i was undergraduate in the 60s ... but doing lots of work on cp67 ... even getting requests from the vendor for specific kinds of enhancements. I didn't learn about the above guys until much later ... but in retrospect, some of the change requests could be considered of the kind that such customers would be interested in.
later I got blamed for computer conferencing on the internal network in the late 70s and early 80s (the internal network was larger than the internet from just about the beginning until possibly some late late '85 or early '86).
-- 40+yrs virtualization experience (since Jan68), online at home since Mar1970
> i was undergraduate in the 60s ... but doing lots of work on cp67 > ... even getting requests from the vendor for specific kinds of > enhancements. I didn't learn about the above guys until much later > ... but in retrospect, some of the change requests could be considered > of the kind that such customers would be interested in.
> later I got blamed for computer conferencing on the internal network in > the late 70s and early 80s (the internal network was larger than > the internet from just about the beginning until possibly some > late late '85 or early '86).
> -- > 40+yrs virtualization experience (since Jan68), online at home since > Mar1970
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO > Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
> -----Original Message----- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Kirk Wolf
> If the US government is migrating away from IBM mainframes, they must have > found something more expensive :-)
More "reliable" voters. :-|
-jc-
---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Since when does the U.S. House of Representatives mean all of Washington, D.C.? More importantly, since when is $730,000 much of a data center?
---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
<gada...@CHARTER.NET> wrote: >Since when does the U.S. House of Representatives mean all of Washington,
D.C.? More importantly, since when is $730,000 much of a data center?
From the article: "But it was time for a change, with the House spending $30,000 a year to power the mainframe and another $700,000 each year for maintenance and support."
Hate to tell the author, but that doesn't mean they are "saving" $730,000. That money, or at least a portion, is being spent elsewhere.
More political fluff, basically.
And one more thing, if they would have upgraded and kept up with technology, the green argument is blown out of the water as well.
Funny how these politics get skewed in just about every data center in the world.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
If Congress is getting rid of their last mainframe, this only proves the VALUE of a mainframe. Lord knows they get everything ELSE wrong up there...
---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
-----------------------------<snip>--------------------------- If Congress is getting rid of their last mainframe, this only proves the VALUE of a mainframe. Lord knows they get everything ELSE wrong up there... ---------------------------<unsnip>--------------------------- Have you EVER heard of anyone in Congress having ANYTHING that might pass for a brain?
Sweep 'em all out and replace them with folks who haven't spent their entire lives in politics! THEM you might get some rational, realistic thinkers. :-)
Rick --- If you're not in the lead, the view never changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 3:34 PM, Rick Fochtman <rfocht...@ync.net> wrote: ><SNIP> >THEM you might get some rational, realistic thinkers. :-)
Or ones who can write an English sentence, even.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
> -----Original Message----- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List > [mailto:IBM-M...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of P S > Sent: Monday, October 12, 2009 3:07 PM > To: IBM-M...@bama.ua.edu > Subject: Re: U.S. house decommissions its last mainframe, > saves $730,000
> On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 3:34 PM, Rick Fochtman > <rfocht...@ync.net> wrote: > ><SNIP> > >THEM you might get some rational, realistic thinkers. :-)
> Or ones who can write an English sentence, even.
They are lawyers. They don't want to do that. Of course, we don't write in standard English either. We need more precision that is usual.
-- John McKown Systems Engineer IV IT
Administrative Services Group
HealthMarkets(r)
9151 Boulevard 26 * N. Richland Hills * TX 76010 (817) 255-3225 phone * (817)-961-6183 cell john.mck...@healthmarkets.com * www.HealthMarkets.com
Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message may contain confidential or proprietary information. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. HealthMarkets(r) is the brand name for products underwritten and issued by the insurance subsidiaries of HealthMarkets, Inc. -The Chesapeake Life Insurance Company(r), Mid-West National Life Insurance Company of TennesseeSM and The MEGA Life and Health Insurance Company.SM
---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
<John.McK...@healthmarkets.com> wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List >> [mailto:IBM-M...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of P S >> Sent: Monday, October 12, 2009 3:07 PM >> To: IBM-M...@bama.ua.edu >> Subject: Re: U.S. house decommissions its last mainframe, >> saves $730,000
>> On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 3:34 PM, Rick Fochtman >> <rfocht...@ync.net> wrote: >> ><SNIP> >> >THEM you might get some rational, realistic thinkers. :-)
>> Or ones who can write an English sentence, even.
> They are lawyers. They don't want to do that. Of course, we don't write in standard English either. We need more precision that is usual.
Ahem, I wasn't referring to the lawyers. Read the quoted text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
-----Original Message----- >From: Anne & Lynn Wheeler <l...@GARLIC.COM> >Sent: Oct 10, 2009 4:30 PM >To: IBM-M...@bama.ua.edu >Subject: U.S. house decommissions its last mainframe, saves $730,000
>The following message is a courtesy copy of an article >that has been posted to bit.listserv.ibm-main,alt.folklore.computers as well.
>i was undergraduate in the 60s ... but doing lots of work on cp67 >... even getting requests from the vendor for specific kinds of >enhancements. I didn't learn about the above guys until much later >... but in retrospect, some of the change requests could be considered >of the kind that such customers would be interested in.
>later I got blamed for computer conferencing on the internal network in >the late 70s and early 80s (the internal network was larger than >the internet from just about the beginning until possibly some >late late '85 or early '86).
>-- >40+yrs virtualization experience (since Jan68), online at home since Mar1970
>---------------------------------------------------------------------- >For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, >send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO >Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
________________________________________ PeoplePC Online A better way to Internet http://www.peoplepc.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
On 12 Oct 2009 12:35:33 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
>-----------------------------<snip>--------------------------- >If Congress is getting rid of their last mainframe, this only proves the >VALUE of a mainframe. Lord knows they get everything ELSE wrong up there... >---------------------------<unsnip>--------------------------- >Have you EVER heard of anyone in Congress having ANYTHING that might >pass for a brain?
>Sweep 'em all out and replace them with folks who haven't spent their >entire lives in politics! THEM you might get some rational, realistic >thinkers. :-)
While I am no lover of a lot of what the House has done under either ideology, in regard to the decommissioning of the mainframe the applications they are running would determine the relative value of the move. If they moved to packages which were cheaper or more full functioned on other platforms, then this was a good move. This also probably was done by the administrative staff with relatively little input from most of the house members. The have enough other headaches and areas where they are forced to make decisions based on little knowledge and much controversy (heck we can't agree on JES2 versus JES3 and I know the areas of MVS where my ignorance is really vast rather than just tolerable let alone the new stuff).
>Rick >--- >If you're not in the lead, the view never changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Forget everything else, it puzzles me -- and concerns me, as a U.S. taxpayer -- that the U.S. House of Representatives is running its own, private data centers.
Why? (Is that really part of their core competency?) Couldn't they share data centers with, say, the Senate at least? The House and the Senate meet in the same building already, after all, so they share a lot of real estate-related costs. Note that I'm not necessarily talking about consolidating IT security, control, applications, etc. (You can share mainframes and establish separate security zones, for example.) But why does Congress need to duplicate so many common functions, such as data center facilities? Is a House rack different than a Senate rack? :-) Does one have 435 metal parts and the other 100? :-) :-)
That was the strangest part of the story to me, that the House has its own data centers. Do they also have their own electricity generating stations and power grid? (That's a pretty good analogy.)
If the goal is to run separate data centers, and to maximize independent headcount, for political reasons -- in other words, if the goal is NOT to achieve business scale efficiencies -- then I suppose a modern mainframe really isn't a prudent choice.
Of course, the financial "calculations" in the article are incomplete. If they did nothing else and simply got a 12 year newer mainframe, the $730K per annum (even if that's accurate) would undoubtedly fall. Twelve year old mainframes are more expensive to operate than new ones, ceteris paribus. And (of course) no one mentioned how much 5+ years of migration work cost.
Just for sake of argument, let's assume that instead of $730K per annum it's now $500K per annum in cash flow to support the applications in question. And let's further make the bad assumption that that $230K in annual savings could not be achieved simply by upgrading to a new mainframe. Let's stipulate all that, just for this exercise. What if it cost $70M in migration cost to save $230K per year? That sort of "investment" would be a complete waste of money. You would be much better off simply putting the $70M in the bank, collecting interest, paying the $230K delta, and pocketing the additional savings. That sort of migration project would be a negative Return on Investment (ROI) project, because the meager return on investment would never cover the cost of capital. Even in the U.S. federal government.
But who knows? Nobody is really talking about these details in this sort of story. So, net, a single 12+ year old mainframe is replaced with 20+ other servers within an organization that we already have ample circumstantial evidence -- see above re: the Senate -- is not running cost efficiently.
As always, speaking only for myself. (And sometimes not even that much. :-))
- - - - - Timothy Sipples IBM Consulting Enterprise Software Architect Based in Tokyo, Serving IBM Japan / Asia-Pacific E-Mail: timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
First of all, there's some good, independent evidence that the total number of lines (and function points) of COBOL-under-management in the world is *growing* rather substantially. If you want to call that moribund, you could, but that wouldn't be the plain English meaning of the word.
Second, there's a relatively short list of programming languages which are "durable." Durable languages are those which have such a large portfolio of valuable code in service that they will last, for all practical purposes, "forever." COBOL and PL/I are two of the languages on that list of durable languages. Even FORTRAN is on that list, as it happens.
I think the only remaining question is how COBOL will evolve. (It will.) Which enhancements will get delivered first? And that's up to COBOL customers and their requirements. Steve Comstock posted a list of previously delivered COBOL improvements. I don't speak for IBM, but I can certainly say that IBM is investing in COBOL enhancements and will continue to. Rest assured, it makes good business sense for IBM to do that, for many reasons.
As a side note, if you're only looking for COBOL innovations under a single IBM program number, you're seriously missing much of the picture. Rational Developer for System z -- just upgraded to Version 7.6 -- and WebSphere ILOG Rules for COBOL are but two significant examples.
So what do you want? Ask for it (formally). You'll often get it. It's that simple.
Or we can go around in circles again here if you want. :-)
- - - - - Timothy Sipples IBM Consulting Enterprise Software Architect Based in Tokyo, Serving IBM Japan / Asia-Pacific E-Mail: timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
> -----Original Message----- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Timothy Sipples
> Forget everything else, it puzzles me -- and concerns me, as a U.S. > taxpayer -- that the U.S. House of Representatives is running its own, > private data centers.
> Why? (Is that really part of their core competency?) Couldn't they share > data centers with, say, the Senate at least? The House and the Senate meet > in the same building already, after all, so they share a lot of real > estate-related costs. Note that I'm not necessarily talking about > consolidating IT security, control, applications, etc. (You can share > mainframes and establish separate security zones, for example.) But why > does Congress need to duplicate so many common functions, such as data > center facilities? Is a House rack different than a Senate rack? :-) Does > one have 435 metal parts and the other 100? :-) :-)
From CONgress' viewpoint: "It's public money. It doesn't belong to anybody, so we *have to* spend it."
My viewpoint: CONgress *is* organized crime.
-jc-
---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
where a culture has grown up with the large system integrators and beltway bandits that they make more money off the failures than they do off of successes (i.e. failed products result in another round of appropriations for additional attempts, making more profit off the failed projects than made off any succesful).
in the past there have been periodic references to statistics that the institution with the highest percentage of convicted felons was congress
-- 40+yrs virtualization experience (since Jan68), online at home since Mar1970
> jch...@USSCO.COM (Chase, John) writes: > > From CONgress' viewpoint: "It's public money. It doesn't belong to > > anybody, so we *have to* spend it."
> where a culture has grown up with the large system integrators and > beltway bandits that they make more money off the failures than they do > off of successes (i.e. failed products result in another round of > appropriations for additional attempts, making more profit off the > failed projects than made off any succesful).
> in the past there have been periodic references to statistics that the > institution with the highest percentage of convicted felons was congress
Well why not. Being a felon, closes off most jobs. Last time I checked the moving industry was the place of employment for felons. Great, you hire movers and a bunch of felons know everything you own and where you live.
Putting them in Congress is wurst. I never sausage a mess.
-- A computer without Microsoft is like a chocolate cake without mustard.
> and I love this part: > The last mainframe was an IBM model in place since 1997
> 1997, let's see, so we're talking either the 9021 family or the early generation cmos.
If it was a 9021 (or 9121), I would sure like to know about it. Or any others still hanging around, for that matter.
-- Will
---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Walter Bushell wrote: > In article <m3y6nfjz54....@garlic.com>, > Anne & Lynn Wheeler <l...@garlic.com> wrote:
>> jch...@USSCO.COM (Chase, John) writes: >>> From CONgress' viewpoint: "It's public money. It doesn't belong to >>> anybody, so we *have to* spend it."
>> where a culture has grown up with the large system integrators and >> beltway bandits that they make more money off the failures than they do >> off of successes (i.e. failed products result in another round of >> appropriations for additional attempts, making more profit off the >> failed projects than made off any succesful).
>> in the past there have been periodic references to statistics that the >> institution with the highest percentage of convicted felons was congress
> Well why not. Being a felon, closes off most jobs. Last time I checked > the moving industry was the place of employment for felons. Great, you > hire movers and a bunch of felons know everything you own and where you > live.
> Putting them in Congress is wurst. I never sausage a mess.
"It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctively native American criminal class except Congress." -- Mark Twain
-- +----------------------------------------+ | Charles and Francis Richmond | | | | plano dot net at aquaporin4 dot com | +----------------------------------------+
The CUADD statements have the wrong value. They should be CUADD=50 etc instead of CUADD=0 etc. I altered the IODF and IPL'ed my test system, but the change has not taken. In other words, I still can't access the storage.... From an init job...
ICK30713I UNABLE TO ALLOCATE UCB, RC=0008, RSN=0004 FROM IOSODS ICK31024I UNABLE TO OPEN VOLUME. ICK30003I FUNCTION TERMINATED. CONDITION CODE IS 12 12:26:00 10/13/09
I can't vary the paths online...
IEE386I PATH(5001,40) NOT BROUGHT ONLINE IEE763I NAME= IECVIOPM CODE= 0000000400000000 IOS552I PATH NOT PHYSICALLY AVAILABLE IEE764I END OF IEE386I RELATED MESSAGES
Assuming I'm not missing some other configuration issue, I should be able to change the IODF, IPL that LPAR and have the change take effect, right? No POR necessary, right? What am I missing? Thanks.
Jeffrey Deaver, Engineer Systems Engineering jeffrey.dea...@securian.com 651-665-4231(v) IS - "Creating competitive advantage with technology. Providing service that excels." OSS - " Where Innovation Happens"
---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
-----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-M...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Jeffrey Deaver Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2009 3:00 PM To: IBM-M...@bama.ua.edu Subject: IODF Change...
I have an IODF which has a mistake in it in regards to some new storage we've attached...
The CUADD statements have the wrong value. They should be CUADD=50 etc instead of CUADD=0 etc. I altered the IODF and IPL'ed my test system, but the change has not taken. In other words, I still can't access the storage.... From an init job...
ICK30713I UNABLE TO ALLOCATE UCB, RC=0008, RSN=0004 FROM IOSODS ICK31024I UNABLE TO OPEN VOLUME. ICK30003I FUNCTION TERMINATED. CONDITION CODE IS 12 12:26:00 10/13/09
I can't vary the paths online...
IEE386I PATH(5001,40) NOT BROUGHT ONLINE IEE763I NAME= IECVIOPM CODE= 0000000400000000 IOS552I PATH NOT PHYSICALLY AVAILABLE IEE764I END OF IEE386I RELATED MESSAGES
Assuming I'm not missing some other configuration issue, I should be able to change the IODF, IPL that LPAR and have the change take effect, right? No POR necessary, right? What am I missing? Thanks.
Jeffrey Deaver, Engineer Systems Engineering jeffrey.dea...@securian.com 651-665-4231(v) IS - "Creating competitive advantage with technology. Providing service that excels." OSS - " Where Innovation Happens"
---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html NOTICE: This electronic mail message and any files transmitted with it are intended exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is addressed. The message, together with any attachment, may contain confidential and/or privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, printing, saving, copying, disclosure or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please immediately advise the sender by reply email and delete all copies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
When you do the IPL, it is like a software only activate, so the CUADDR part must be a hardware change. You should be able to do a hardware and software activate to correct the situation.
Pete Eggebeen Systems Programmer Specialist Enterprise Storage Management FIS Banking Solutions 414.577.9521 Office 414.577.8998 Fax e-mail: pete.eggeb...@metavante.com
The CUADD statements have the wrong value. They should be CUADD=50 etc instead of CUADD=0 etc. I altered the IODF and IPL'ed my test system, but the change has not taken. In other words, I still can't access the storage.... From an init job...
ICK30713I UNABLE TO ALLOCATE UCB, RC=0008, RSN=0004 FROM IOSODS ICK31024I UNABLE TO OPEN VOLUME. ICK30003I FUNCTION TERMINATED. CONDITION CODE IS 12 12:26:00 10/13/09
I can't vary the paths online...
IEE386I PATH(5001,40) NOT BROUGHT ONLINE IEE763I NAME= IECVIOPM CODE= 0000000400000000 IOS552I PATH NOT PHYSICALLY AVAILABLE IEE764I END OF IEE386I RELATED MESSAGES
Assuming I'm not missing some other configuration issue, I should be able to change the IODF, IPL that LPAR and have the change take effect, right? No POR necessary, right? What am I missing? Thanks.
Jeffrey Deaver, Engineer Systems Engineering jeffrey.dea...@securian.com 651-665-4231(v) IS - "Creating competitive advantage with technology. Providing service that excels." OSS - " Where Innovation Happens"
---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------- The information contained in this message is proprietary and/or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please: (i) delete the message and all copies; (ii) do not disclose, distribute or use the message in any manner; and (iii) notify the sender immediately. In addition, please be aware that any message addressed to our domain is subject to archiving and review by persons other than the intended recipient. Thank you. --------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------- The information contained in this message is proprietary and/or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please: (i) delete the message and all copies; (ii) do not disclose, distribute or use the message in any manner; and (iii) notify the sender immediately. In addition, please be aware that any message addressed to our domain is subject to archiving and review by persons other than the intended recipient. Thank you. ---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
The CUADD statements have the wrong value. They should be CUADD=50 etc instead of CUADD=0 etc. I altered the IODF and IPL'ed my test system, but the change has not taken. In other words, I still can't access the storage.... From an init job...
ICK30713I UNABLE TO ALLOCATE UCB, RC=0008, RSN=0004 FROM IOSODS ICK31024I UNABLE TO OPEN VOLUME. ICK30003I FUNCTION TERMINATED. CONDITION CODE IS 12 12:26:00 10/13/09
I can't vary the paths online...
IEE386I PATH(5001,40) NOT BROUGHT ONLINE IEE763I NAME= IECVIOPM CODE= 0000000400000000 IOS552I PATH NOT PHYSICALLY AVAILABLE IEE764I END OF IEE386I RELATED MESSAGES
Assuming I'm not missing some other configuration issue, I should be able to change the IODF, IPL that LPAR and have the change take effect, right? No POR necessary, right? What am I missing? Thanks.
Jeffrey Deaver, Engineer Systems Engineering jeffrey.dea...@securian.com 651-665-4231(v) IS - "Creating competitive advantage with technology. Providing service that excels." OSS - " Where Innovation Happens"
---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
When you IPL'd did you get the message that the hardware and software were out of sync. We just added storage to our machine and the process we used was
1. update the HCD 2. Build a new IODF file 3. Activate the IODF dynamically Activate both the hardware and software 4. Do a software only activation of the new IODF on all other lpars 5. Then use the SE or HMC to configure on the channels.
This worked fine for us and we have done it multiple times. Hope this helps
Brad Wissink Information Technology Services Iowa State University 515-294-3088
-----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-M...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Jeffrey Deaver Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2009 3:00 PM To: IBM-M...@bama.ua.edu Subject: IODF Change...
I have an IODF which has a mistake in it in regards to some new storage we've attached...
The CUADD statements have the wrong value. They should be CUADD=50 etc instead of CUADD=0 etc. I altered the IODF and IPL'ed my test system, but the change has not taken. In other words, I still can't access the storage.... From an init job...
ICK30713I UNABLE TO ALLOCATE UCB, RC=0008, RSN=0004 FROM IOSODS ICK31024I UNABLE TO OPEN VOLUME. ICK30003I FUNCTION TERMINATED. CONDITION CODE IS 12 12:26:00 10/13/09
I can't vary the paths online...
IEE386I PATH(5001,40) NOT BROUGHT ONLINE IEE763I NAME= IECVIOPM CODE= 0000000400000000 IOS552I PATH NOT PHYSICALLY AVAILABLE IEE764I END OF IEE386I RELATED MESSAGES
Assuming I'm not missing some other configuration issue, I should be able to change the IODF, IPL that LPAR and have the change take effect, right? No POR necessary, right? What am I missing? Thanks.
Jeffrey Deaver, Engineer Systems Engineering jeffrey.dea...@securian.com 651-665-4231(v) IS - "Creating competitive advantage with technology. Providing service that excels." OSS - " Where Innovation Happens"
---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
>I have an IODF which has a mistake in it in regards to some new storage >we've attached... >Assuming I'm not missing some other configuration issue, I should be able >to change the IODF, IPL that LPAR and have the change take effect, right? >No POR necessary, right? >What am I missing?
See, as soon as I send the question, I find what I need. This article seems to explain it quite well...
Jeffrey Deaver, Engineer Systems Engineering jeffrey.dea...@securian.com 651-665-4231(v) IS - "Creating competitive advantage with technology. Providing service that excels." OSS - " Where Innovation Happens"
---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
|
