U.S. house decommissions its last mainframe, saves $730,000
Anne & Lynn Wheeler
U.S. house decommissions its last mainframe, saves $730,000
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2009/100909-congress-mainframes.html?hpg1=bn
from above:
The U.S. House of Representatives has taken its last mainframe offline,
signaling the end of a computing era in Washington, D.C.
... snip ...
at one point congress and white house was using them for at least EMAIL
(PROFS). some of it possibly dates even back to:
http://www.nsa.gov/research/selinux/list-archive/0409/8362.shtml
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
Kirk Wolf
found something more expensive :-)
On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 3:30 PM, Anne & Lynn Wheeler <ly...@garlic.com>wrote:
> The following message is a courtesy copy of an article
> that has been posted to bit.listserv.ibm-main,alt.folklore.computers as
> well.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email to list...@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 list...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Chase, John
> 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-
Gerhard Adam
Patrick Lyon
<gad...@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.
Doc Farmer
a mainframe. Lord knows they get everything ELSE wrong up there...
Rick Fochtman
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...
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.
P S
><SNIP>
>THEM you might get some rational, realistic thinkers. :-)
Or ones who can write an English sentence, even.
McKown, John
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
> Sent: Monday, October 12, 2009 3:07 PM
> To: IBM-...@bama.ua.edu
> Subject: Re: U.S. house decommissions its last mainframe,
> saves $730,000
>
> <rfoc...@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....@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
P S
<John....@healthmarkets.com> wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
>> [mailto:IBM-...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of P S
>> Sent: Monday, October 12, 2009 3:07 PM
>> To: IBM-...@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
>> <rfoc...@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.
Bobbie Jo
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.
yea, okay, I just answered the q
-----Original Message-----
>From: Anne & Lynn Wheeler <ly...@GARLIC.COM>
>Sent: Oct 10, 2009 4:30 PM
>To: IBM-...@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.
>
>
>U.S. house decommissions its last mainframe, saves $730,000
>http://www.networkworld.com/news/2009/100909-congress-mainframes.html?hpg1=bn
>
>from above:
>
>The U.S. House of Representatives has taken its last mainframe offline,
>signaling the end of a computing era in Washington, D.C.
>
>... snip ...
>
>at one point congress and white house was using them for at least EMAIL
>(PROFS). some of it possibly dates even back to:
>http://www.nsa.gov/research/selinux/list-archive/0409/8362.shtml
>
>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 list...@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
Clark Morris
>-----------------------------<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).
Timothy Sipples
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...@us.ibm.com
Timothy Sipples
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. :-)
Chase, John
> 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-
Anne & Lynn Wheeler
> 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.
re:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009o.html#33 U.S. house decommissions its last mainframe, saves $730,000
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009o.html#38 U.S. house decommissions its last mainframe, saves $730,000
slightly related ... recent post
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009o.html#25 Opinions on the 'Unix Haters' Handbook'
referencing article "The Success of Failure":
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0407/040407mm.htm
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
Walter Bushell
Anne & Lynn Wheeler <ly...@garlic.com> wrote:
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.
William Donzelli
> 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
Charles Richmond
"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 |
+----------------------------------------+
Jeffrey Deaver
we've attached...
CNTLUNIT CUNUMBR=5000,PATH=((CSS(0),B3,B2,82,83,40,41,D0,D1)),*
UNITADD=((00,256)),CUADD=0,UNIT=2107
IODEVICE ADDRESS=(5000,228),CUNUMBR=(5000),STADET=Y,UNIT=3390B
IODEVICE ADDRESS=(50E4,028),CUNUMBR=(5000),STADET=Y,UNIT=3390A
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...@securian.com
651-665-4231(v)
IS - "Creating competitive advantage with technology. Providing service
that excels."
OSS - " Where Innovation Happens"
Hal Merritt
Yes, all is doable dynamically these days. Even so, a deactivate and activate sequence for an LPAR is almost the same as a POR.
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.
SUBSCRIBE IBM-MAIN Pete Eggebeen
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.e...@metavante.com
From: Jeffrey Deaver <Jeffrey...@SECURIAN.COM>
To: IBM-...@bama.ua.edu
Date: 10/13/2009 03:00 PM
Subject: IODF Change...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Field, Alan C.
in the TEST LPAR?
When I want a specific IODF I change LOADxx and specify the IODF suffix
explicitly (normally run with **).
Alan
-----Original Message-----
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-...@bama.ua.edu] On
Behalf Of Jeffrey Deaver
Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2009 15:00
To: IBM-...@bama.ua.edu
Subject: IODF Change...
Wissink, Brad [ITSYS]
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-...@bama.ua.edu] On
Behalf Of Jeffrey Deaver
Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2009 3:00 PM
To: IBM-...@bama.ua.edu
Subject: IODF Change...
Jeffrey Deaver
>we've attached...
>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...
http://www.zjournal.com/index.cfm?section=article&aid=375#
... and points out a few things I'm missing.
Bob Wood
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeffrey Deaver" <Jeffrey...@SECURIAN.COM>
To: IBM-...@bama.ua.edu
Scott Rowe
>>> Jeffrey Deaver <Jeffrey...@SECURIAN.COM> 10/13/2009 3:59 PM >>>
CONFIDENTIALITY/EMAIL NOTICE: The material in this transmission contains confidential and privileged information intended only for the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, please be advised that you have received this material in error and that any forwarding, copying, printing, distribution, use or disclosure of the material is strictly prohibited. If you have received this material in error, please (i) do not read it, (ii) reply to the sender that you received the message in error, and (iii) erase or destroy the material. Emails are not secure and can be intercepted, amended, lost or destroyed, or contain viruses. You are deemed to have accepted these risks if you communicate with us by email. Thank you.
Scott Rowe
>>> Hal Merritt <HMer...@JACKHENRY.COM> 10/13/2009 4:17 PM >>>
CONFIDENTIALITY/EMAIL NOTICE: The material in this transmission contains confidential and privileged information intended only for the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, please be advised that you have received this material in error and that any forwarding, copying, printing, distribution, use or disclosure of the material is strictly prohibited. If you have received this material in error, please (i) do not read it, (ii) reply to the sender that you received the message in error, and (iii) erase or destroy the material. Emails are not secure and can be intercepted, amended, lost or destroyed, or contain viruses. You are deemed to have accepted these risks if you communicate with us by email. Thank you.
Schwarz, Barry A
Is the controller correctly configured to respond as address 50? Are the CHPIDs correct (and not the PCHID number)?
-----Original Message-----
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Jeffrey Deaver
Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2009 1:00 PM
To: IBM-...@bama.ua.edu
Subject: IODF Change...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Rowe
There are errors in that article, though you could say I'm being pedantic, I think they are important:
You do not create an IOCDS and then create an IODF, you create an IODF and then potentially create an IOCDS from it, the process as written in the article makes no sense. The IOCDS serves no purpose other than to be loaded at POR. There is no need to create an IOCDS before one ACTIVATEs an IODF. Many (including myself) prefer to ACTIVATE an IODF (in hardware and software) to test that it works properly before writing to the IOCDS.
P.S. I hope this email gets to the listserver sometime today, I can't believe how long some of my emails take to get forwarded, the last one was over 15 minutes. I suspect the problem is on this end, our email servers seem to run pretty slow ;-)
>>> Jeffrey Deaver <Jeffrey...@SECURIAN.COM> 10/13/2009 4:27 PM >>>
>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...
http://www.zjournal.com/index.cfm?section=article&aid=375#
... and points out a few things I'm missing.
CONFIDENTIALITY/EMAIL NOTICE: The material in this transmission contains confidential and privileged information intended only for the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, please be advised that you have received this material in error and that any forwarding, copying, printing, distribution, use or disclosure of the material is strictly prohibited. If you have received this material in error, please (i) do not read it, (ii) reply to the sender that you received the message in error, and (iii) erase or destroy the material. Emails are not secure and can be intercepted, amended, lost or destroyed, or contain viruses. You are deemed to have accepted these risks if you communicate with us by email. Thank you.
Tom Marchant
>There is no need to change an IOCDS, it is enough to ACTIVATE the IODF.
To clarify, there is no need to create an IOCDS to activate the IODF. It is
a good idea to create an IOCDS when you think you have the IODF ready so
that the next time you perform a POR the correct hardware definitions will
be loaded into the HSA.
Of course, if you never need to perform a POR, the IOCDS is not needed at
all. However, if there is ever a need to perform a POR, you want an IOCDS
that is reasonably close to the IODF that you have been running with.
--
Tom Marchant
Scott Rowe
>>> Tom Marchant <m42tom-...@YAHOO.COM> 10/14/09 7:42 AM >>>
--
Tom Marchant
CONFIDENTIALITY/EMAIL NOTICE: The material in this transmission contains confidential and privileged information intended only for the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, please be advised that you have received this material in error and that any forwarding, copying, printing, distribution, use or disclosure of the material is strictly prohibited. If you have received this material in error, please (i) do not read it, (ii) reply to the sender that you received the message in error, and (iii) erase or destroy the material. Emails are not secure and can be intercepted, amended, lost or destroyed, or contain viruses. You are deemed to have accepted these risks if you communicate with us by email. Thank you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Guy Gardoit
To avoid easily obtained "out of sync" conditions, this process should
always be followed for *any* IODF changes:
"WAAAAAS"
1. "W" After the new production IODF is created, use HCD to write it to one
of the IOCDS in each machine. I like to coordinate the last two characters
of the IODF data set with the IOCDS I intend to write it to. Example:
Create production IODF00 and write it to IOCDS A0.
2. "AAAA..." Activate the IODF in all systems using HCD - I try to avoid
"activate configuration sysplex wide". I'm not brave enough for that one.
Just do one system at a time.
3. "S" From one LPAR on each machine, use HCD to switch to the new IOCDS -
same (ok, almost) as doing a POR
Following this process will always avoid any chance of hardware/software
being out of sync.
Sometimes laziness is a good qulaity in a systems programmer - but not with
hardware/software configuration changes.
--
Guy Gardoit
z/OS Systems Programming
Guy Gardoit
to ignore it.
--
Guy Gardoit
z/OS Systems Programming
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Rowe
Writing the IOCDS has nothing to do with "out of sync" conditions. The "out of sync" conditions are caused when the activation is not done to both hardware and software. They can also be caused by IPLing with the incorrect IODF, which can be easily solved by not hard coding the IODF number in the LOADxx member.
>>> Guy Gardoit <ggar...@GMAIL.COM> 10/14/2009 12:56 PM >>>
I disagree completely.
To avoid easily obtained "out of sync" conditions, this process should
always be followed for *any* IODF changes:
"WAAAAAS"
1. "W" After the new production IODF is created, use HCD to write it to one
of the IOCDS in each machine. I like to coordinate the last two characters
of the IODF data set with the IOCDS I intend to write it to. Example:
Create production IODF00 and write it to IOCDS A0.
2. "AAAA..." Activate the IODF in all systems using HCD - I try to avoid
"activate configuration sysplex wide". I'm not brave enough for that one.
Just do one system at a time.
3. "S" From one LPAR on each machine, use HCD to switch to the new IOCDS -
same (ok, almost) as doing a POR
Following this process will always avoid any chance of hardware/software
being out of sync.
Sometimes laziness is a good qulaity in a systems programmer - but not with
hardware/software configuration changes.
CONFIDENTIALITY/EMAIL NOTICE: The material in this transmission contains confidential and privileged information intended only for the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, please be advised that you have received this material in error and that any forwarding, copying, printing, distribution, use or disclosure of the material is strictly prohibited. If you have received this material in error, please (i) do not read it, (ii) reply to the sender that you received the message in error, and (iii) erase or destroy the material. Emails are not secure and can be intercepted, amended, lost or destroyed, or contain viruses. You are deemed to have accepted these risks if you communicate with us by email. Thank you.
Scott Rowe
>>> Guy Gardoit <ggar...@GMAIL.COM> 10/14/2009 12:56 PM >>>
I disagree completely.
To avoid easily obtained "out of sync" conditions, this process should
always be followed for *any* IODF changes:
"WAAAAAS"
1. "W" After the new production IODF is created, use HCD to write it to one
of the IOCDS in each machine. I like to coordinate the last two characters
of the IODF data set with the IOCDS I intend to write it to. Example:
Create production IODF00 and write it to IOCDS A0.
2. "AAAA..." Activate the IODF in all systems using HCD - I try to avoid
"activate configuration sysplex wide". I'm not brave enough for that one.
Just do one system at a time.
3. "S" From one LPAR on each machine, use HCD to switch to the new IOCDS -
same (ok, almost) as doing a POR
Following this process will always avoid any chance of hardware/software
being out of sync.
Sometimes laziness is a good qulaity in a systems programmer - but not with
hardware/software configuration changes.
CONFIDENTIALITY/EMAIL NOTICE: The material in this transmission contains confidential and privileged information intended only for the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, please be advised that you have received this material in error and that any forwarding, copying, printing, distribution, use or disclosure of the material is strictly prohibited. If you have received this material in error, please (i) do not read it, (ii) reply to the sender that you received the message in error, and (iii) erase or destroy the material. Emails are not secure and can be intercepted, amended, lost or destroyed, or contain viruses. You are deemed to have accepted these risks if you communicate with us by email. Thank you.
Tom Marchant
>I like to coordinate the last two characters
>of the IODF data set with the IOCDS I intend to write it to. Example:
>Create production IODF00 and write it to IOCDS A0.
Do you mean that you only use IODF00, IODF01, IODF02 and IODF03? That
doesn't allow much flexibility. It isn't very hard to figure out which IODF
matches an IOCDS.
I always like to keep the IODF that was used for the last IPL.
Sometimes it is necessary to perform an IODF update in stages. I once did
about 8 in a day to remove a channel switch that was connected to printers.
When I was finished, each printer was on a dedicated channel that could be
reconfigured to any LPAR, and I did it without ever having more than one
printer unavailable at a time.
--
Tom Marchant
carlos roberto visconde
2009/10/13 Jeffrey Deaver <Jeffrey...@securian.com>
Guy Gardoit
of IODF work files. I usually keep at least 30 lying around "just in
case". I fortunately haven't run into a situation as you describe. There
was one exception quite a while agao where I did not follow my usual
practice - it was when I dynamically converted all of our substantial DASD
farm from ESCON to FICON in stages - 8 ESCON to 2 FICON per CU - one IODF
gen per set.
--
Guy Gardoit
z/OS Systems Programming
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Guy Gardoit
reason - Like MCLs, CPC failure etc.
Better safe than sorry - besides I just like to be "neat" - a Monk complex,
if you know who I mean.
And, you're right, I did not mention IPLing with the correct IODF - I've
found using LOAD** in IPLPARM works best. YMMV
--
Guy Gardoit
z/OS Systems Programming
----------------------------------------------------------------------
R.S.
Eric Chomko
> 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."
>
> > My viewpoint: CONgress *is* organized crime.
>
>
> slightly related ... recent posthttp://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009o.html#25Opinions on the 'Unix Haters' Handbook'
>
> referencing article "The Success of Failure":http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0407/040407mm.htm
>
> 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).
That is the nature of US tax money for virtually all contractor
projects, from NASA, DOD, DOE, NSA, HMOs, etc. The real fear about
health care reform isn't cost or if we can do it, but whether a large
number of beltway bandits will simply take advantage of the situation
and get away with it.
>
> in the past there have been periodic references to statistics that the
> institution with the highest percentage of convicted felons was congress
Yep, who better to rip off than a bunch of crooks not paying attention
to other people's money in a responsible way?
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Anne & Lynn Wheeler <ly...@garlic.com> wrote:
> in the past there have been periodic references to statistics that the
> institution with the highest percentage of convicted felons was congress
Isn't that why congress starts with con ?
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
Mary Anne Matyaz
been working on the 'modernization' or 'migration off of' for 10 years.
Something tells me that wasn't what they were planning on. (Insert your
favorite vendors proposal to 'get off the mainframe in 9 months' here).
MA