Re: Regarding Time Sharing

system implementation was my > contribution to the project. > > Two of us were assigned as technical team leaders for the intended > product development. We were staffing our teams when the project was > killed. re: http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012o.html#34 Regarding Time Shari

Re: Regarding Time Sharing

In , on 11/19/2012 at 03:58 PM, Quasar Chunawala said: >7. I shall correct the references section. FYI, several relevant manuals are available at . -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT Atid/2

Re: Regarding Time Sharing

ed to CI file I/O. That file system implementation was my > contribution to the project. > > Two of us were assigned as technical team leaders for the intended > product development. We were staffing our teams when the project was > killed. re: http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012o.html#30

Re: Regarding Time Sharing

l...@garlic.com(Lynn Wheeler) writes: As consequence of not being able to fix TSO &/or MVS, POK had a project to port CMS to MVS ... as a way of providing interactive services, but as mentioned previously MVS has some fundamental flaws for providing interactive service ... and the implementation

Re: Regarding Time Sharing

ot a happy camper when it was dropped. I don't know whether VM/XB was > based on that work or was done from scratch. re: http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012o.html#30 Regarding Time Sharing http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012o.html#31 Regarding Time Sharing http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012o.html#

Re: Regarding Time Sharing

of the competitive design may well have been settled by > economic, rather than technical reasons. re: http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012o.html#30 Regarding Time Sharing http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012o.html#31 Regarding Time Sharing http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012o.html#34 Regarding Time Sha

Re: Regarding Time Sharing

In <50aa3025.40...@mentor-services.com>, on 11/19/2012 at 08:12 AM, Mike Myers said: >I guess I always thought that Sequential Scheduling System (SSS or >S-cubed) and PCP were synonymous. Look at ENQ for an example of changes that affected all three. Somewhere along the line the concept of a

Re: Regarding Time Sharing

In , on 11/19/2012 at 03:58 PM, Quasar Chunawala said: >1. Weren't SSS, MSS and MPS later known as PCP, MFT and MVT? There was significant redesign and a name change[1] between the original MPS and MVT. >3. Your lines '*I've never seen a system running TSO where there >were as many processor

Re: Regarding Time Sharing

On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 08:12:05 -0500, Mike Myers wrote: >... I quit to become a consultant, due to my dissatisfaction with the project >as a whole. That > was in 1984. Some of us have been disillusioned with this business for only slightly less time Shane ... --

Re: Regarding Time Sharing

Quasar: As Lynn Wheeler points out, TSS/360 was considered sound by many both in IBM and by at least a handful of IBM customers. I ran across many strong advocates during an assignment at IBM's Watson Research Center at Yorktown Heights, NY in the early '80s. These folks were serious enough t

Re: Regarding Time Sharing

Hi Shmuel: I guess I always thought that Sequential Scheduling System (SSS or S-cubed) and PCP were synonymous. I do remember the transition to MFT and MVT. I attended IBM programming classes starting in April of 1966. The first release of OS/360 had just been shipped and we were programming

Re: Regarding Time Sharing

*Peter -* * * I shall definitely make it a point to go through this. I gave it a cursory glance, and found it easy to digest. Thank you very much. I hope you've liked my blog. - Quasar On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 2:36 PM, Hunkeler Peter (KIUP 4) < peter.hunke...@credit-suisse.com> wrote: > Look fo

Re: Regarding Time Sharing

*Hi Shmuel and everybody on the list -* * * I would like to address any matter at http://www.mainframes360.com/2012/11/tso-and-ispf.html which requires * correction*. *If any of the other gentlemen, would like to give me some feedback, criticisms, data, I welcome him with my arms wide open.* * * *S

Re: Regarding Time Sharing

Look for a manual called "MVS/XA Overview" (http://www.prycroft6.com.au/misc/download/GC28-1348-0_MVSXAoverview_Mar 84OCR.pdf). It is much thinner than any of the redbooks mentioned and it concentrates mainly on "MVS". The redbooks cover all components of today's z/OS. It still is an excellent sho

Re: Regarding Time Sharing

shmuel+...@patriot.net (Shmuel Metz , Seymour J.) writes: > IBM issued sevaral releases of TSS/360 and even had a PRPQ for TSS/370 > before they cancelled it. TSS performance was considerably better by > then. re: http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012o.html#31 Regarding Time Sha

Re: Regarding Time Sharing

In , on 11/18/2012 at 11:18 PM, Quasar Chunawala said: >*Hi Mike and Schmuel - * That's Shmuel! >GC27-6939-10_MFT_Guide_R21.7_Mar72 IBM System/3S0 Operating System MVT Guide OS Release 21, GC28-6720-4, would be more relevant to TSO; you can find it and several others on bitsavers. >http://

Re: Regarding Time Sharing

In <50a8f4de.6020...@mentor-services.com>, on 11/18/2012 at 09:46 AM, Mike Myers said: >To begin, MFT is pretty ancient (although I was a sysprog for its >predecessor, SSS - OS/360 release 2). ITYM MSS; SSS became PCP. Did you ever work on the ill-fated VMS? -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Me

Re: Regarding Time Sharing

re: http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012o.html#30 Regarding Time Sharing oh, old presentation at fall atlantic share meeting in 1968 http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/94.html#18 on MFT14 & CP67. CP67 had been installed in the univ last week of Jan68. Univ. continued to run OS/360 (in 360/65 mode on

Re: Regarding Time Sharing

*Hi Mike and Schmuel - * * * Thank you very much for the clarification, and things are quite clear to me now. I will try and find my way into MVS control blocks, and maybe read a bit of the redbooks too, as you have recommended. Oh and by the ways Schmuel, the MFT manual I was referring to is * GC2

Re: Regarding Time Sharing

m...@mentor-services.com (Mike Myers) writes: > I said that once the think time expires, the TSO user's address space > is swapped out (physically), but only if there is a need to use its > main storage pages to satisfy the needs of other address spaces. Until > that time expires and the storage ne

Re: Regarding Time Sharing

In , on 11/18/2012 at 01:36 PM, Quasar Chunawala said: >I have done some reading from the MFT manual. 1. Which MFT manual? 2. TSO started as an OS/360 option for MVT, not for MFT. >1. Every task(like a job-step) has a TCB, correct? The job-step has more than one task, each of which has a

Re: Regarding Time Sharing

Quasar: To begin, MFT is pretty ancient (although I was a sysprog for its predecessor, SSS - OS/360 release 2). Much has changed since MFT, although much remains the same. In MFT, there were no ASCBs, as there were no address spaces, which didn't appear until MVS, where every job, TSO user an

Re: Regarding Time Sharing

*Hi Peter - * * * I know the questions that I have posted here are naiive, and maybe I should have read the *ABC of System Programming*, and probably then should have asked something. To be honest, I am an application developer, not a sysprog or a sysop and so, I've never really read the IBM redbo

Re: Regarding Time Sharing

Hi Quasar, Suggest you to get aquainted with "ABC of system programming" and Z/os architecture. Otherwise many question would get spawned without a basic idea. Peter On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Quasar Chunawala < quasar.chunawa...@gmail.com> wrote: > *Hi Mike and everyone else on the list

Re: Regarding Time Sharing

*Hi Mike and everyone else on the list - * * * I have done some reading from the MFT manual. 1. Every task(like a job-step) has a TCB, correct? Is the *ASCB* the same as *TCB*? In the manual it states, that the READY queue is a chain of *TCB's *. (You've written an the READY state is represented,

Re: Regarding Time Sharing

In , on 11/17/2012 at 11:29 PM, Quasar Chunawala said: >Thank you very much for your reply. I have just another questions. I >have put them inline, in the body of your e-mail in *red *color. No you haven't; there is no color in e-mail. >How did the SRM know, a TSO Address Space which is in t

Re: Regarding Time Sharing

In <50a7b9c0.6050...@mentor-services.com>, on 11/17/2012 at 11:22 AM, Mike Myers said: >Back in the very beginning (OS/360 MVT in 1971), TSO was >introduced. At that time, it consisted of a "monitor" program >which used time-slicing to distribute the CPU time it was given >among the TSO use

Re: Regarding Time Sharing

In <-21782995201426460@unknownmsgid>, on 11/17/2012 at 10:30 AM, Quasar Chunawala said: >I hope this finds you in the pink of health. I am Quasar, and I hail >from Mumbai, India. I own a blog on the internet, parked at >http://www.mainframes360.com. I am an application developer by >profession

Re: Regarding Time Sharing

715-0595 Mobile jo.skip.robin...@sce.com From: Quasar Chunawala To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU, Date: 11/17/2012 02:30 AM Subject:Regarding Time Sharing Sent by:IBM Mainframe Discussion List Hi everybody, I hope this finds you in the pink of health. I am Quasar, and I

Re: Regarding Time Sharing

On 11/17/2012 11:59 AM, Quasar Chunawala wrote: Hi Mike - Thank you very much for your reply. I have just another questions. I have put them inline, in the body of your e-mail in *red *color. On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 9:52 PM, Mike Myers wrote: Hi Quasar: Back in the very beginning (OS/360 MVT

Re: Regarding Time Sharing

Quasar: The status of an address space is maintained in an address space related control block (probably the ASCB, if you want to look it up). The status includes the swap state and the ready state is also represented by the presence of the address space on the ready queue (it is removed from

Re: Regarding Time Sharing

Hi Mike - Thank you very much for your reply. I have just another questions. I have put them inline, in the body of your e-mail in *red *color. On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 9:52 PM, Mike Myers wrote: > Hi Quasar: > > Back in the very beginning (OS/360 MVT in 1971), TSO was introduced. At > that time,

Re: Regarding Time Sharing

Hi Quasar: Back in the very beginning (OS/360 MVT in 1971), TSO was introduced. At that time, it consisted of a "monitor" program which used time-slicing to distribute the CPU time it was given among the TSO users that were logged on. With the introduction of the System Resource Manager (SRM

Re: Regarding Time Sharing

On 11/17/2012 2:30 AM, Quasar Chunawala wrote: ... why should a time-slot be given to a TSO user, who hasn't pressed an AID key(like Enter)? Maybe, he's just staring at a dataset. Isn't this a waste of processor-time? Or am I missing out something. No CPU time slice is provided to any unit of w

Regarding Time Sharing

Hi everybody, I hope this finds you in the pink of health. I am Quasar, and I hail from Mumbai, India. I own a blog on the internet, parked at http://www.mainframes360.com. I am an application developer by profession. I intend to write an article on TSO/E on my blog. I have been reading matter on