Ah - yes - I remember! - Didn't we go out on Bob Halem's boat in San
Francisco together?

We are on MVS and happy with it.

From time to time, we have proposed installing department ADSM solutions that
would use a specific server platform - usually NT, but also OS/2 and AIX -
the issue has been usually either a large amount of data that needs to be
treated similarly, or the situation is a remote site.  No one has implemented
these yet, but we are hopeful.....

Jerry Lawson.


______________________________ Forward Header __________________________________
Subject: FW: TCP/IP Problems
Author:  INTERNET.WENDRRO at SNADGATE
Date:    1/21/98 9:52 PM


Jerry,
I worked with you are Guide a few years when I was in Storage.  Hope you are
doing good...  I am on a study team to determine the best!? platform for
ADSM.  Did you implement on MVS? If not can you tell me any reason not to
implement ADSM on MVS?
Regards,

Richard Wendrock
Texaco Inc.


> ----------
> From:  Jerry Lawson[SMTP:jlawson AT THEHARTFORD DOT COM]
> Sent:  Wednesday, January 21, 1998 6:06 PM
> To:  ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> Subject:  TCP/IP Problems
>
> ---------------------------- Forwarded with Changes
> ---------------------------
> From: Jerry Lawson at ASUPO
> Date: 1/21/98 9:34AM
> To: internet.adsml at SNADGATE
> Subject: TCP/IP Problems
> ---------------------------- Forwarded with Changes
> ---------------------------
> From: INTERNET.OWNERAD at SNADGATE
> Date: 1/20/98 9:22PM
> To: Jerry Lawson at ASUPO
> *To: *ADSM-L at SNADGATE
> Subject: TCP/IP Problems
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -----
> I posted this early today, but it doesn't seem to have been distributed,
> so
> I'll send it again.  If you already got it, I apologize for the
> duplication -
> but at least I used recycled electrons for this note.
>
 > Jerry
>
> ______________________________ Forward Header
> __________________________________
> Subject: TCP/IP Problems
> Author:  Jerry Lawson at ASUPO
> Date:    1/21/98 9:34 AM
>
>
> Ginny -
>
> We have had major problems with TCP/IP 3.2, trying to go to high levels of
> TCP/IP maintenance. We run MVS 5.2, with our ADSM server at level 13.  The
> problems, as I remember them were timeout problems - we would loose
> sessions
> all through the night.  I would see ANR0480, ANR0481, and ANR0482 messages
> in
> my log depending on how the communication was lost between client and
> server.
>  We did not pin down what caused the problems.
>
> There have been some postings here to the effect that you should apply PTF
> UQ03848 to solve all of your problems with TCP/IP 3.2, and I think for
> some
> environments, this may be ok.  However, we HAD the problem when UQ03848
> was
> applied, so I do not think it is a panacea.  As always, there is other
> baggage here - we applied UQ03848 with 15 other PTFs to IP that addressed
> problems we were having with another TCP/IP application.  The problem is
> undoubtedly in there somewhere, but at the time, IBM had no idea where the
> problem was.
>
> To solve our problem, we have had to back off the IP maintenance.  We have
> been talking to IBM, and they finally closed some PTFs that are supposed
> to
> address the problems we had.  We are in the process of trying to reapply
> the
> maintenance, but will not be able to for a little while yet, as we are in
> a
> period of "heightened awareness" for year end processing.
>
> Jerry Lawson
> jlawson AT thehartford DOT com
>
>
> ______________________________ Forward Header
> __________________________________
> Subject: TCP/IP Problems
> Author:  INTERNET.OWNERAD at SNADGATE
> Date:    1/20/98 9:22 PM
>
>





> Hey, everyone,
>
>      Our TCPIP folks here installed some maintenance last Thursday, 1/15.
> On Saturday,
> 1/17 we had a scheduled shop shutdown, at which time ADSM was recycled.
> Ever since
> that time we have experienced major problems with scheduled backups
> failing, as well
>  as batch production jobs that initiate a TSO client session with the
 > server.  What's wierd is
> that not all backups fail, and not all production jobs fail.  Only those
> jobs that initiate more
> than one session fail (always when the second session is initiated); and I
> have yet to figure
> out a common thread for the client backups failing; they are not all of
> the
> same platform,
> however.
>
>      Has anyone had a similar problem RECENTLY?  We are running TCPIP 3.2
> at
> 9407+, MVS server 2.1 and most of the clients failing so far are NT 4.0
> and
> UNIX, some
> NetWare.  I am not a TCPIP person, but I understand that the maintenance
> applied was
> very recently issued and was supposed to alleviate problems with CCB (?)
> buffer space.
>
>      I know it's not much to go on - but it's all I got so far!
>
>                               Ginny
>