ion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Andrew Rowley
Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2016 6:50 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: BPX.SMF misuse?
On 01/06/2016 01:54 AM, Lindy Mayfield wrote:
> If you try to call BPX1SMF with an SMF record number of 128 or less you'll
>
On 01/06/2016 12:25 AM, Andy Higgins wrote:
Does OA48775 provide this?
http://publibz.boulder.ibm.com/zoslib/pdf/OA48775.pdf
It does look like a step in the right direction, that I was unaware of.
Reading the fine print, it requires a "clean program-controlled
environment". I'm not sure whet
On 01/06/2016 01:54 AM, Lindy Mayfield wrote:
If you try to call BPX1SMF with an SMF record number of 128 or less you'll get
a return code 121, EINVAL. So only user SMF records are allowed.
That's not as bad as I thought then, but most sites would consider user
SMF records as important.
Int
taina 31. toukokuuta 2016 9.34
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: BPX.SMF misuse?
My main point however was that if you need BPX.SMF access to write JZOS
statistics, you can also write any data into any SMF record type you like,
including writing your own type 30, type 80, type 89...
--
A
Seems to. I wasn't aware that this was available.
Kirk Wolf
Dovetailed Technologies
http://dovetail.com
On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 9:25 AM, Andy Higgins
wrote:
> On Tue, 31 May 2016 08:39:04 -0500, Kirk Wolf wrote:
>
> >I agree with the OP's suggestion that there should be fine grained control
>
On Tue, 31 May 2016 08:39:04 -0500, Kirk Wolf wrote:
>I agree with the OP's suggestion that there should be fine grained control
>to allow unauthorized jobs to write certain types of SMF records.
>
>Perhaps a BPX.SMF.TYPxx resource?
>
>Kirk Wolf
>Dovetailed Technologies
>http://dovetail.com
>
Do
I agree with the OP's suggestion that there should be fine grained control
to allow unauthorized jobs to write certain types of SMF records.
Perhaps a BPX.SMF.TYPxx resource?
Kirk Wolf
Dovetailed Technologies
http://dovetail.com
On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 1:33 AM, Andrew Rowley wrote:
> On 31/05/
On 31/05/2016 16:14, Martin Packer wrote:
On the "add Java statistics to the SMF record" point note NOTHING gets to
inject stuff into SMF 30.
I'm not suggesting that Java itself inject anything into SMF 30, the
thought was that the JVM could keep statistics in some system area that
was then i
On the "add Java statistics to the SMF record" point note NOTHING gets to
inject stuff into SMF 30.
The one arguable exception to this is the Usage Data Section, but this is
for licencing.
Right now Java doesn't use the IFAUSAGE macro. Perhaps it could be taught
to. If so maybe A VERY FEW statis
JZOS is just a thin JNI wrapper over the C/C++ runtime __smf_record()
function
https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/SSLTBW_1.13.0/com.ibm.zos.r13.bpxbd00/rsmfre.htm.
The same rules apply.
On 31/05/2016 9:16 AM, Andrew Rowley wrote:
I just discovered that JZOS can now write Java statist
I just discovered that JZOS can now write Java statistics to SMF - nice!
But... it looks like it requires users to have access to BPX.SMF to
write the record - not so nice. If I understand correctly, access means
you can write any type of record with any sort of garbage to SMF - not
what you n
11 matches
Mail list logo
