On Mon, 4 May 2020 16:29:48 -0400, Tony Harminc wrote:
>On Mon, 4 May 2020 at 04:23, Barbara Nitz wrote:
>
>> Doesn't matter. With an IMS region, you cannot use cancel (z/OS:
>> "non-cancelable, use force arm"). You cannot use force arm (z/OS: "cancel
>> first, please"). And you cannot use
.
-Original Message-
From: Barbara Nitz
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Sent: Mon, May 4, 2020 10:23 am
Subject: Re: S0F9 and SOFD ABENDs and SVC dumps - oh my!
On Thu, 30 Apr 2020 09:09:32 -0400, Peter Relson wrote:
>
>z/OS FORCE did not work
>
>
>Wanna bet?
>
>FORCE,ARM runs
On Mon, 4 May 2020 at 04:23, Barbara Nitz wrote:
> Doesn't matter. With an IMS region, you cannot use cancel (z/OS:
> "non-cancelable, use force arm"). You cannot use force arm (z/OS: "cancel
> first, please"). And you cannot use force because IMS intercepts that and
> tells you to terminate
or
https://itunes.apple.com/gb/podcast/mainframe-performance-topics/id1127943573?mt=2
Youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCu_65HaYgksbF6Q8SQ4oOvA
From: Barbara Nitz
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Date: 04/05/2020 09:23
Subject:[EXTERNAL] Re: S0F9 and SOFD ABENDs and
On Thu, 30 Apr 2020 09:09:32 -0400, Peter Relson wrote:
>
>z/OS FORCE did not work
>
>
>Wanna bet?
>
>FORCE,ARM runs in the address space so would have been affected.
>FORCE does not.
Doesn't matter. With an IMS region, you cannot use cancel (z/OS:
"non-cancelable, use force arm"). You cannot
; Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
> http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
>
>
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf
> of John McKown [john.archie.mck...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, May 1, 2020 7:19 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTS
nframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of
John McKown [john.archie.mck...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, May 1, 2020 7:19 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: S0F9 and SOFD ABENDs and SVC dumps - oh my!
On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 8:16 AM Seymour J Metz wrote:
> Technic
On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 8:16 AM Seymour J Metz wrote:
> Technically, you could move, e.g, TCB, RB, above the line, if there were a
> good enough business case. As a practical matter it would require duplicate
> pointer fields and a PARMLIB option with a default of below. It would
> definitely be
, Denis. -Original
Message-
From: Attila Fogarasi
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Sent: Fri, May 1, 2020 12:43 am
Subject: Re: S0F9 and SOFD ABENDs and SVC dumps - oh my!
If your application consists of 200+ modules with up to 8m working storage
per module, then storage management becomes
, April 30, 2020 1:40 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: S0F9 and SOFD ABENDs and SVC dumps - oh my!
Wanna bet?
FORCE,ARM runs in the address space so would have been affected.
FORCE does not.
We had PMRs open on that, countless dumps. CANCEL and FORCE are rejected
because the region
hrinks.There need to be options to avoid clattering the storage
> below 16M, but there aren't.
> Thanks, Denis.
> -Original Message-----
> From: Peter Relson
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Sent: Thu, Apr 30, 2020 3:09 pm
> Subject: Re: S0F9 and SOFD ABENDs and SVC dumps
@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Sent: Thu, Apr 30, 2020 3:09 pm
Subject: Re: S0F9 and SOFD ABENDs and SVC dumps - oh my!
z/OS FORCE did not work
Wanna bet?
FORCE,ARM runs in the address space so would have been affected.
FORCE does not.
z/OS still is a 24bit operating system with some 31/64bit addressing
://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of
Peter Relson [rel...@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2020 9:09 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: S0F9 and SOFD ABENDs and SVC dumps - oh my!
z/OS
z/OS FORCE did not work
Wanna bet?
FORCE,ARM runs in the address space so would have been affected.
FORCE does not.
z/OS still is a 24bit operating system with some 31/64bit addressing and
instructions as long as under the covers such old mechanisms need to be
maintained and taken into
, Test IBM Corp.
Poughkeepsie NY
From: "Tom Marchant" <000a2a8c2020-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu>
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Date: 04/29/2020 04:00 PM
Subject: Re: S0F9 and SOFD ABENDs and SVC dumps - oh my!
Sent by:"IBM Mainframe Discussion
On Wed, 29 Apr 2020 08:45:30 +0100, Martin Packer wrote:
>As much to the point, why does this need to be 24-bit LSQA?
Compatibility.
TCBs and RBs are still below the line because moving them above the line
will likely break existing AMODE(24) programs.
--
Tom Marchant
Don't forget that GETMAIN requests for storage above the line will return
storage
below the line if there isn't sufficient storage above the line to honor the
request.
--
Tom Marchant
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff /
You have used up all the below-16M storage. End of story.
Short answer: don't do that.
Long answer: don't do that.
Every task and RB uses "some". And your application uses whatever it
uses.
It is up to you not to create so many tasks that things run out. The
system isn't going to try to stop
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of
Denis [01664d8ede6c-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2020 4:56 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: S0F9 and SOFD ABENDs and SVC dumps - oh my
compatibility for old modules, etc.
Thanks, Denis.
-Original Message-
From: Barbara Nitz
To: IBM-MAIN
Sent: Wed, Apr 29, 2020 10:26 am
Subject: Re: S0F9 and SOFD ABENDs and SVC dumps - oh my!
>We had a similar issue in IMS regions, stalling after out of memory abend, no
>way to g
s.apple.com/gb/podcast/mainframe-performance-topics/id1127943573?mt=2
Youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCu_65HaYgksbF6Q8SQ4oOvA
From: Barbara Nitz
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Date: 29/04/2020 09:27
Subject:[EXTERNAL] Re: S0F9 and SOFD ABENDs and SVC dumps
>We had a similar issue in IMS regions, stalling after out of memory abend, no
>way to get rid of them, IMS STO REG, z/OS CANCEL and z/OS FORCE did not work,
>except with some vendor tool cancel that just gets rid of the address space
>without proper cleanup that gets you closer to IPL.I
routines, sounds awkward?!
My two cents, Denis.
-Original Message-
From: Martin Packer
To: IBM-MAIN
Sent: Wed, Apr 29, 2020 9:45 am
Subject: Re: S0F9 and SOFD ABENDs and SVC dumps - oh my!
As much to the point, why does this need to be 24-bit LSQA?
Cheers, Martin
Martin Packer
Nitz
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Date: 29/04/2020 08:21
Subject:[EXTERNAL] Re: S0F9 and SOFD ABENDs and SVC dumps - oh my!
Sent by:IBM Mainframe Discussion List
You say that the problem happens when all the tasks terminate. Your
problem is with not enough LQSA for termination. Du
You say that the problem happens when all the tasks terminate. Your problem is
with not enough LQSA for termination. During termination a number of RBs are
getmained by RTM to handle termination - like an RB that your ESTAE gets
control under (a PRB, IIRC). Or a PURGEDQ SVRB. Depending on what
MAXPROCSYS in SYS1.PARMLIB(BPXPRM00)
MAXASSSIZE in SYS1.PARMLIB(BPXPRM00)
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of
Thomas David Rivers
Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2020 9:37 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: S0F9 and SOFD ABENDs and SVC dumps - oh my
Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of
Thomas David Rivers
Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2020 10:37 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: S0F9 and SOFD ABENDs and SVC dumps - oh my!
I have a program that fires up about 1000 tasks, and each of these tasks fire
up a sub-task
I have a program that fires up about 1000 tasks,
and each of these tasks fire up a sub-task... (I say "tasks"
but these are actually BPX threads - started with BPX
pthread_create.) Each of the 1000 tasks/threads starts
a sub-thread and waits for its completion.
Most of the time when I run the
28 matches
Mail list logo
