Thanks for the replies so far. I'll try and answer the questions asked. W
e
are using VM/ESA 2.3 because of some legacy software we are have on our
system. As for the VM:Secure question, software being tested by DoD or DS
S
was put through something called RAMP which was some process that the
Do you mean by "dont get to the SAPL screeen" that you get the warm and
firendly copyright and zvm IPLs without having to hit PF10? If yes you
are taking the defaults burnt into SAPL. To get the SAPL screen when you
IPL your LPAR you need to specify LOADPARM where is a "3270"
(real, S
Marten Kemp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The recent thread about virtual memory sparked a (kind of)
> idle question: why did the implementation in the S/370
> have a two-level scheme (segment and page)? My original
> thought was that it facilitated definition of discontiguous
> parts of an address
Marten Kemp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The recent thread about virtual memory sparked a (kind of)
> idle question: why did the implementation in the S/370
> have a two-level scheme (segment and page)? My original
> thought was that it facilitated definition of discontiguous
> parts of an address
Is it possible to specify FN=file name to choose alternate config file
during IPL on the HMC IPL panel when bringing up z/VM 5.1? Yes, I am
aware that I can do it on SAPL but I dont get to the SAPL screen.
It looks like I have to install the SALIPL module before I can use it. I
do find the SA
On Wednesday, 05/10/2006 at 09:51 MST, "Schuh, Richard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> It is possible to have a memory error that only affects one user.
However, that
> is rare, almost as rare as having one that affects the entire system.
Some of
> IBM?s memory chips has the ability to correct 1
Karl,
You wrote "Sterling
Software didn't want to submit VM:Secure for testing so we were stuck with
RACF and DIRMAINT."
What testing? Maybe CA submitted
VM:Secure for that _whatever_ testing since back then. I suspect
that you are referring to some security testing. If so, your VM/ESA
230 sy
> Back in the late 80's during the VM/SP or VM/HPO days, we ran
> RACF for PL2 (then called System High) processing as it was the
> only government approved software package at the time. Sterling
> Software didn't want to submit VM:Secure for testing so we were
> stuck with RACF and DIRMAINT. After
Back in the late 80's during the VM/SP or VM/HPO days, we ran RACF for PL
2
(then called System High) processing as it was the only government approv
ed
software package at the time. Sterling Software didn't want to submit
VM:Secure for testing so we were stuck with RACF and DIRMAINT. After we n
Thanks to the list for a quick answer.
3590's use physically different tapes than 3480/3490's.
On Wednesday 10 May 2006 2:01 pm, Ed Zell wrote:
> > I'm creating a DDR archive dump of our system. Our tape
> > drives are 3480 w/IDRC. Can Mode XF tapes be read on newer
> > tape drives (3490? 3590?)
>
> We are using 3490-F01's and they rea
No ... you can not read 3480/3490 created cartridges on a 3590 tape
drive (even if the 3590 tape drive is running in 3490E emulation mode).
The physical cartridge media is not compatible ...
JR (Steven) Imler
CA
Senior Software Engineer
Tel: +1 703 708 3479
Fax: +1 703 708 3267
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> I'm creating a DDR archive dump of our system. Our tape
> drives are 3480 w/IDRC. Can Mode XF tapes be read on newer
> tape drives (3490? 3590?)
We are using 3490-F01's and they read our 3480 w/IDRC tapes just
fine. I am pretty sure that the IDRC logic is "standard" on the
3490 type drives. I
I'm creating a DDR archive dump of our system. Our tape drives are
3480 w/IDRC. Can Mode XF tapes be read on newer tape drives (3490?
3590?)
It is
possible to have a memory error that only affects one user. However, that is
rare, almost as rare as having one that affects the entire system. Some of IBM’s
memory chips has the ability to correct 1, 2, 3, and 4 bit errors and even an
entire memory chip. See http://www-5.ibm.com/hu/t
We once lost a memory card on a 9672. I think it
was an R44 at the time. The whole box crashed (VM in basic mode).
Luckily it was a Saturday morning. CE came in and brought it back up minus
1/2 the memory until a new card could arrive on Tuesday.
Marcy Cortes
“This message may contain
Thanks for the feedback. We don't
actually have a problem at the moment but we are going through operations
automation exercise at the moment and all sorts of 'what-if' questions
are being asked. My reaction to this one was 'If the once in 30 years event
happens then we will have to deal with it a
This morning the LAN team was performing maintenance on the external CISC
O
box that my OSA's connect to. The logs shows the VSWITCH controllers
dutifully failing over between the 2 OSA cards each time the CISCO was
rebooted. After several failover iterations I get HCPSWU2832E messages
and
I haven’t seen any problems with “genuine
IBM” memory, but we did have a problem with some 3rd party RAM
on our first 9121 that we eventually tracked down to bus speed mismatch between
the 9121 and the modules in the memory card. In that one case, the
symptom affected the entire VM system
The last processor I worked on/with that had memory problems, single bit, double bit errors, etc was on a System 370 mdl. 135.
We were running DOS at the time and the memory errors would occassionally put the cpu into a hardwait. On one occurance the box
actually IPL'd itself. The CE said he
In all my years working with IBM mainframe
systems I have never seen a memory failure that caused recognisable problems.
My understanding is that the internal
redundancy, hardware checking and auto correct make such an event very
unlikely - but how unlikely? Has anyone ever experienced such a pro
21 matches
Mail list logo
