HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main
Date:         Thu, 24 Dec 1992 18:16:00 PST
From:         Leonard D Woren <LDW@USCMVSA.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Logical Partitions/Physical Partitions

On Thu, 24 Dec 1992 08:25:47 EST,
   "Richard E. Lynch" <RICH@WVNVM.WVNET.EDU> said:
> In article <IBM-MAIN%92122314530248@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU>, Michael Stein
> <CSYSMAS@UCLAMVS.BITNET> says:
> >
> > - reliability
> >   VM adds yet another point of failure to your MVS system.  Also
> >   in my experience VM isn't as good at recovering from errors as
> >   MVS -- thus it's not just another point of failure, it's worse
> >   than just twice as bad as MVS alone.

From multiple first-hand observations, I agree.

> The reliability of VM is much improved since VM/XA. We have been running
> VM/XA or VM/ESA for years and have had only a couple of failures. MVS

Right.  The software is much more reliable.  But VM still doesn't deal
properly with hardware failures.

> has had a few failures too. There is also the guest recovery support
> where VM can fail with minimal impact on preferred guests. We go for

Ah, but suppose that you have a processor failure on a dyadic(etc)
machine?  I don't think that VM recovers from that, and therefore the
preferred guest bites it.

> months without a single VM IPL. For us, VM reliability has been about
> the same as MVS reliability. I feel that these days, the reliability of
> VM is not a big issue. I can not say the same for pre-XA releases of VM.

Even if you believe Richard's point of view, which I don't, you still
have to take into account that MVS/ESA is still at least 5 years ahead
of VM/ESA in dynamic reconfiguration capabilities.  If you run brand z
disks like we do, when you get an error in a page dataset, if it's MVS
you can just PAGEDEL that page dataset and fix the disk.  You have to
shut down VM (and therefore all guests!) to fix it if it's on a VM
pagespace.  If the error is in spool, JES2 can be told not to use that
track.  VM has to be shutdown for repairs.  MVS/ESA V4 supports
dynamically changing the hardware configuration, so that you can add
and remove devices without an IPL & POR.  Where is the VM support for
this?

/Leonard
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main
Date:         Wed, 30 Dec 1992 15:45:16 CST
From:         Larry Holder <##09@UTMARTN.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Is PL/S a dead language?

> I don't want a PL/S
> compiler;  I don't need it, and besides, we have all these compilers
> that we're paying good money for :-)   I _would_ like to see something
> like a "Fiche Reader's Guide To PL/S" which explains some of the quirky
> features of the language that we've all had to guess at.
> As long as IBM continues to send the stuff to users, they should at
> least tell us what it means.

I agree, it sounds like there should be a "PL/S Appplication
Programmer Reference" manual which, like my set of Diagnosis manuals,
are optional, extra cost, and "restricted materials".  IBM could
include the disclaimer that availability of this manual does not
imply the availability of any compiler, nor any statement of direction,
applicability, or continuance of PL/S.

/Larry
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main
From: pg@sanitas.stortek.com (Paul Gilmartin)
Subject: Re: Is PL/S a dead language?
Organization: Storage Technology Corp.
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 18:51:28 GMT

John A. Pershing Jr. (PERSHNG@YKTVMH.BITNET) wrote:
: In-Reply-To: Posting to IBM-MAIN dated Wed, 30 Dec 1992 10:16:00 EST
: 
: There used to be a manual which was essentially a "reader's guide to
: PL/S", but I don't believe that it has been updated since PL/S-2 or -3,
: and I don't know if it was any good (I've never seen this manual).
: "They" should simply declassify the Language Reference Manual and be
: done with it.

Many years ago I heard a story that Rand Corporation had produced a PL/S
compiler; they dismantled it after IBM produced evidence that it was
produced with use of illegally obtained reference materials.

I assume IBM's business strategy postulates that direct profits from
sale of PL/S compiler would not offset the loss of technological advantage.
If IBM made the Reference Manual available legally, another organization
could produce a PL/S compiler; IBM couldn't stop them, and wouldn't 
even get the software product revenue.

I conclude it won't happen.

But, thanks for the sentiment, John; it's a refreshing contrast to a
flamboyant statement you posted yesterday.
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center
Date: Wednesday, 30 Dec 1992 12:52:12 EST
From: Aron Eisenpress <AFECU@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main
Subject: Re: VM on IBM 3090 200J (mode of operation)

In article <CCENGNM.921230.203418.C0@NUSVM.BITNET>, Anthony Ng
<CCENGNM@NUSVM.BITNET> says:
>
>3090-200J is a dyadic machine, hence you can only define your CP
>Attached-processor mode.

I believe this is not correct.  The 200J is called a dyadic rather than
an MP because the 2 processors cannot be partitioned, but both processors
have access to the I/O subsystem, so it's not an AP.
-------

 -- Aron Eisenpress, City U of NY
    (AFECU@CUNYVM.BITNET, or AFECU@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU on the Internet)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main
Date:         Thu, 24 Dec 1992 18:06:00 PST
From:         Leonard D Woren <LDW@USCMVSA.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Logical Partitions/Physical Partitions

On Wed, 23 Dec 1992 23:39:17 CST,
   David E Boyes <dboyes@IS.RICE.EDU> said:
> LPARs are a lot easier to tune, I'll admit. I dearly wish for an
> absolute CPU cap in VM.

This seemingly small missing feature in VM is a show stopper for many
shops.  When we ran MVS under VM it was just not possible to stop MVS
from chewing up much more of the CPU than management wanted MVS to
get, and still guarantee that MVS got a certain minimum percentage.
Performance of both MVS and the CMS workload was often disastrous.
Now, with LPAR, MVS and VM each have a cpu cap.  The machine normally
runs pegged, but if MVS isn't using all of it's share, it's available
to VM, and vice versa, which is what most shops would want.  And we
no longer have the problem of one system not being able to get enough
CPU time because the other system is very busy.  And we don't have to
take down MVS when the VM syspgmr wants to work on VM.

BTW, while I'm generally impressed with VM's preferred machine
recovery (or whatever it's called), keep in mind that except for
full-pack minidisks, virtual devices are lost when VM rolls over.

I agree completely with Michael Stein's assessment of why production
MVS under VM is not appropriate.  If you have to have a VM system
anyway, then the test MVS system most likely makes more sense under VM
than LPAR.  But it is simply not possible to convince me that VM makes
sense to any shop which is using it only to run guest OS's which can
run under LPAR.

As much as I lament the fact that MVS has no future, I believe that
except at universities, VM will be dead long before MVS.

Interesting side comment... One of our new student consultants (who
says he loves unix) told me yesterday that unix will die.  I asked him
what would replace it, and he replied "Windows NT".  So I guess there
_is_ something worse than an all-unix future.


(Ducking behind my bunker...)

Leonard D. Woren      Senior MVS Systems Programmer
<LDW@USCMVSA.BITNET>  <LDW@MVSA.USC.EDU>      Disclaimer???
University of Southern California             What would be the point?

"The potential to save money always speaks louder than good sense."
      -- Chuck Reid, of the University of Western Ontario, Canada
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main
Date:         Wed, 30 Dec 1992 07:37:19 -0500
From:         Anthony Ng <CCENGNM@NUSVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: VM on IBM 3090 200J (mode of operation)
              29 Dec 1992 09:33:17 EST

3090-200J is a dyadic machine, hence you can only define your CP
Attached-processor mode.

---------
*****************************************************************
* Anthony Ng                        * "Don't Look Back !"       *
* Systems Programmer                *      Luke 9:62            *
* NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE  * "Batteries NOT included,  *
* Bitnet : CCENGNM@NUSVM            *  neither any guarantte."  *
*****************************************************************
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main
Date:         Wed, 30 Dec 1992 07:39:00 PST
From:         Michael Stein <CSYSMAS@UCLAMVS.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: questions about the new year

> Once again I am getting ready to teach our (applied) operating systems course.
> I draw this straw every couple years. And this time I am more confused than
> ever.
>
> The trade press makes it sound as if everyone is abandoning mainframes for uni
> boxes, networked pc's,  and the like. I ask myself what I should really
> emphasize in my course. I think one answer is that the basics haven't changed
> that much and I still must deliver them. But how to package them - what
> system(s) to use for examples and exercises - those are the questions.

I'd go with the basics, and studies of some existing operating
systems.  You'd want systems which were different enough
so that different areas or solutions to the basics would
be demonstrated.

IBM's MVS/ESA for multi-programming/multi-processing issues,
including SRBs and interrupt routines/DIE exits, as well as
virtual memory via paging (with interruptable instructions) and
I/O issues in a virtual memory environment.

One of the UNIX's?

The Mach kernal?

Multix?

MS-DOS (to show how everything can be done wrong or at least
        be missing - a non-operating system).
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main
Date:         Mon, 28 Dec 1992 10:42:06 EST
From:         "John A. Pershing Jr." <PERSHNG@YKTVMH.BITNET>
Subject:      Logical Partitions/Physical Partitions


The problem with these VM-versus-PR/SM discussions is that they always
degenerate into apples-vs.-bicycles comparisons.  Note that VM has many
more capabilities, in general, than PR/SM, but these additional
features all come at a price.  E.g., minidisks (as opposed to dedicated
packs) require CCW translation.  V=V guests require much more overhead
than V=F guests (which are handled to a great extent by the machine
facilities).  If you take your "typical" (if there is such a thing)
PR/SM configuration and map it directly into a VM/ESA configuration
(with a bunch of V=F guests), you end up with similar performance
except that (1) VM costs you in license fees and a bit of extra core
(and the alleged availability exposure), and (2) VM provides you will
tons of extra features and stuff that you will be sorely tempted to
start exploiting (hence, the apples-and-bicycles comparisons).

Note that the original question had a lot of "maybe"s -- maybe one or
two UTS images, maybe an AIX, maybe a "new project".  I was merely
suggesting that, maybe, VM would be superior to PR/SM in this
situation, due to the apparent fluidity of the configuration.  I'm no
expert on PR/SM, but I was under the impression that cons-ing up a new
parition or two, or making one of them go away was a bit involved
(e.g., pulling new channel cables, installing new control units).

      John "VM Bigot" Pershing                  PERSHNG at YKTVMH.BITNET
      IBM Research, Yorktown Heights, NY        pershng @ watson.ibm.com
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Institut fuer Medizinische Computerwissenschaften
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main
Date:         Thu, 24 Dec 1992 14:57:17 CET
From:         Christian.J.Reichetzeder@AWIIMC12.IMC.UNIVIE.AC.AT
Subject:      Re: 3480 tape label problem

On Thu, 24 Dec 92 08:37:44 EST Mark Bandak said:
>On Wed, 23 Dec 1992 16:57:53 GMT Stan Horwitz said:
>>tape fsf 1
>>tape dump * * b
Skip the label to write ==> skip the label before read (or scan).
Christian
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main
Date:         Wed, 23 Dec 1992 21:05:00 PST
From:         Michael Stein <CSYSMAS@UCLAMVS.BITNET>
Subject:      Is PL/S a dead language?

With all this talk of IBM reorganization and mainframes being
dead, I'm wondering if IBM's PL/S is now a dead language?

I haven't seen IBM trying to sell it as a product, which
considering the shape their in, I'd figure they would try to sell
anything they had, so perhaps it's effectively dead and it's
internal use to be minimized.

PS: How low does IBM's stock have to get for AT&T to buy them?
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main
Date:         Fri, 1 Jan 1993 21:16:00 PST
From:         Leonard D Woren <LDW@USCMVSA.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Is PL/S a dead language?

> Many years ago I heard a story that Rand Corporation had produced a PL/S
> compiler; they dismantled it after IBM produced evidence that it was
> produced with use of illegally obtained reference materials.

Yep.  At the time this happened, I heard from a friend of mine who was
an operator there that not only was Rand prevented from selling RLS,
but that they weren't even allowed to use it internally.

> I assume IBM's business strategy postulates that direct profits from
> sale of PL/S compiler would not offset the loss of technological advantage.
> If IBM made the Reference Manual available legally, another organization
> could produce a PL/S compiler; IBM couldn't stop them, and wouldn't
> even get the software product revenue.

What would make more sense would be for IBM to abandon the OCO policy,
distribute current source to customers, make the compiler available
for a reasonable price, and accept and integrate fixes and
enhancements made by customers, as was the case with MVT, and with VM
pre-SP.  But a prereq for part of this is shooting all the lawyers, (a
good idea under any conditions...), since I understand it's the
lawyers who won't allow IBM to use customer-provided code.  IBM really
needs to abandon their 9-year-old policy that "they can do all the
programming; they don't need any help from customers."  The proof of
the fallacy of that is the success of other systems -- *ix and PCs.
Look at how much freebie software is available for those systems.  I'd
guess it's a lot more than the large amount that's available for MVS.

> I conclude it won't happen.

Yep.  Sigh.


/Leonard
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Samford University Computer Services
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main
Date:         Thu, 31 Dec 1992 09:40:12 CST
From:         Galen Tillery <RGTILLER@SAMFORD.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: VM on IBM 3090 200J (mode of operation)

On Wed, 30 Dec 1992 12:52:12 EST Aron Eisenpress said:
>......  The 200J is called a dyadic rather than
>an MP because the 2 processors cannot be partitioned, but both processors
>have access to the I/O subsystem, so it's not an AP.

Greetings...
I ended up defining my new 3090 as an MP and all seems to be working fine.
I thought seriously about going AP with it but opted for putting in
symmetric channel cables for my 3380 dasd which made MP more attractive.
Thanks very much to everyone who took the time to reply to my post!
Happy New Year!!!   Galen.

p.s. DWB... I couldn't get back to you through the Internet address your
     message came from.  What is an IP?
From: pg@sanitas.stortek.com (Paul Gilmartin)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main
Subject: Re: IBM mainframe transfer protocols?
Date: 30 Dec 92 01:22:17 GMT
Organization: Storage Technology Corp.
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]

Mythos / Xcalbrin (JKK103@psuvm.psu.edu) wrote:
: I am wondering if it is possible to use zmodem, xmodem, ymodem, etc...on
: a 3090 mainframe in vm/cms for mainframe to PC/AT file transfers via modem.

Little hope; most of these require 8-bit data paths and/or full duplex;
two widespread conventions IBM has adamantly resisted.  I hope the
behaviour of their stock price teaches them the error of their ways.

Kermit, however, works great; it was invented to circumvent IBM's
stubbornness, among other reasons.
From: ag129@cus.cam.ac.uk (Alasdair Grant)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main
Subject: Re:      Is PL/S a dead language?
Date: 28 Dec 92 18:08:44 GMT
Organization: U of Cambridge, England

In article <IBM-MAIN%92122809414050@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU> "John A. Pershing Jr." <PERSHNG@YKTVMH.BITNET> writes:
>The last I heard, no. I'm expecting the Beta drop of the next release
>of the compiler Real Soon Now.  This next release has lots of really
>good stuff in it -- we really should market this *excellent* systems
>programming language!  (sigh...)

From what I've seen of PL/S, it combines all the disadvantages of high-level
languages (inability to get down to the bare machine instructions and
system macros) with the disadvantages of assembler (inability to do global
register allocation and inter-procedural optimisation).  Most pieces of
PL/S I've seen are full of RESPECIFY and references to real registers and
real instructions.  It even requires you to go to the machine instruction
level to do compare-and-swap.  A language that had built-in facilities for
queue and counter management in a multitasking environment would be excellent,
but PL/S isn't it.

Now, if all MVS system functions were accessible as PL/S subroutines, that
would be different, but they aren't.  One has to use GENERATE all the time.
Also, the way it generates calling sequences leaves something to be desired.
I've seen lots of code like

  Myproc: PROCEDURE (A,B,C);
    CALL Another (A,B,C,1);
    END Myproc;

- the overhead from this is greater than it would be with any other language.

What I want to know is: why don't IBM use PL/1, and upgrade those features
of PL/1 which aren't good enough?  (Including the ability to do inline
assembler, which any good C or Pascal compiler can do these days.)
What can PL/S do that PL/1 never could?  I'm genuinely curious.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main
From: pg@sanitas.stortek.com (Paul Gilmartin)
Subject: Re: Is PL/S a dead language?
Organization: Storage Technology Corp.
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 16:00:57 GMT

John A. Pershing Jr. (PERSHNG@YKTVMH.BITNET) wrote:
: 
: All of this uninformed discussion regarding PL/S - PL/AS - PL/X is
: amusing (or annoying, as the case may be) to us IBMers who are actually
: familiar with the language; ...

"The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee,
that I am not as other men are, ... "

Luke 18:11
From: ag129@cus.cam.ac.uk (Alasdair Grant)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main
Subject: Re:      Is PL/S a dead language?
Date: 30 Dec 92 19:47:27 GMT
Organization: U of Cambridge, England

In article <IBM-MAIN%92123008030753@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU> "John A. Pershing Jr." <PERSHNG@YKTVMH.BITNET> writes:
>infer "facts" about the language based on a few snippets of (perhaps
>badly-written) code that you may have seen sometime in the past.

Thank you. Next time I spend an entire day poring through MVS microfiche to
locate a bug, I will be consoled by the thought that MVS is just a few snippets
of (perhaps badly-written) code. :-)

p.s. aren't you forgetting "Guide to PL/S II", GC28-6794?  It may be sketchy
(50 pages) and it may not have been published since 1974, but it is good
enough that you can't take the attitude that PL/S critics have just failed
to understand the language.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main
Date:         Mon, 21 Dec 1992 12:48:02 EST
From:         Dennis Caffi <ASMIDCC@VM7CG.HQ.AF.MIL>
Subject:      Netview Bridge Adapter problems
Comments: To: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <IBM-MAIN@ricevm1.rice.edu>,
          IBM's NETView Discussion List <NETV-L@VM.MARIST.EDU>

  I am having some problems with the Netview Bridge Adapter and was
hoping someone could shed some light for me. We are running MVS/ESA 4.2,
Netview/XA 2.1, VTAM 3.3, and Info/Sys 4.2.

  I am using Netview to capture SVC dump messages and create a problem
record in Info/Sys. Everything was working fine until about 2 months ago.
Someone in another department is changing panels in Info/Sys and changed
the problem panels. I suspected this might be the problem so he has restored
the original IBM panels but I am still unable to creat a problem record.

  The error I am getting is a return code 12 with a reason code 3 from the
HL08 transaction and no other messages in either the HLAPI or IBPRINT logs.

  Any help would be greatly appreciated and sorry for the duplicate messages
as this is cross-posted to two lists.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dennis Caffi                                IP: asmidcc@vm7cg.hq.af.mil
Senior MVS Systems Programmer
Grumman Data Systems / U.S. Air Force
Pentagon, Washington, D.C.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main
Date:         Wed, 23 Dec 1992 12:51:00 PST
From:         Michael Stein <CSYSMAS@UCLAMVS.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Logical Partitions/Physical Partitions

> With all of the "maybe"s and "there is a possibility"s, it
> sounds like you should be running VM/ESA on the bare metal
> (unpartitioned).  Given identical configurations (all-dedicated
> everything, idential main store, identical ESTORE), the
> performance of a production guest under LPAR and under VM/ESA
> should be about the same (after all, VM and LPAR are both using
> the same machine facilities to do their job).  VM gives you the
> option of running your test systems V=V, so that you don't tie
> up valuable system resources (core, channel paths) for
> partitions that you aren't using very much.  Besides, it comes
> with CMS!

VM is nice for testing systems (running test systems), however
there are some problems in running production MVS systems
under it.

 - reliability
   VM adds yet another point of failure to your MVS system.  Also
   in my experience VM isn't as good at recovering from errors as
   MVS -- thus it's not just another point of failure, it's worse
   than just twice as bad as MVS alone.

 - support of new hardware
   VM tends to have later support for new hardware, thus
   restricting you from installing new hardware (and selling the
   old while it's still worth something).

 - complexity
   VM is much more complex than LPAR.  Besides taking system
   programmer time to support/maintain it, there are more things
   which can go wrong (I/O support, CMS which is at least needed
   to maintain VM).

 - performance (?)
   It's easy to say that VM and LPAR should have the same
   overhead, however it may not be.  It's probably easy to start
   using some VM services which have a large impact on the
   performance.  And if you can't use the VM services why pay for
   VM?  (reliability, $, maintenance, support etc).

We run an ES/9000-600 shared between academic and administrative
computing.  There are 4 LPARs, divided as follows:

 -  academic MVS production
 -  academic VM (test MVS, AIX, test AIX, test VM)
 -  administrative MVS production
 -  administrative test MVS
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main
Date:         Tue, 22 Dec 1992 09:11:59 EST
From:         "John A. Pershing Jr." <PERSHNG@YKTVMH.BITNET>
Subject:      Logical Partitions/Physical Partitions
Comments: cc: WEAVER@OHSTVMA.BITNET


With all of the "maybe"s and "there is a possibility"s, it sounds like
you should be running VM/ESA on the bare metal (unpartitioned).  Given
identical configurations (all-dedicated everything, idential main
store, identical ESTORE), the performance of a production guest under
LPAR and under VM/ESA should be about the same (after all, VM and LPAR
are both using the same machine facilities to do their job).  VM gives
you the option of running your test systems V=V, so that you don't tie
up valuable system resources (core, channel paths) for partitions that
you aren't using very much.  Besides, it comes with CMS!

      John "VM Bigot" Pershing                  PERSHNG at YKTVMH.BITNET
      IBM Research, Yorktown Heights, NY        pershng @ watson.ibm.com
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU