data, which
>would protect you against ransomware.
Tommy Tsui wrote:
>Any recommendation
https://mediacenter.ibm.com/media/+IBM+Z+Cyber+Vault+Technical+Introduction/1_ug97n0p3
>No the problem is that you can't install these particular PTFs with everything
>else, they have to be performed separately via an Apply the PTF by itself with
>NO Groupextend and then Apply the
> remaining PTF's needed from the original Apply.
This is exactly what I did when I encountered
Does it protect you from ransomware? It gets you back to a good backup.
It depends on how often you backup - and having ransomware means you might
lose all changes since the last backup so unless the database is read only
- you are likely to lose some data.
On Thu, 9 Mar 2023 at 23:44, Attila
22 matches
Mail list logo
