CMS2@ETSU.BITNET (Bill Williams) (02/01/90)
On Wed, 31 Jan 90 16:18:02 EST Martha McConaghy said: >Bill, >CMS 5.5 is currently the only CMS supported under VM/XA SP. For some reason, >the CMS under SP 2.1 is called CMS 5.6, but doesn't really have any new >function. Typical. You can bet they've hidden something in there where you least expect it. :-) >Shared File System (SFS) is only supported under CMS 6 and up(?). CMS 6 is >not supported under VM/XA SP. In fact, it checks the CP level when CMS >IPL's and abends if you are on XA (I'm sure someone has bypassed this already) This is interesting. Just for the sake of "how bout this" to those who have not experienced SP R6... Maintenance of certain components relies on the SFS -- TSAF, GCS, VTAM just to name 3 off the top of my head. This is what prompted my original question of "is SFS on XA's CMS" -- the use of SFS for MAINT's purposes seemed to forshadow a trend, here. We all know that IBM is very trendy about this stuff. ;-) >Martha By the way, Thanks to all of you who have commented on this question. Your remarks are invaluable. ---------- B.R.Wms
URMM@MARIST.BITNET (Martha McConaghy) (02/03/90)
>This is interesting. Just for the sake of "how bout this" to those who >have not experienced SP R6... Maintenance of certain components relies on >the SFS -- TSAF, GCS, VTAM just to name 3 off the top of my head. >This is what prompted my original question of "is SFS on XA's CMS" -- the >use of SFS for MAINT's purposes seemed to forshadow a trend, here. >We all know that IBM is very trendy about this stuff. ;-) You're kidding, aren't you??? They are really using SFS for maintenance???!!! UGH! We were planning to avoid it as long as we could. We run MUSIC/SP which gives us all we need in terms of file sharing and didn't want to have to deal with the headaches at this point. At the risk of sounding negative, I have a bad feeling that could become the sequel we were all dreading, "Son of SES". Martha
RWWMAINT@MSU.BITNET (Rich Wiggins) (02/03/90)
>This is what prompted my original question of "is SFS on XA's CMS" -- the >use of SFS for MAINT's purposes seemed to forshadow a trend, here. The most serious complaint about SES is how slow it is. As a result, people hate to have to restart long SES sessions. Time after time I've heard speakers say "So, if you have to restart SES because, say, a minidisk has filled up...." It's probably the most common culprit. So, indirectly, the old problem of having to overallocate minidisks -- wasting a lot of space in little segments instead of pooling your unused disk as a single common resource -- becomes important for SES. For that reason, use of SFS for Maint's purposes could be a big step forward. /Rich Wiggins Michigan State U
LVARIAN@PUCC.BITNET (Lee C. Varian) (02/03/90)
Martha, I believe that in CMS6 the assembler actually uses workfiles in SFS. Yes, I know that's hard to believe. Lee Varian Princeton University
ERIC@SEARN.BITNET (Eric Thomas) (02/03/90)
>Martha, I believe that in CMS6 the assembler actually uses workfiles in >SFS. Yes, I know that's hard to believe. Wonderful. How do I re-assemble a piece of CMS after installing a fix for a bug in SFS? Ooops, sorry, how can I have been so stupid and forgotten about OCO? Anyway, what I've read recently on this list strongly suggests that SFS really stands for 'a Sequel For SES'... You know what? I'm *badly* glad I've moved to a SESless machine :-) :-) Eric
CHUCK@NCSUVM.NCSU.EDU (Chuck Kesler) (02/06/90)
In article <VMXA-L%90020219025418@UGA.BITNET>, "Lee C. Varian" <LVARIAN@PUCC.BITNET> says: >Martha, I believe that in CMS6 the assembler actually uses workfiles >in SFS. Yes, I know that's hard to believe. Must be a nasty rumor. I haven't looked at the code, but I can assemble things under CMS6 with no SFS server machines logged on without any problems. Perhaps if you actually have a SFS directory accessed, ASSEMBLE will make use of it for work files, but that seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to try to do. Except for having to use it to apply service to GCS/VTAM/et al (and there may be ways around that), an SP6 system can be run without SFS with no ill side effects...we've been doing it for going on 6 months now. -Chuck
CMS2@ETSU.BITNET (Bill Williams) (02/06/90)
On Fri, 2 Feb 90 11:04:46 EST Martha McConaghy said: >>This is interesting. Just for the sake of "how bout this" to those who >>have not experienced SP R6... Maintenance of certain components relies on >>the SFS -- TSAF, GCS, VTAM just to name 3 off the top of my head. > >You're kidding, aren't you??? They are really using SFS for maintenance???!!! Martha, would I kid about a thing like this? I haven't had much to do with the SP6 system -- I just installed it and have not made any extensive trials of the pros & cons of SFS. (I've got SP5 on my "real" system over here.) Without judging bugs factor or performance index, I am happy with the *idea* of a SFS available; I could certainly use one over here on SP5 for certain special archives, etc. ---------- B.R.Wms
SBR@CORNELLC.BITNET (Steve Roberts) (02/06/90)
>>Martha, I believe that in CMS6 the assembler actually uses workfiles >>in SFS. Yes, I know that's hard to believe. > >Must be a nasty rumor. I haven't looked at the code, but I can assemble >things under CMS6 with no SFS server machines logged on without any >problems. Perhaps if you actually have a SFS directory accessed, ASSEMBLE >will make use of it for work files, but that seems like a perfectly >reasonable thing to try to do. Except for having to use it to apply >service to GCS/VTAM/et al (and there may be ways around that), an SP6 >system can be run without SFS with no ill side effects...we've been doing >it for going on 6 months now. We're XA, not SP6, but I suspect that the above is due to the fact that, if you have an SFS directory accessed, QUERY DISK MAX will ALWAYS return the filemode of the SFS directory, even if you've got an empty full-pack A-disk. Sigh. Steve