Discussion:
OS/390 2.5
Add Reply
Mark Wilson
2017-11-26 12:50:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Hi Folks,

I have a client who is running OS/390 2.5 and they cannot upgrade their OS for many reasons, let’s just not go there!

They have asked what is the latest z Hardware they can use whilst running OS/390 2.5, but I am struggling to find any info out there at the moment.

I know its old, unsupported, but we are where we are….

So, does anyone know? z9, z10, etc….

Mark

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to ***@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
ITschak Mugzach
2017-11-26 12:56:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Any hardware if running under z/vm. Some model issues may raised (like
reports more mips that actual).

ITschak
Post by Mark Wilson
Hi Folks,
I have a client who is running OS/390 2.5 and they cannot upgrade their OS
for many reasons, let’s just not go there!
They have asked what is the latest z Hardware they can use whilst running
OS/390 2.5, but I am struggling to find any info out there at the moment.
I know its old, unsupported, but we are where we are….
So, does anyone know? z9, z10, etc….
Mark
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
--
ITschak Mugzach
*|** IronSphere Platform* *|** Automatic ISCM** (Information Security
Contiguous Monitoring) **| *

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to ***@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Wolfgang Fritz
2017-11-26 13:30:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
This should not be the only solution.
Check a product/company it is called lzlabs.
You can run all your software on x86.

https://www.lzlabs.com/
Post by ITschak Mugzach
Any hardware if running under z/vm. Some model issues may raised (like
reports more mips that actual).
ITschak
Post by Mark Wilson
Hi Folks,
I have a client who is running OS/390 2.5 and they cannot upgrade their OS
for many reasons, let’s just not go there!
They have asked what is the latest z Hardware they can use whilst running
OS/390 2.5, but I am struggling to find any info out there at the moment.
I know its old, unsupported, but we are where we are….
So, does anyone know? z9, z10, etc….
Mark
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
--
ITschak Mugzach
*|** IronSphere Platform* *|** Automatic ISCM** (Information Security
Contiguous Monitoring) **| *
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to ***@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
ITschak Mugzach
2017-11-26 17:58:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
ure Fritz ;-)

Mark, if your client goes the VM way, he need to be careful, the machine
might report wrong capacity and they will have to agree on capacity with
IBM and other vendors. I have a client that runs this way, and had lot of
issues with vendors and IBM.

ITschak

On Sun, Nov 26, 2017 at 3:31 PM, Wolfgang Fritz <
Post by Wolfgang Fritz
This should not be the only solution.
Check a product/company it is called lzlabs.
You can run all your software on x86.
https://www.lzlabs.com/
Post by ITschak Mugzach
Any hardware if running under z/vm. Some model issues may raised (like
reports more mips that actual).
ITschak
Post by Mark Wilson
Hi Folks,
I have a client who is running OS/390 2.5 and they cannot upgrade their
OS
Post by ITschak Mugzach
Post by Mark Wilson
for many reasons, let’s just not go there!
They have asked what is the latest z Hardware they can use whilst
running
Post by ITschak Mugzach
Post by Mark Wilson
OS/390 2.5, but I am struggling to find any info out there at the
moment.
Post by ITschak Mugzach
Post by Mark Wilson
I know its old, unsupported, but we are where we are….
So, does anyone know? z9, z10, etc….
Mark
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
--
ITschak Mugzach
*|** IronSphere Platform* *|** Automatic ISCM** (Information Security
Contiguous Monitoring) **| *
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
--
ITschak Mugzach
*|** IronSphere Platform* *|** Automatic ISCM** (Information Security
Contiguous Monitoring) **| *

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to ***@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Rob Schramm
2017-11-26 19:48:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
OS/390 is still 31-bit only. I know zOS 1.4 will run on a mono-processor
z13. Definitely going to have issues with processor reporting for
products. No ideas past there. In for a difficult ride for sure.

Rob
Post by ITschak Mugzach
ure Fritz ;-)
Mark, if your client goes the VM way, he need to be careful, the machine
might report wrong capacity and they will have to agree on capacity with
IBM and other vendors. I have a client that runs this way, and had lot of
issues with vendors and IBM.
ITschak
On Sun, Nov 26, 2017 at 3:31 PM, Wolfgang Fritz <
Post by Wolfgang Fritz
This should not be the only solution.
Check a product/company it is called lzlabs.
You can run all your software on x86.
https://www.lzlabs.com/
Post by ITschak Mugzach
Any hardware if running under z/vm. Some model issues may raised (like
reports more mips that actual).
ITschak
Post by Mark Wilson
Hi Folks,
I have a client who is running OS/390 2.5 and they cannot upgrade
their
Post by Wolfgang Fritz
OS
Post by ITschak Mugzach
Post by Mark Wilson
for many reasons, let’s just not go there!
They have asked what is the latest z Hardware they can use whilst
running
Post by ITschak Mugzach
Post by Mark Wilson
OS/390 2.5, but I am struggling to find any info out there at the
moment.
Post by ITschak Mugzach
Post by Mark Wilson
I know its old, unsupported, but we are where we are….
So, does anyone know? z9, z10, etc….
Mark
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
IBM-MAIN
Post by Wolfgang Fritz
Post by ITschak Mugzach
--
ITschak Mugzach
*|** IronSphere Platform* *|** Automatic ISCM** (Information Security
Contiguous Monitoring) **| *
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
--
ITschak Mugzach
*|** IronSphere Platform* *|** Automatic ISCM** (Information Security
Contiguous Monitoring) **| *
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
--
Rob Schramm

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to ***@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Timothy Sipples
2017-11-27 05:58:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mark Wilson
They have asked what is the latest z Hardware they can use whilst running
OS/390 2.5, but I am struggling to find any info out there at the moment.
I'm puzzled why an upgrade is not possible, but, to answer your question
directly, none of IBM's z/Architecture machines (z900 and later) ever
officially supported OS/390 2.5. The IBM z900 only went as far back as
OS/390 2.6. The most recent machines that officially supported OS/390 2.5
are G5 and G6 machines that were state-of-the-art 17+ years ago (Machine
Type 9672 G5 and G6 processors). Small, late era 31-bit machines that
supported OS/390 2.5 included the IBM Multiprise 3000 (Machine Type 7060)
and IBM S/390 Integrated Server (Machine Type 3006). IBM R/390, P/390, and
P/390E cards also officially supported OS/390 2.5. (The IBM S/390
Integrated Server uses the P/390E card.)

Unofficially, there was a report back in 2009 in this forum that OS/390 2.4
IPL'ed under z/VM 5.3 on an IBM z990 machine. There were some restrictions
(512MB memory or less, 1 CP only, and a special z/VM setting).

CAUTION: OS/390, 31-bit z/OS, and their ancestors must be licensed to the
full capacity of the physical machine. They also "contaminate" a machine
from a licensing point of view. If there's any pre-64-bit MVS family
operating system running on the machine, then any 64-bit z/OS -- and all
IBM products on both the pre-64-bit MVS family and 64-bit z/OS operating
systems -- are also charged at the full physical machine capacity. IBM's
sub-capacity z/OS licensing (WLC and successors) only applies when the
entire machine is free of 31-bit z/OS and its ancestors. z/OS 1.5 was the
last release that was capable of starting in ESA (31-bit) mode, although it
could IPL in 64-bit mode on compatible z/Architecture machines.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy Sipples
IT Architect Executive, Industry Solutions, IBM Z and LinuxONE, AP/GCG/MEA
E-Mail: ***@sg.ibm.com

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to ***@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Ed Jaffe
2017-11-27 18:45:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Timothy Sipples
Unofficially, there was a report back in 2009 in this forum that OS/390 2.4
IPL'ed under z/VM 5.3 on an IBM z990 machine. There were some restrictions
(512MB memory or less, 1 CP only, and a special z/VM setting).
That might have been from me. We ran, and continue to run, old operating
systems using z/VM as a bridge to our newer hardware (at the moment z13s).

Our policy is to go back only ten years, so OS/390 2.5 fell off our
RADAR long ago...
--
Phoenix Software International
Edward E. Jaffe
831 Parkview Drive North
El Segundo, CA 90245
http://www.phoenixsoftware.com/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to ***@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Brian Westerman
2017-11-27 06:01:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
I have done a lot of these types of conversions, strangely enough, the biggest jump I have ever performed (so far) was just this year at a small local government site that was still running MVS/ESA who moved to zOS 2.2, they were running on a 4381 and migrated to a z13s. The total outage was about 4 hours only because I had to copy (ALL of) the DISK volumes to tape and then back to disk on the go-live day, but it could have been much less had they allowed me to stage things a little differently. The hardest part was making the volume copies under MVS/ESA that could still be read on z/OS. I ended up writing a program to to the full pack backups and restores. DASD to DASD would have been much better, but they had REAL 3350's and 3380's and only FICON RAID on the new system. That was a real test of the process.:)

Any way, your client can run OS/390 2.5 on a z800 (not an 890) which supports OS/390 through z/OS 1.13. They (the z/800's) are still readily available, but it doesn't really place them anywhere for a step up from there because the newest software they can run on the z800 is z/OS 1.13. It would however allow them to run both OS/390 and z/OS on the same physical processor, but it's not the way I would plan the conversion, there are too many places to get caught up in wasting a lot of time.

VM is actually not a good idea for them either unless they want to remain at OS/390 for a long time and don't plan on EVER moving up to z/OS. They are probably paying more to run OS/390 than they would for z/OS so they should have an incentive to migrate. There are some known (solvable) issues with running OS/390 under z/VM (they have to use an "older" version), and if they have not converted from OS/390 to z/OS by now, I doubt they will look favorably on z/VM and the people-training time to get to that point, (and keep it there), and the costs will still be much higher for OS/390 on the larger box plus they will have to add the cost of z/VM and new hardware (DASD etc.) on top of that. It's a lot more money than almost any other alternative, and takes longer to implement as well.

Probably, the next (and cheapest step) for them is the one I have performed several times in the past, which is to install a new little box (in this case the cheapest "new" box would likely be a z13s which would give them better pricing overall for the first 3 years and maintenance for the hardware is free as well for a couple years which should sound nice to them after what they probably pay to keep their old machine running now) and convert directly from OS/390 2.5 to z/OS 2.2 (or 2.3).

The above assumes they have DASD that will allow them to connect to the z13s 2965-N10 (single processor A01 at about 10MSU (~80MIPS)), if they are running with internal DASD or direct ESCON DASD (which they probably are) then the best bet is either replace it (not that costly if they don't go brand new and get one that supports ESCON and FICON, or get a used/new converter) or get a used z114 instead of the z13s (there are actually several viable alternatives that could make sense depending on their current hardware). The cost for the z114 is lower than the z13s, but they won't get the reduced cost for the software and the hardware maintenance would be cheaper than now, but a z13s would be free for maintenance at first. When you compare the total cost over a couple years, the z13s tends to be a better cost-wise alternative, not to mention that it's going to be able to support them for quite a while with anything IBM decides to change to.

The process is fairly painless and I typically have the new OS installed in about a week, (3 if you count the two week order time from IBM) and the conversion from OS/390 to z/OS (probably 2.2 in this case) is normally between 30 to 90 days, depending on how much they are using/depending on home-grown exits and how many things (exits, mods, zaps, etc.) I have to reproduce without existing source code.

It's fairly easy and painless for the client, but that's probably because I have done this type of conversion many times already so there aren't really many surprises for me any more.

The biggest issue (for EVERYONE) is when they have old "vendor" software from places that simply don't exist any more and the software doesn't support new(er) levels of the OS. In cases like that I have a (really) long list of just about every vendor product and how to get them to "work" under newer OS versions. In some cases I have had to dumb down z/OS or create an environment under z/OS that mimics the older runtime code, but I have found that there is (almost) always a way to make it work safely. Some products are just harder than others to get them settled down, but having done this a lot of times, I have all of the tricks and alternatives so there aren't many unknowns.

If they are dead-set to stay as OS/390 2.5, then a z/800 is pretty much their only existing choice. Running on a emulator is another option, but the long term viability of that choice is at risk because IBM can (and will at some point in the not distant future) come down on the people (and their customers) for running the emulation of their hardware. IBM has already served notice to two of the places, (that I know about) that they have to stop "production" work. Apparently they have no problem with development or people designing software for home/hobby use, but when you start wanting to run a commercial site they take a very dim view of that. No one wants to have their company come in one morning and be told that IBM pulled the plug on their solution and they have to come up with a LOT of money to not only convert their system, but defend themselves in court.

It's not like those places are running plug compatible hardware. Emulators (while they work VERY well) are bad news when it comes to long term viability, (and staying out of court).

If you need help or have questions, feel free to ask, or contact me offline.

Brian Westerman

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to ***@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
c***@azamour-solutions.co.uk
2017-11-27 12:06:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Hi Mark,

Did you manage to get the answer to your question?

If not I can probably help will need to look back through some old files we have

Let me know

Cheers

Colin
Peter Relson
2017-11-27 13:56:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
I don't know the official answer, but a way to guesstimate a quasi-sane
answer:

Pick whatever machine was made available 3 years after OS/390 2.5 became
available.
Any machine available after that would most likely not have had any
exploitation support provided as far back as a release 3 years old, but
might have had toleration support.
Add another 3 years and come up with that machine and you'll likely not
have had toleration support either as far back as OS/390 2.5.

That would then be the machine that you should not be at all surprised if
OS/390 2.5 did not run on.

Although I suppose it is possible (I do not recall) that back then we
provided support "further back" when a new machine came along.

Peter Relson
z/OS Core Technology Design


----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to ***@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
PINION, RICHARD W.
2017-11-27 14:04:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
So you are saying I can't IPL OS/360 on our z13 :)

-----Original Message-----
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-***@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Peter Relson
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2017 8:58 AM
To: IBM-***@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: OS/390 2.5

[External Email]

I don't know the official answer, but a way to guesstimate a quasi-sane
answer:

Pick whatever machine was made available 3 years after OS/390 2.5 became available.
Any machine available after that would most likely not have had any exploitation support provided as far back as a release 3 years old, but might have had toleration support.
Add another 3 years and come up with that machine and you'll likely not have had toleration support either as far back as OS/390 2.5.

That would then be the machine that you should not be at all surprised if
OS/390 2.5 did not run on.

Although I suppose it is possible (I do not recall) that back then we provided support "further back" when a new machine came along.

Peter Relson
z/OS Core Technology Design


----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to ***@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
FIRST TENNESSEE

Confidentiality notice:
This e-mail message, including any attachments, may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient(s), or the employee or agent responsible for delivery of this message to the intended recipient(s), you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this e-mail message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail message from your computer.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to ***@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
John McKown
2017-11-27 14:43:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 8:05 AM, PINION, RICHARD W. <
Post by PINION, RICHARD W.
So you are saying I can't IPL OS/360 on our z13 :)
​Not without an "RPQ". I remember back in the 1980s when Braniff Airways
(now defunct) was running OS/MVT on a 3033. It only ran because IBM wrote
special patches to allow it. These patches were only available via an "RPQ"
(Request for Price Quotation?).

Given that all the current IBMZ machines are basically "millicoded", I can
imagine that it is _theoretically_ ​possible to have an a number of MCL
variants which could implement almost any level of architecture. Of course,
if marketing tried this, I would guess that they would be subject to a
"dark ops" strike from the hardware engineers.
--
I have a theory that it's impossible to prove anything, but I can't prove
it.

Maranatha! <><
John McKown

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to ***@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Beverly Caldwell
2017-11-27 16:27:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Why would you even waste your time with these idiots, Mark ? They have
screwed themselves into the ground.

You can bet your boots the same team of management clowns who brought this
situation about are still in control. So I would pitch them a complete
upgrade to the latest software and hardware, cost it all out and tell them
this is what you will have to pay to get yourselves out of this hole.

Any technical fix is only going to be temporary and will only prolong the
situation, doing nothing to solve the basic problem.

You could maybe find a more polite way of putting it.
Post by John McKown
On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 8:05 AM, PINION, RICHARD W. <
Post by PINION, RICHARD W.
So you are saying I can't IPL OS/360 on our z13 :)
​Not without an "RPQ". I remember back in the 1980s when Braniff Airways
special patches to allow it. These patches were only available via an "RPQ"
(Request for Price Quotation?).
Given that all the current IBMZ machines are basically "millicoded", I can
imagine that it is _theoretically_ ​possible to have an a number of MCL
variants which could implement almost any level of architecture. Of course,
if marketing tried this, I would guess that they would be subject to a
"dark ops" strike from the hardware engineers.
--
I have a theory that it's impossible to prove anything, but I can't prove
it.
Maranatha! <><
John McKown
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to ***@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
retired mainframer
2017-11-27 17:47:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
It must be nice to be able to tell a customer you don't need their business.
Post by PINION, RICHARD W.
-----Original Message-----
Behalf Of Beverly Caldwell
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2017 8:28 AM
Subject: Re: OS/390 2.5
Why would you even waste your time with these idiots, Mark ? They have
screwed themselves into the ground.
You can bet your boots the same team of management clowns who brought this
situation about are still in control. So I would pitch them a complete
upgrade to the latest software and hardware, cost it all out and tell them
this is what you will have to pay to get yourselves out of this hole.
Any technical fix is only going to be temporary and will only prolong the
situation, doing nothing to solve the basic problem.
You could maybe find a more polite way of putting it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to ***@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
John McKown
2017-11-27 17:56:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 11:49 AM, retired mainframer <
Post by retired mainframer
It must be nice to be able to tell a customer you don't need their business.
​ROI - It depends on how much the customer is willing to pay you to keep
from paying IBM for the upgrade. If they have a system which "just works"
for them, and they have no strategic direction for the "mainframe",​ then
perhaps paying to maintain the old software is worth it to them.

However, I am confused as to why they would want to invest in a new machine
but not invest in new OS software, but Mark said "just don't go there"; so
I won't. Perhaps, as I recall from many years ago about a DOS shop (sysprog
basically rewrote 80% of it), they have so modified OS/390 2.6 that it is
no longer recognizable as OS/390.
--
I have a theory that it's impossible to prove anything, but I can't prove
it.

Maranatha! <><
John McKown

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to ***@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Seymour J Metz
2017-11-27 17:44:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
You can't IPL any 24-bit operating system on a machine that doesn't support S/370 mode; it's not just the addressing, but also the I/O.


--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3

________________________________________
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <IBM-***@listserv.ua.edu> on behalf of PINION, RICHARD W. <***@FIRSTTENNESSEE.COM>
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2017 9:05 AM
To: IBM-***@listserv.ua.edu
Subject: Re: OS/390 2.5

So you are saying I can't IPL OS/360 on our z13 :)

-----Original Message-----
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-***@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Peter Relson
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2017 8:58 AM
To: IBM-***@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: OS/390 2.5

[External Email]

I don't know the official answer, but a way to guesstimate a quasi-sane
answer:

Pick whatever machine was made available 3 years after OS/390 2.5 became available.
Any machine available after that would most likely not have had any exploitation support provided as far back as a release 3 years old, but might have had toleration support.
Add another 3 years and come up with that machine and you'll likely not have had toleration support either as far back as OS/390 2.5.

That would then be the machine that you should not be at all surprised if
OS/390 2.5 did not run on.

Although I suppose it is possible (I do not recall) that back then we provided support "further back" when a new machine came along.

Peter Relson
z/OS Core Technology Design


----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to ***@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
FIRST TENNESSEE

Confidentiality notice:
This e-mail message, including any attachments, may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient(s), or the employee or agent responsible for delivery of this message to the intended recipient(s), you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this e-mail message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail message from your computer.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to ***@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to ***@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Ed Jaffe
2017-11-27 18:51:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Relson
I don't know the official answer, but a way to guesstimate a quasi-sane
Pick whatever machine was made available 3 years after OS/390 2.5 became
available.
Any machine available after that would most likely not have had any
exploitation support provided as far back as a release 3 years old, but
might have had toleration support.
Add another 3 years and come up with that machine and you'll likely not
have had toleration support either as far back as OS/390 2.5.
My recollection is that the two-tier TLB was the major change that broke
stuff. Back in the day, z/VM used to do a good job hiding that
difference (and perhaps others) from the older operating systems that
couldn't cope...
--
Phoenix Software International
Edward E. Jaffe
831 Parkview Drive North
El Segundo, CA 90245
http://www.phoenixsoftware.com/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to ***@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
itzmainframe
2017-11-27 14:37:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
The official word would be no.
However, as we all know, unsupported releases of OS/390 have been successfully running on later model MFs - and the z13 is the last MF to support ESA/390 mode.
Timothy Sipples
2017-11-28 00:49:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Brian Westerman
Any way, your client can run OS/390 2.5 on a z800 (not
an 890) which supports OS/390 through z/OS 1.13.
The IBM z800 (and z900 for that matter) never officially supported OS/390
2.5. Do you have any anecdotal reports of that particular combination
running (and any known caveats)? I can't say I've ever run into that
combination.
Post by Brian Westerman
....or get a used z114 instead of the z13s....
z/OS 2.3, released in September, 2017, requires a zBC12/zEC12 or higher
model. z/OS 2.2 is the last release that's compatible with the z114.
There's no End of Service date announced yet for z/OS 2.2, but September
30, 2020, would be consistent with prior release lifecycles.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy Sipples
IT Architect Executive, Industry Solutions, IBM Z and LinuxONE, AP/GCG/MEA
E-Mail: ***@sg.ibm.com

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to ***@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Brian Westerman
2017-11-28 05:22:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
This all comes down to what the site is willing to do for their long term viability. If they are happy with the current release and hardware, and are willing to live with the fact that at some point in time they just won't be able to fix the hardware, then they obviously are welcome to pay IBM for the old software to do that.

At some point it will occur to them that they can't function in that environment. They have probably already put off doing "things" that they would like to do (software wise), because the hardware won't support the extra load, or the software can't handle the specific required by the code they want to write.

I have learned that you can't force a company who is in the "head in the sand" mode to pull their head out until they are good and ready to do so. Typically all it really takes is pointing out that they can actually save a good chunk of money by doing so, but sometimes even that is not enough.

In the end, you can't force them to do anything they don't want to do. I guess it's like having someone who has a substance abuse problem, "you" can't want them out of their condition, they have to want out for themselves.

Brian Westerman

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to ***@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Mike Schwab
2017-11-28 05:59:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
z13 has 31 bit mode. z14 IPLs in 64 bit mode and cannot run 31 bit
Operating systems, z/OS 2.2 SA-ICKDSF, etc. Requires z/OS 2.3
SA-ICKDSF.
Post by Mark Wilson
Hi Folks,
I have a client who is running OS/390 2.5 and they cannot upgrade their OS for many reasons, let’s just not go there!
They have asked what is the latest z Hardware they can use whilst running OS/390 2.5, but I am struggling to find any info out there at the moment.
I know its old, unsupported, but we are where we are….
So, does anyone know? z9, z10, etc….
Mark
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
--
Mike A Schwab, Springfield IL USA
Where do Forest Rangers go to get away from it all?

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to ***@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Timothy Sipples
2017-11-29 09:14:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mike Schwab
z13 has 31 bit mode. z14 IPLs in 64 bit mode and cannot run 31 bit
Operating systems, z/OS 2.2 SA-ICKDSF, etc. Requires z/OS 2.3
SA-ICKDSF.
These points really aren't enough to know whether OS/390 2.5 will IPL and
run on a z13 or z13s machine. "No" would be my educated guess. All they
mean is that OS/390 2.5 definitely won't IPL in a LPAR on the z14.

By the way, although z/VSE 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3 are out of support, IBM has
disclosed that z/VSE 4.x is known to IPL (start up) under z/VM on the IBM
z14. You have to use the CP command SET MACHINE ESA in z/VM to make that
happen. Those releases of z/VSE are nominally ESA/390 (at IPL), but my
understanding is that they flip to z/Architecture almost immediately since
they have some z/Architecture exploitation (64-bit real addressing for
certain system functions). Consequently SET MACH ESA seems to work for
them, but trying to run any of those z/VSE releases in a LPAR on the z14
doesn't work. And SET MACH ESA doesn't seem to offer any help for any other
operating systems that IPL in ESA/390 mode (or earlier modes). Anyway,
that's the one ESA-related IPL footnote for the IBM z14, of possible
interest in migration scenarios from z/VSE 4.x to the latest release of
z/VSE. And the new z/VM sub-capacity licensing can be helpful here, too.

We should also probably mention that OS/390 2.5 contains known (by now)
security vulnerabilities, possibly integrity ones, too. Those
vulnerabilities could be exploited when any other client or system
connects, even if the OS/390 2.5 system is not "directly" connected. This
sort of "leapfrogging" has certainly happened before, and unfortunately
it's safe to say it'll happen again. However, I assume Mark at RSM is
already extremely familiar with these significant and growing risks. I
agree with Brian that there are some organizations (and people within them)
that don't seem to make rational decisions. If this site happens to be
within my part of the planet (a large part of it), perhaps I can help, but
please contact me offline.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy Sipples
IT Architect Executive, Industry Solutions, IBM Z and LinuxONE, AP/GCG/MEA
E-Mail: ***@sg.ibm.com

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to ***@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Timothy Sipples
2017-11-29 09:39:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
IBM were saying how great it was at parallelizing work, however that
is a bit of a red flag for me.
OK, but one must mark such instincts to market. IBM introduced zAAPs just
over 13 years ago, and one site quickly put that technology into production
on September 1, 2004. In their case they doubled their execution threads
(as I recall), literally overnight, in the late night hours across August
31, 2004, and September 1, 2004. Later, zIIPs supplanted zAAPs, and
starting with the IBM z13 each zIIP now has two threads of execution
(SMT2). If you run non-trivial Java workloads on z/OS, you're virtually
guaranteed to have at least three physical threads of execution for those
workloads on IBM z13 and higher machine models. If a workload can take
maximum advantage of all these CP+zIIP threads, terrific.

Also, mainframers (and others) frequently use the word "parallel"
colloquially to refer to job steps, particularly in batch, that can be
scheduled to run at the same time -- that step #2 doesn't have to wait for
step #1 to complete its work. So if step #1 is waiting for some I/O or
whatever, no problem, even a single processor can give some attention to
step #2. And that's also terrific. If you're trying to optimize program
execution, "parallelizing" each step insofar as possible is magical stuff.
As another example, IBM's Scalable Architecture for Financial Reporting
(SAFR) uses such language, colloquially at least.

Heck, even "uniprocessor" System/360 and especially System/370 machines
embodied parallel execution principles, especially in the I/O subsystems
and channel architecture. It's terrific that the I/O devices can and do
carry out their responsibilities, in parallel, while the main processors do
something else.

Anyway, I get your point, that the P word might have caused some anxiety in
the past. It the past (and to some diminishing extent now) it meant
throwing more CPU at a problem to solve it. When one is focused on resource
efficiency and scalability then throwing any resources at a problem is not
ideal. But I wouldn't over-interpret that word, especially nowadays. Thank
goodness work can be parallelized.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy Sipples
IT Architect Executive, Industry Solutions, IBM Z and LinuxONE, AP/GCG/MEA
E-Mail: ***@sg.ibm.com

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to ***@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Andrew Rowley
2017-11-29 10:06:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Timothy Sipples
Anyway, I get your point, that the P word might have caused some anxiety in
the past. It the past (and to some diminishing extent now) it meant
throwing more CPU at a problem to solve it. When one is focused on resource
efficiency and scalability then throwing any resources at a problem is not
ideal. But I wouldn't over-interpret that word, especially nowadays. Thank
goodness work can be parallelized.
I was referring specifically to the example of Spark doing SMF
reporting. Yes, parallel processing in the general case is very useful
to reduce wall clock time. However, it generally requires more CPU for
synchronization etc. Using additional CPU on z/OS to cut the elapsed
time of something like SMF reporting is probably not the best way to go.
Reducing overall CPU usage is more desirable.

On the other hand, for CPU bound SMF reports on a PC, parallel
processing would be the first choice because you probably have multiple
cores sitting idle.

That's how I work with my products. If it's on the PC, I try my best to
parallelize to minimize user wait. If it's on z/OS, I try to cut overall
CPU usage and parallel processing is not a priority.

--

Andrew Rowley

Black Hill Software

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to ***@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Timothy Sipples
2017-11-29 10:00:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Timothy Sipples may have more to add.
I do, a little.

First of all, if IBM Program Number 5655-AAB (IBM z/OS Platform for Apache
Spark) is still available from IBM ShopZ, you might as well order it, now.
There's no additional charge for that program number. But if it's still
available, it'll be a "happy accident," because IBM withdrew this program
number from marketing on September 11, 2017.

Fortunately there's a much newer and better version of Apache Spark
available, and it includes Anaconda and Python. That whole package is
called IBM Open Data Analytics for z/OS, IBM Program Number 5655-OD1. IzODA
became generally available on September 8, 2017. There is a (modest) charge
for this one, but at the same time IBM introduced a no charge, zero install
trial, available here:

https://www.ibm.com/systems/z/trials.html

More information here:

https://izoda.github.io

Watson & Walker's Spark-SMF landing page is here:

http://watsonwalker.com/software/watson-walker-spark-zos-support/

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy Sipples
IT Architect Executive, Industry Solutions, IBM Z and LinuxONE, AP/GCG/MEA
E-Mail: ***@sg.ibm.com

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to ***@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Andrew Rowley
2017-11-29 10:15:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
http://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/watsonwalker/ww/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/28073651/Spark-and-SMF.pdf
I have seen various presentations. My experience has been that SQL is
very limiting when it comes to SMF reports. Most of the reports I do
would be difficult or impossible, or would require multiple data passes
to get the data using SQL.
--
Andrew Rowley
***@blackhillsoftware.com

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to ***@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Loading...