HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main
Date:         Thu, 31 Dec 1992 10:42:21 EST
From:         "John A. Pershing Jr." <PERSHNG@YKTVMH.BITNET>
Subject:      Is PL/S a dead language?


I had been under the mistaken impression that, due to OCO, no sources
written in recent dialects of PL/X (read: in recent years) were
available to customers.  I am glad to hear otherwise!

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.

      John Pershing                             PERSHNG at YKTVMH.BITNET
      IBM Research, Yorktown Heights, NY        pershng @ watson.ibm.com
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main
Date:         Thu, 24 Dec 1992 08:37:44 EST
From:         Mark Bandak <MARK@MONTCOLA.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: 3480 tape label problem

On Wed, 23 Dec 1992 16:57:53 GMT Stan Horwitz said:
 stuff deleted ...
>
>Ready;
>cp spool cons * class a start
>Ready;
>rewind 181
>Rewind complete
>Ready;
>tape dvol1
>VOL1200006                               IBM DOSVSE
>Ready;
>rewind 181
>Rewind complete
>Ready;
>tape fsf 1
>Ready;
>tape dump * * b
> Dumping ...
> AC0848   DATA     B1
> REIRS9   DATA     B1
> AB0678   DATA     B1
> AC0190   DATA     B1
>Ready;
>tape fsf 2
 ????
>Ready;
>rewind 181
>Rewind complete
>Ready;
>tape scan
> Scanning ...
>DMSTPJ057E Invalid record format
>Ready(00032);

Stan, you will get this message on the VOL1 header label ...; I am not
XA, but believe that a 'second TAPE SCAN' here would find your files ..
(or REW 181#TAPE DVOL1#TAPE SCAN ...)

>tapemap map=files
/Mark
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main
Date:         Mon, 21 Dec 1992 10:38:18 EST
From:         "Duane D. Weaver" <WEAVER@OHSTVMA.BITNET>
Subject:      Logical Partitions/Physical Partitions

Here at Ohio State, we are considering obtaining a 3090-600J,
which will be shared by the administrative computer center
and the academic computing center.

A 3090-600J can be logically partition into 7 partitions; or it can
be physically partition into two equal halfs, each which could have
7 logical partitions.

Each computer center needs a partition for a MVS production system
and a partition for a MVS test system, for a total of 4 partitions.

There is a possibility that each center may want to run Unix in partition.
The administrative center is currently running Amdahl's UTS Unix,
which can only run under VM on an IBM machine, but may consider AIX.
The academic center is interested in AIX.

Another partition is to be used for a new project.

Does anyone have experiences with partitioning a large 3090 that they
are willing to share?    Any pitfalls we whould be aware of in planning this?


Should we consider running VM/ESA as the base system control program in the
entire CPU complex or part of it?   Then run some of the various systems
under VM.   What are the implications of this with respect to various
types of controllers, etc.?    Comments both good and bad are welcomed.


I do not want to start a discussion war between the MVS people and the
VM people. We can use all of the tips, comments, advice that people
are willing to share.


Duane Weaver
Senior Systems Programmer
Ohio State U.

p.s. If you prefer, you can send your response directly back to me.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main
Date:         Fri, 25 Dec 1992 23:26:00 PST
From:         Leonard D Woren <LDW@USCMVSA.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Logical Partitions/Physical Partitions

On Fri, 25 Dec 1992 23:53:33 CST,
   David E Boyes <dboyes@IS.RICE.EDU> said:
> > 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.
>
> Go read the VM/ESA 1.2 announcements. I think you'll find a
> number of improvements that bring VM/ESA to a much more favorable
> position in this regard.

When is G.A. for VM/ESA 1.2?  When *was* G.A. for MVS/ESA V4?
So maybe I was wrong; MVS/ESA V4 is 3-4 years ahead of VM/ESA, not 5.

> > 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.
>
> You're missing the distinction between dedicated devices and
> simulated devices again.

No, you're missing my point, which I should have made more explicitly.
If a critical *VM* disk has a problem, you have to shutdown *VM* to
fix it, and therefore you have to shutdown your MVS *production*
guest, because *some other* O.S. has a problem.  This is just plain
unacceptable in most shops.  If the MVS production guest is under
LPAR, you don't have this problem.

> > 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?
>
> VM/ESA 1.2.

I think not, judging from your next question.

> It's not clear to me how MVS deals with changes that
> require an IOCP change, though -- doesn't that still require a
> disruptive IML?

No!

From what you're saying, I'd guess that VM/ESA 1.2 still doesn't
support dynamic reconfiguration like MVS/ESA V4.2 does.

/Leonard
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.2 PL15]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main
Date:         Mon, 21 Dec 1992 15:25:10 EDT
From:         Mott Given <ntm1169@DSACG3.DSAC.DLA.MIL>
Subject:      Re: Logical Partitions/Physical Partitions
Comments: To: IBM-MAIN@VM1.CC.UAKRON.EDU
              at Dec 21, 92 10:38 am

>
> Does anyone have experiences with partitioning a large 3090 that they
> are willing to share?    Any pitfalls we whould be aware of in planning this?
>
> Should we consider running VM/ESA as the base system control program in the
> entire CPU complex or part of it?   Then run some of the various systems
> under VM.   What are the implications of this with respect to various
> types of controllers, etc.?    Comments both good and bad are welcomed.

  Look at the paper "CPU Contention in Logically Partitioned Systems"
on pages 487-495 of the Computer Measurement Group proceedings for 1992.
This is a conference that took place the week of Dec. 7-11, 1992 in
Reno, Nevada.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main
Date:         Wed, 30 Dec 1992 16:48:00 PST
From:         Leonard D Woren <LDW@USCMVSA.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Reply to the new year

On Wed, 30 Dec 1992 10:24:56 CST,
   Larry Holder <##09@UTMARTN.BITNET> said:
> > The trade press makes it sound as if everyone is abandoning mainframes for u
> > boxes, networked pc's,  and the like.

> The trade press is always going to emphasize the new and exciting stuff.
> They will point out innovations and trends that do need to be looked at.

And to some extent these things become a self-fullfilling prophesy.

> However, in practicality, mainframes are not dead, nor is their
> traditional use going to disappear overnight.  Using our shop as an

Partially true, but see question below.

> example, we are beginning to push ahead toward some distributed
> processing, but there are no forseeable plans to chuck the mainframe
> applications.

Yes, but where are the *new* applications being written?

/Leonard
From: TJF@CORNELLC.CIT.CORNELL.EDU (Gary Buhrmaster)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main
Subject: Re: Is PL/S a dead langauge
Date: 31 Dec 92 22:19:07 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

The manuals that describe PL/x (and its dialects) are few.

GC28-6784 - "Guide to PL/S II" was issued May 1974, and as far as I
know, was never updated.  The entire manual is only 53 pages long, and
that includes the Contents, Index, Glossary and sample listings.  If
you knew PL/I, then with the help of this manual you could read most of
the PL/S fiche sent with MVS.

SC27-0446 - "Programming Language for Distributed Systems (PL/DS)
Reference", issued in May 1979, defined the PL/DS lanaguage that was
used on the IBM 8100 Information System.  This language looked
suspiciously like PL/S (or at least a derivative), and with this
manual, the MVS fiche as samples, and a little imagination, one could
get a good feel as to just what PL/S really offered, even without
a real reference to the mainframe version of PL/S

I would like to see IBM issue a new PL/S language reference manual, if
only because it would be easier to read those fiche.  I would also like
the opportunity to write and update code in PL/S, if that is the
language the operating system is written in and its as good as IBM says
it is.  If PL/S had been offered as a product two decades ago it could
have been a real productivity enhancer for all systems programming
teams (and not just IBMs), and I am sure it would have been used to
provide better function to many.  Unfortunately, PL/S was caught
somewhere between the issues of competitive advantage and the IBM
vision that did not include customers writing and modifing operating
systems, and PL/S never made it out the door.  PL/S may be a great
systems programming language, but at this point, I don't think anyone
(other than IBM itself) would choose to start a major new project using
it even if it was available (which I personally don't believe will ever
happen).  The holy grail of languages this year is C (or C++).  Even
IBM itself is starting to consider using languages other than PL/S for
new projects.

Gary Buhrmaster
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center
Date: Wednesday, 30 Dec 1992 15:37:31 EST
From: Aron Eisenpress <AFECU@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main
Subject: Re: Logical Partitions/Physical Partitions

Apropos of this discussion, I just got an IBM document on the subject!
It's one of the ITSC "red books", GG24-3920, entitled "ES/9000 Multi-
Image Processing Volume 1: Presentation and Solutions Guidelines".
(There's also a volume 2 containing full-size versions of all the
foils, but they're also in this volume.)  I've only glanced at it
but it seems to cover the subject pretty thoroughly.
From: ag129@cus.cam.ac.uk (Alasdair Grant)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main
Subject: Re: PL/S etc
Date: 30 Dec 92 21:14:09 GMT
Organization: U of Cambridge, England

In article <30DEC92.10295830.0009.MUSIC@UTMARTN> ##09@UTMARTN.BITNET (Larry Holder) writes:
>Maybe when it becomes generally available, we can drop the speculations
>about PL/S, and zero in on the practical application of the new features
>the assembler will provide.  The advent of the new assembler seems to
>me to be comparable with the initial release of REXX, as far as showing
>how IBM can break thru with a truly redesigned product, and largely due
>to grass-roots efforts.

The difference is that Rexx was provided at no cost just when VM was
really taking off, while the HLA is provided at extra cost when people
are thinking about shutting down mainframes. How on earth is one supposed
to make a business case for spending serious money on this product?
I mean, at my last job (before I quit) I couldn't even convince them to
get the (free) SLAC assembler mods, let alone CMS pipelines.
When will IBM learn the lesson from Unix that the more system programming
tools you bundle in, the more useful bits of software get written for the
system?
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center
Date: Tuesday, 29 Dec 1992 16:56:29 EST
From: Aron Eisenpress <AFECU@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main
Subject: Re: Logical Partitions/Physical Partitions

In article <9212260553.AA11648@brazos.is.rice.edu>, David E Boyes
<dboyes@IS.RICE.EDU> says:
>
>          [...]
>
>If you're going to run serious production guests under VM, you do
>it with dedicated devices, not full pack minidisks. By doing so,
>you retain the advantages of both systems in error recovery and
>system management. You also do it with VM/XA or VM/ESA -- not HPO
>or SP. Most of the things that the MVSers have pointed out were
>true under HPO or SP, but have changed radically since VM/XA, and
>particularly since the introduction of VM/ESA.

Ah, but if you dedicate the disks then you can't also get to them from a
test MVS guest!  (Well, you can if you have an additional path and define
that as a different device, but that doesn't save you any hardware over the
LPAR setup.)  And if you don't dedicate the disks you will see a performance
degradation, even with full-pack minidisks.

I agree with Leonard and Michael on this issue.  We ran an MVS production
guest under VM/XA and have since partitioned that machine to run MVS native.
Aside from the disk sharing issues, the additional level of complexity for
the operations folks really hurt us.  And we already had the necessary control
unit paths, 3088, etc., since we've had multiple MVS mainframes for a long
time (and we needed them back when we ran MVS as a PMA guest under VM/HPO).
-------

 -- 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:         Mon, 28 Dec 1992 12:26:00 PST
From:         Michael Stein <CSYSMAS@UCLAMVS.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Is PL/S a dead language?

> In article <IBM-MAIN%92122809414050@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU> "John A. Pershing Jr."
> <PERSHNG@YKTVMH.BITNET> writes:
> >good stuff in it -- we really should market this *excellent* systems
> >programming language!  (sigh...)

I don't know if we could afford it, but I'd like to see it marketed.

> Alasdair Grant <ag129@CUS.CAM.AC.UK> writes:
> 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).

Ha!  Exactly backwards.  PL/S allows writing a structure which
you *know* the mapping of, while C doesn't (the C mapping depends
on the machine and the compiler implementation).  The C run time
environment isn't really well defined (try running C code system
key, supervisor, SRB mode).

PL/S allows bare machine instructions (in addition to inline
assembly), ie:  MVCL(R2,R4);

PL/S probably does do register optimization (minus the registers
which the programmer has restricted).

> Most pieces of PL/S I've seen are full of RESPECIFY and
> references to real registers and real instructions.

I'd agree with that -- most programmers using PL/S don't know
how to program!  Nor how to use PL/S to best effect.

> It even requires you to go to the machine instruction level to
> do compare-and-swap.

No, I've heard that at least one level of PL/S accepts
declarations of fields as needing CS and will generate the
required code.  I've never seen any code which uses this though.
(Again, the programmers probably don't know how to use it...)

> 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.

IMNSHO it's a mistake to sprinkle CS/CDS all over a program and
indicates a poor design.  Some CS and CDS usage is required,
however from what I've seen coded it seems easy to go overboard
-- CS and CDS use should be minimized by avoiding the updates
from asynchronous processes first.  (Anyway, CS/CDS force a
pipeline drain and are slooooow compared to normal instructions).

<disclaimer: I've never seen a PL/S manual nor a compiler for it>
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  JNET%"ibm-main@ricevm1"
Original_cc:  WERTZCJ
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main
Date:         Tue, 29 Dec 1992 10:31:00 EDT
From:         "Charles J. Wertz" <WERTZCJ@SNYBUFVA.BITNET>
Subject:      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 unix
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.

If you can spare a few minutes I'd really like to know what is happening in
your shop. Is an MVS or VM mainframe as important as ever? Are you likely to
abandon your 3090's for Risc/6000's or Suns in the near term? (Near term might
be 2 - 5 years.) Are your mainframes coexisting well with networks? What
operating systems do you want new hires to know about? etc?

If you reply to me directly I'll be happy to summarize for the list. Give me a
couple weeks or more because it may take that long for some folks to see this
and respond.

I will really appreciate the information. If I get eneough replies the summary
might be valuable to everyone.

Charlie Wertz
Buffalo State College

wertzcj@snybufva.bitnet
wertzcj@snybufva.cs.snybuf.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main
Date:         Thu, 24 Dec 1992 10:35:43 CST
From:         David E Boyes <dboyes@IS.RICE.EDU>
Subject:      Re: 3480 tape label problem
Comments: To: IBM-MAIN@ricevm1.rice.edu
              92 4:57 pm

> I am unable to get the TAPE SCAN command to work. I can see the files on the
> tape via Dave Elbon's tapemap utility and Ditto, but TAPE SCAN objects and
> won't provide any info about the files on the tape. Does anyone know what is
> wrong here? Thanks? A copy of the console where I dumped the files to the new
> tape appears below including a display of the label, which I just rewrote.

Try TAPE MODESET ( DEN 38K before you do the TAPE SCAN. I think
there's an APAR that addresses this, but that's the workaround.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
From: ag129@cus.cam.ac.uk (Alasdair Grant)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main
Subject: Re: Is PL/S a dead language?
Date: 31 Dec 92 19:41:25 GMT
Organization: U of Cambridge, England

In article <IBM-MAIN%92123110102334@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU> PERSHNG@YKTVMH.BITNET (John A. Pershing Jr.) writes:
>I had been under the mistaken impression that, due to OCO, no sources
>written in recent dialects of PL/X (read: in recent years) were
>available to customers.  I am glad to hear otherwise!
>
>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).

I have a copy in front of me right now.  Are you allowed to tell us some
of the differences between PL/S 2 and modern PL/X, or is even that
a secret?  I don't _know_ that the PL/S I've seen is 'recent' PL/S; how
can I tell?
From: ACSMWA@SAUPM00.BITNET (Mohammad Wasim Akhtar)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main
Subject: 4 GL for mainframes
Date: 28 Dec 92 06:58:10 GMT
Organization: King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals, S.A.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Acknowledge-To: <ACSMWA@SAUPM00.BITNET>

Hi!

I would like to know in detail, what are the fourth generation languages
available on Mainframes.

************************************************************************
*                                                                      *
*         Best Regards                                                 *
*                                                                      *
*         Mohammad Wasim Akhtar                                        *
*                                                                      *
*         E-Mail:  Bitnet  : ACSMWA@SAUPM00.BITNET                     *
*                  Internet: ACSMWA%SAUPM00.BITNET@VM.TEMPLE.EDU       *
*                            ACSMWA%SAUPM00.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU     *
*         Tel:     (Off) 00966-3-860-3913  Fax: 00966-3-860-3955       *
*                  (Res) 00966-3-860-5733                              *
*         Addr:    KFUPM # 954, Dhahran - 31261, Saudi Arabia          *
*                                                                      *
************************************************************************
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main
Date:         Sat, 26 Dec 1992 01:46:17 CST
From:         David E Boyes <dboyes@IS.RICE.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Logical Partitions/Physical Partitions
Comments: To: IBM-MAIN@ricevm1.rice.edu
              25, 92 11:26 pm

Gee, I'm glad I'm not the only one up at this hour...8-).


> When is G.A. for VM/ESA 1.2?  When *was* G.A. for MVS/ESA V4?
> So maybe I was wrong; MVS/ESA V4 is 3-4 years ahead of VM/ESA, not 5.

GA for VM/ESA 1.2 is this month. The date December 28th sticks
out in my mind, but I don't have the ivories at hand at the
moment.

I don't think anyone would disagree that all the good stuff gets
put into MVS first -- after all, it's IBM's biggest cash cow. I
still wish VM handled tapes as well as MVS does.

> If a critical *VM* disk has a problem, you have to shutdown *VM* to
> fix it, and therefore you have to shutdown your MVS *production*
> guest, because *some other* O.S. has a problem.  This is just plain
> unacceptable in most shops.  If the MVS production guest is under
> LPAR, you don't have this problem.

OK. Sorry I missed that point. The preferred guest recovery stuff
does help somewhat with that problem, however to take full
advantage of the feature, you end up replicating hardware to keep
VM and guest OS devices on separate controllers. I've seen shops
that ran several preferred guests take a VM hit and the only
thing they lost was the VCTCAs connecting the guests. When VM
came back, all they had to do was redefine/recouple the VCTCAs
and issue a couple of VTAM and JES commands to restart things.

Don't get me wrong -- that kind of recovery takes a lot of
planning, but it's the same sort of planning you'd have to do for
LPAR.

> > require an IOCP change, though -- doesn't that still require a
> > disruptive IML?
> No!

Ah, good. I was hoping that was what those options on my ES/9K
support console were for.

> >From what you're saying, I'd guess that VM/ESA 1.2 still doesn't
> support dynamic reconfiguration like MVS/ESA V4.2 does.
> /Leonard

Since I'm taking VM/ESA 1.1 production tonight, I don't have any
direct experience with 1.2, but I hope to soon. What I know about
1.2 is based on discussions on VM/Share and the ivories -- the
way I interpret the ivories, it looks like the dynamic
reconfiguration support takes advantage of the same features that
the MVS config support does. We'll see.