Damn. My mistake. I thought BEA was newer than that.

Thanks for straightening me out, Tom.

Sorry.
Dave

At 1/26/2007 03:00 PM, EJaffe wrote:

On Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:47:02 -0500, David Cole COLESOFT.COM> wrote:

The Fifth Edition (September, 2005) (SA22-7832-04) has it on
page 4-34 of the PDF. AFAIK, there is no .boo.

--
Tom Marchant

On Fri, 26 Jan 2007 13:30:55 -0600, Chase, John wrote:

previous post
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007c.html#47 SVCs

... and old email on dispatching "disabled" from long ago and far away

To: wheeler
Date: 21 January 1986, 07:11:46 CST
Subject: Dispatcher change for VM/XA

I am planning on changing the XA dispatcher to execute the SIE
instruction with I/O interrupts disabled (external interrupts will
still be enabled). The SIE instruction is a very expensive
instruction and I want to give the virtual machine a chance to do some
productive work before taking an interrupt. With I/O interrupts
disabled, the virtual machine will get to run until it relinquishes
control to CP or hits the end of the dispatcher timeslice. The I/O
supervisor already uses the TPI instruction to process all pending
interrupts before returning control to the dispatcher.

NOTICE:
All information in and attached to the e-mail(s) below may be proprietary, confidential, privileged and otherwise protected from improper or erroneous disclosure. If you are not the sender's intended recipient, you are not authorized to intercept, read, print, retain, copy, forward, or disseminate this message. If you have erroneously received this communication, please notify the sender immediately by phone (704-758-1000) or by e-mail and destroy all copies of this message (electronic, paper, or otherwise). Thank you.

Sorry. Wrong address.

-----Original Message-----
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@ibm-main.lst
Behalf Of Gray, Larry - Larry A
Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 3:11 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject:

SEARCH IBM-MAIN DST

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to listserv@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

NOTICE:
All information in and attached to the e-mail(s) below may be proprietary, confidential, privileged and otherwise protected from improper or erroneous disclosure. If you are not the sender's intended recipient, you are not authorized to intercept, read, print, retain, copy, forward, or disseminate this message. If you have erroneously received this communication, please notify the sender immediately by phone (704-758-1000) or by e-mail and destroy all copies of this message (electronic, paper, or otherwise). Thank you.

SEARCH IBM-MAIN DST

That's a USB-connected stand-alone hard drive, not a memory stick.

At 08:27 AM 1/20/2007, you wrote:

On 19 Jan 2007 13:57:56 -0800, in bit.listserv.ibm-main
(Message-ID:securian.com>)
Jeffrey.Deaver@SECURIAN.COM (Jeffrey Deaver) wrote:

If a company loses its RACF database (and all
backups), it can start over from scratch and eventually
continue running as it was before. Loss of the RACF
database does not permanently restrict access to data.

If a company loses its key database, it could be out
of business, especially if some of its DASD data are
encrypted. I can't think of anything else in IT whose loss
would cripple a company more. (And there are very few
things outside of IT whose loss could be more crippling.)

----------------------------------------------------
I have just looked at a set of 23 security recommendations for a z/OS
shop, prepared by an eminently respectable public accounting firm, of
which three were reasonable, although not very important, and 20 were
preposterous; and the sour tone of this post is perhaps attributable to
that experience.
---------------------------------------------------
If you don't mind, I'd like to see those; I could use a good laugh.
Offlist if you like.