Radoslaw Skorupka wrote:
>It's IMHO very obvious that offline RACFdb can be copied as regular dataset,
>Actually I did mean copy of live RACF db with the tools like IEBGENER or
>ADRDSSU (in monoplex) with no ill effects. So my *very limited* experience
>says it is not so easy to get inconsiste
riginal Message-
Date:Tue, 16 Feb 2016 21:48:37 +0100
From:"R.S."
Subject: Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] UADS (was Re: [Bulk] Re: COBOL v5)
W dniu 2016-02-15 o 12:48, Robert S. Hansel (RSH) pisze:
I wholeheartedly agree with Joel's recommendation for having a backup copy of
the RACF
"R.S."
Subject: Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] UADS (was Re: [Bulk] Re: COBOL v5)
W dniu 2016-02-15 o 12:48, Robert S. Hansel (RSH) pisze:
> I wholeheartedly agree with Joel's recommendation for having a backup copy of
> the RACF database readily available for recovery. I just want to add th
W dniu 2016-02-15 o 12:48, Robert S. Hansel (RSH) pisze:
I wholeheartedly agree with Joel's recommendation for having a backup copy of
the RACF database readily available for recovery. I just want to add that it is
crucial to use RACF utilities to create the backup and to allocate it with the
lever miscreant.
> >>
> >> .
> >> .
> >> .
> >> J.O.Skip Robinson
> >> Southern California Edison Company
> >> Electric Dragon Team Paddler
> >> SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager
> >> 323-715-0595 Mobile
> >> jo
Co-Manager
>> 323-715-0595 Mobile
>> jo.skip.robin...@att.net
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>>> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU]
>>> On Behalf Of Ed Jaffe
>>> Sent: Sunday, February 14, 2016 07:37 AM
..@att.net
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU]
On Behalf Of Ed Jaffe
Sent: Sunday, February 14, 2016 07:37 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] UADS (was Re: [Bulk] Re: COBOL v5)
On 2/13/2016 8:04 PM, Skip Robinson wr
...
On 01-Feb-2016 9:57 PM, "John Eells" wrote:
> I hadn't really thought about (or researched) the display capabilities of
> RACF. An RFE couldn't hurt if you find them lacking.
>
> Once one's TSO/E administrative routines have been converted to use the
> TSO segment, though, I think another go
..
On 01-Feb-2016 9:57 PM, "John Eells" wrote:
> I hadn't really thought about (or researched) the display capabilities of
> RACF. An RFE couldn't hurt if you find them lacking.
>
> Once one's TSO/E administrative routines have been converted to use the
> TSO segment, though, I think another goo
Date:Sun, 14 Feb 2016 15:53:07 -0600
From:"Joel C. Ewing"
Subject: Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] UADS (was Re: [Bulk] Re: COBOL v5)
But the only way to "fix"an unusable RACF database is to have a fairly
recent backup copy of the RACF data base that can be restored. I would
c
On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 16:25:03 -0800, Ed Jaffe
wrote:
>On 2/14/2016 2:50 PM, Skip Robinson wrote:
>> As I said earlier, we still use UADS in production. Only a handful of TSOE
>> segments in order to support features that cannot be achieved otherwise,
>> such as CONSOLE.
>
>CONSOLE can't be achi
On 2/14/2016 2:50 PM, Skip Robinson wrote:
As I said earlier, we still use UADS in production. Only a handful of TSOE
segments in order to support features that cannot be achieved otherwise, such
as CONSOLE.
CONSOLE can't be achieved via RACF?
--
Edward E Jaffe
Phoenix Software International
nframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU]
> On Behalf Of Joel C. Ewing
> Sent: Sunday, February 14, 2016 01:53 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] UADS (was Re: [Bulk] Re: COBOL v5)
>
> But the only way to "fix"an unusable
: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU]
>> On Behalf Of Ed Jaffe
>> Sent: Sunday, February 14, 2016 07:37 AM
>> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
>> Subject: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] UADS (was Re: [Bulk] Re: COBOL v5)
>>
>> On 2/13/2016 8:04 PM, Skip
M-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU]
> On Behalf Of Ed Jaffe
> Sent: Sunday, February 14, 2016 07:37 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] UADS (was Re: [Bulk] Re: COBOL v5)
>
> On 2/13/2016 8:04 PM, Skip Robinson wrote:
> > This opinion is based on (thankfully)
On 2/13/2016 8:04 PM, Skip Robinson wrote:
This opinion is based on (thankfully) limited experience. If you are forced
to IPL without a usable RACF data base, you are totally scr*wed. During IPL,
operator will be prompted to allow even READ access to *every* data set
opened by *every* task except
Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU]
On Behalf Of John Eells
Sent: Monday, February 1, 2016 08:27 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: [Bulk] UADS (was Re: [Bulk] Re: COBOL v5)
I hadn't really thought about (or researched) the displa
Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU]
> On Behalf Of John Eells
> Sent: Monday, February 1, 2016 08:27 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: [Bulk] UADS (was Re: [Bulk] Re: COBOL v5)
>
> I hadn't really thought about (or researched) the display capabiliti
Subject: [Bulk] Re: UADS (was Re: [Bulk] Re: COBOL v5)
Just curious: why one want to know acctnum of given person?
More general: what are acctnums used for nowadays?
Teaching RACF and z/OS I always recommend to set profile CL
(ACCTNUM) *
UACC(R) and forget. Only one shop's employes had som
Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU]
> On Behalf Of R.S.
> Sent: Tuesday, February 2, 2016 02:27 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: [Bulk] Re: UADS (was Re: [Bulk] Re: COBOL v5)
>
> Just curious: why one want to know ac
half Of Elardus Engelbrecht
Sent: Monday, February 1, 2016 08:58 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: [Bulk] Re: UADS (was Re: [Bulk] Re: COBOL v5)
John Eells wrote:
I hadn't really thought about (or researched) the display
capabilities of RACF.
An RFE couldn't hurt if you find
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU]
On Behalf Of Elardus Engelbrecht
Sent: Monday, February 1, 2016 08:58 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: [Bulk] Re: UADS (was Re: [Bulk] Re: COBOL v5)
John Eells wrote:
I hadn't really thoug
On 02/01/2016 10:27 AM, John Eells wrote:
> I hadn't really thought about (or researched) the display capabilities
> of RACF. An RFE couldn't hurt if you find them lacking.
>
> Once one's TSO/E administrative routines have been converted to use
> the TSO segment, though, I think another good use o
st [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU]
> On Behalf Of Elardus Engelbrecht
> Sent: Monday, February 1, 2016 08:58 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: [Bulk] Re: UADS (was Re: [Bulk] Re: COBOL v5)
>
> John Eells wrote:
>
> >I hadn't really thought about (or resear
John Eells wrote:
>I hadn't really thought about (or researched) the display capabilities of
>RACF. An RFE couldn't hurt if you find them lacking.
I don't think there is any problem with the display capabilities. Actually, you
use a RACF command or utility (RACF panels for example) to ask RACF
I hadn't really thought about (or researched) the display capabilities
of RACF. An RFE couldn't hurt if you find them lacking.
Once one's TSO/E administrative routines have been converted to use the
TSO segment, though, I think another good use of UADS is for recovery,
including DR. It's the
essage-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU]
> On Behalf Of Ed Gould
> Sent: Saturday, January 30, 2016 11:06 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: COBOL v5
>
> On Jan 30, 2016, at 11:11 AM, Skip Robinson wrote:
Benefits of move to UADS?
Should be:
Benefits of move *FROM* UADS?
--
Radoslaw Skorupka
Lodz, Poland
---
Tre tej wiadomoci moe zawiera informacje prawnie chronione Banku
przeznaczone wycznie do uytku subowego adresata. Odbiorc moe by jedynie
jej adresat z wyczeniem dost
With all respect, I think there was enough time to move RYO tools to
RACF segment.
Proclib - ITYM logon procedue - I see no problem with that. More
important: I see no problem to authorize users to all procedures, since
it is method of customization, not resource access control
Not to mention I
On Jan 30, 2016, at 11:11 AM, Skip Robinson wrote:
Ah, UADS. A prime example of archaic mechanism. Defensible
technically?
Probably not, although a security administrator who needs to know
which
account numbers or which proclibs a user is authorized to use might
tell a
different story. With
SERV.UA.EDU]
> On Behalf Of R.S.
> Sent: Friday, January 29, 2016 02:49 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: [Bulk] Re: COBOL v5
>
> W dniu 2016-01-29 o 19:17, Skip Robinson pisze:
> > We ran an inherited ISAM application in the 80s, a true dog. Then we
> > lear
31 matches
Mail list logo
