RMS fails to init if multiple libs defined and not online
The following comment has been added by Karen Thompson :
Marketing Field Requirement -- RMS fails to init if multiple libs defined
and not online
The status is :Acknowledged
Comment Added : This customer request will be
User Group Number - WAVV201002
Document Status - Suggestion
Title - Allowing CP to present different logos for users on different IP
net
IBM will use this request as input to planning but no commitment is made or
implied. This request will not be updated.
User Group Number - WAVV201008
How can I readout these Machine Check occurring in a MP3000 running
zVm 4.40
07:13:06 HCPMCI9101I MACHINE CHECK ON CPU . MCIC = 04000F3D 400B
07:13:06 System operation continues.
07:53:45 HCPMCI9101I MACHINE CHECK ON CPU . MCIC = 04000F3D 400B
07:53:45 System operation
We are installing a z10 this weekend with z/VM 5.4. My question is what
are my migration options for migration to z/VM 6.1? I don't suppose
that 6.1 can run under 5.4, since 6.1 requires a z10+ and 5.4 does not?
(If so, problem solved. Otherwise it looks I'll be limited to 1. LPAR
the z/VM
You don't need 6.1
Just put VM64798 VM64879 VM64881 on 5.4 and you can run on z10.
5.4 has a longer TTL than 6.1.
6.1 does not have that much more functionality.
Why would anyone go to a higher release that has a shorter expiration and
not much more functionality?
It's suboptimal.
Put on
Also, Frank, it should be noted, 6.1 will not run on a z9. You get a wait
state code. It is not downward compatible, but 5.4 is both downward
and upward compatible.
It would be nice to bring up the software before the hardware comes in the
door, just to shake things down.
It is also not
Check the IBM Principles of Operation. There's a chapter devoted to machine
check handling.
From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On
Behalf Of Carlos Bodra - Pessoal
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 10:18 AM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Information
Thanks David and IBM ;)
Marcy
-Original Message-
From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf
Of David Boyes
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 6:35 AM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: [IBMVM] FW: WAVV201003 update.
RMS fails to init if multiple
On 10/14/10 12:15 PM, George Henke/NYLIC george_he...@newyorklife.com
wrote:
5.4 has a longer TTL than 6.1.
6.1 does not have that much more functionality.
Why would anyone go to a higher release that has a shorter expiration and not
much more functionality?
One extenuating reason is that
Tested what upgrade path? There's an upgrade path?!
Or maybe you are talking about running the 5.4 CMS under 6.1 CP or something
like that?
We're on George's page. There's nothing compelling in 6.1 for us. And we have
a lot of new function in 5.4 available by SPE which is way easier to do.
I haven't tried it, but 6.1 should run as a guest of 5.4 on a z10 (or
later.) z/VM does not hide or downgrade the architecture of the machine
from the guest (as much as possible), so the machine features needed by 6.1
should still be available to a guest of 5.4 on a z10.
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at
On 10/14/10 1:13 PM, Marcy Cortes marcy.d.cor...@wellsfargo.com wrote:
Tested what upgrade path? There's an upgrade path?!
There's usually a description of installing the new system 2nd level in CP
Planning and Admin. That's normally what I think of as the upgrade path.
Also, other places in
We've tried it and 6.1 will run as a guest of 5.4 on a z10..
If you're swinging all your DASD over to the z10 - you could just bring up
z/VM 5.4 -- build your 2nd level 6.1 guest - merge and migrate and bring up
6.1 1st level...
Scott rohling
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 11:21 AM, Bruce Hayden
We've tried it and 6.1 will run as a guest of 5.4 on a z10.
But will 6.1 run on a z9 or less? No, I've tried it.
So for a seamless migration to new hardware, maybe it is not so bad to
change one thing at a time and keep 5.4.
True, there is less risk going from 6.1 to 6.2, than 5.4 to 6.2, but
Well, if you had a new install on z10+ and not an upgrade, it would certainly
be the thing to do.
For those of use with 10+ systems, it's not worth a jump.
There wasn't even an ESP run for 6.1 since there was so little function that
didn't go into 5.4. Some customers did get the new function
There's usually a description of installing the new system 2nd level
in CP
Planning and Admin. That's normally what I think of as the upgrade
path.
Could you perhaps have mean the z/VM Migration Guide (e.g. z/VM Migration
Guide Version 5 Release 4.0 GC24-6103-07)?
Those migration guides
I ordered RSU 1002 from SHOPZ,IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU or so I thought.
SHOPZ called it RSU5407 when it gave me the download.
Applied 35 PTFs, others were already on, PUT2PROD, and IPLed.
But CPLEVEL still shows 0802:
q cplevel
z/VM Version 5 Release 4.0, service level 0802 (64-bit)
I need to move maintenance from Level 2 to Level 1:
Level 1 is 540RES, 540W01, 540W02, 540SPL, 540SP2, 540PAG, 540PG2
Level 2 is 54XRES, 54XW01, 54XW02 54XSPL, 54XSP2, 54XPAG, 54XPG2
What is the least disruptive way to do this when:
there is no tape,
no additional volumes are available, and
I
Hello List,
We are changing a REXX here for that this EXEC execute only if reside on X
acessed minidisk.
So, try with STATE command without succesfull and now try with LISTFILE
command.
If execute like this :
9 *-* 'LISTFILE cataa exec x (DATE STACK LIFO'
Put a PARSE SOURCE statement at the beginning of the EXEC and see if it
was loaded from the X disk.
Jim Hughes
603-271-5586
It is fun to do the impossible.
From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On
Behalf
Sure. You have at least two CATAA EXEC files in your search. The LISTFILE
on line 9 returns at least two stacked items which start CATAA ...
You PULL the first off of the stack on Line 11, and then EXIT on line 15.
EVERYTHING else that was on the stack now gets dumped out to CMS.
If these are the only volumes on the system - then just IPLing 54XRES should
be fine... But I assume you have other volumes and guests using them on
Level 1. These would need to be merged into the 2nd level directory and
put online before you IPL 54XRES.
There are also likely disks on Level 1
Parse Source . . x1 x2 x3 .
If x3 'X' Then Do
Say 'You are not executing from the X disk!'
Exit 99
End
Scott Rohling
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 1:19 PM, Sergio Lima sergiovm...@hotmail.comwrote:
Hello List,
We are changing a REXX here for that this EXEC execute only if reside on X
You might consider using MAKEBUF and DROPBUF around your code. You are
stacking two lines of output when the file is on the A and the X disk. You
pull one of them and leave the other on the stack. Since the second line is
CATA EXEC X2, it will execute the CATA EXEC again, which will stack two
I find it easiest just to do the service and put2prod on the production systems.
Others have ways of moving all the parts around... but it could be a big
inconvenience if you had to put an emergency PTF on quickly.
We run service ahead of time and right before the IPL, run the put2prod.
We
I think you've conflated PTF maintenance with version or release
maintenance. VM has test minidisks built in to it to test and promote
new PTF levels. Release or version maintenance is done by creating new
system volumes and then migrating your user directory, etc, to the new
system volumes when
George,
RSU0802 is from 5402RSU Stacked Product RSU - December 12, 2008.
Does CP Query CPLOAD show the sysres from which you expected to IPL?
(Again, a good reason to not use the save volser on different real device
addresses, aka UCB's). If not, don't blame the service, it would be time
Page volumes never have to be copied. Once the have been properly
CPFMTXA'd (or ICKDSF for those who prefer the pain), they are good
forever. Each IPL starts out using them fresh, nothing is leftover. Just
be sure that each system has sufficient page volumes for its own workload.
When we're
Oops -- need to only look at the first letter of the filemode:
Parse Source . . x1 x2 x3 .
If left(x3,1) 'X' Then Do
Say 'You are not executing from the X disk!'
Exit 99
End
Scott Rohling
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 1:34 PM, Scott Rohling scott.rohl...@gmail.comwrote:
Parse Source . . x1
It is pretty unusual to force an EXEC to execute from a specific disk.
About 98% of the time I do that is when running a common 'PROFCMS EXEC' in
everybody's PROFILE EXEC - the PROFCMS EXEC complains when it is not
executing from the Y-disk (or the our HAINST alternative to IBM's CMSINST
NSS).
Problem with that is the file mode contains the numeric designation:
/* */
Parse source RexxResrc
Say RexxResrc
CMS COMMAND REXXTEST EXEC A1 rexxtest CMS
Frank M. Ramaekers Jr.
From: The IBM z/VM
A better method would be to verify the EXEC is on the X disk. Once
verified, EXECLOAD this exec and then run it. Before exiting, EXECDROP
it.
Sample using TEXTME EXEC C as the exec in question. I have one on my A
disk and another different exec named TESTME EXEC on my C disk. Here is
the
Hello,
Excellent idea, we consider this as well,
Thanks
Sergio
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 15:34:19 -0400
From: brene...@us.ibm.com
Subject: Re: REXX that verify what MINIDISK is a file
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
You might consider using MAKEBUF and DROPBUF around your code. You are
Yes - I corrected this in another post - you only want the first character
of the filemode - or it will never be just X:
Parse Source . . x1 x2 x3 .
If left(x3,1) 'X' Then Do
Say 'You are not executing from the X disk!'
Exit 99
End
Note the 2nd line now has left(x3,1) to only look at the
On 10/14/10 4:52 PM, Carlos Bodra - Pessoal cbo...@terra.com.br wrote:
We are running z/vm 4.40 over MP3000 (soon z10 BC), but until there, I need
to discover what means External Damage in MCIC code.
External damage means that the processor microcode LIC file loaded during
system startup is
Hi listners.
I was checking erep output to try to discover more about MCIC (Machine
Check Interruption Code) and found following register,
but I checked 02 Erep manuals, (User´s Guide Manual and Reference
Manual), but can´t found any description how to readout these
little dump.
We are
Hello Mike,
Thanks very much from your good explanation.
We need that the user execute our EXEC from a public dasd (Maint 31a), because,
We try track who executed this, the date, the time, and another thinks, like
Filename, Filetype, Filemode.
This EXEC do a Compilation of programs here,
Hello Jim,
Tested, run very well,
Thanks very much, and Best Regards,
Sergio
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 16:05:42 -0400
From: jim.hug...@doit.nh.gov
Subject: Re: REXX that verify what MINIDISK is a file
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
A better method would be to verify the EXEC is on
When the 'Exit 99' is executed - the EXEC will be terminated --
So if this is looping - you must be calling it again from another EXEC.
There is no possible way for the code you listed to loop.
Scott Rohling
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 3:25 PM, Sergio Lima sergiovm...@hotmail.comwrote:
Scott,
Ah - good catch! The EXEC is exiting, but the stacked output from LISTFILE
causes it to execute again..
So:
'MAKEBUF'
buf = rc
'LISTFILE cataa exec * (DATE STACK LIFO'
Parse Source . . x1 x2 x3 .
If left(x3,1) 'X' Then Do
Say 'You are not executing from the X disk!'
'DROPBUF' buf
Just checking the filemode of the program will not guarantee that that it is
running from MAINT 31A.If I:
ACCESS 191 X
Then execute CATAA with Parse Source in it, the Parse Source will show it is
running from the mdisk accessed as X - but it's my 191, not the MAINT 31A.
Look into
Sergio,
If you are saying that you ONLY want this exec to execute from the
MAINT 31A disk accessed as the X-disk, then get rid of the LISTFILE
code. There's no reason for it, at least no reason from what you've
shared so far. CMS will always execute the EXEC in the standard
CMS Search Order.
My HCPCPE AUXVM file shows 0802
My SHOPZ order has Stacked 5407 and PTF UM97540.
I saw PTFs go on, but I can't explain the AUXVM contents.
Mike Walter mike.wal...@hewitt.com
Sent by: The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
10/14/2010 03:37 PM
Please respond to
The IBM z/VM
Cross-posted to IBMVM, LINUX390, and IBMMAIN for
the Linux on the mainframe enthusiasts out there.
The next LVC / IBM Linux WebCast is scheduled for Wed. Oct. 20
Register to listen
http://www.vm.ibm.com/education/lvc/
Date:Wednesday October 20, 2010
Times: Choice of two live calls:
Yes - exactly what I did to test my code snippet.
You'll never be able to stop people from copying files to their A disk - and
making modifications - including removing any checks you make for an X disk,
etc. Users can do an EXECDROP or EXECLOAD on their own - there's not many
good ways to stop
tyvm everyone,
The IPL shows the old Service Level but the current date/time stamp.
19:09:15 z/VM V5 R4.0 SERVICE LEVEL 0802 (64-BIT)
19:09:16 SYSTEM NUCLEUS CREATED ON 2010-10-14 AT 12:05:41, LOADED
FROM 54XRES
It is the same whether I IPL from CF1 or CF2, but
The fourth quarter meeting of the Chicago Area VM (and Linux)
Enthusiasts will be held on Thursday, October 28, 2010.
We are scheduled to meet in room M2 off the cafeteria, it is right
next to room M3 where we frequently meet.
NOTE: We have a very full agenda for this meeting, and we will
I learned:
'CONWAIT'
'DESBUF'
but maybe that isn't necessary any more.
Les
Hughes, Jim wrote:
You need to issue a DESBUF command before the EXIT 99 statement.
The LISTFILE command is putting the EXECNAME is the program/console
stack and being read after your problem exits. CMS reads it
Sergio,
As Scott suggests, compiling is the first step to protect yourself from getting
calls about tools that are not *your* tools.
The second step, assuming you can't get the tool installed in a shared segment
(or whatever they call it these days), is to check that it is executing from an
49 matches
Mail list logo
