Hi John,
Very cool - but don't do too much too soon ;-) Linda ----- Original Message ----- From: "John McKown" <joa...@swbell.net> To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 11:23:48 AM Subject: Re: 1.12 upgrade, required PTFs I missed. Thank you very much. I'm now on partial "work from" status. On Thu, 2011-06-16 at 15:42 -0400, Ken Klein wrote: > z/OS V1R10.0 MVS Planning Operations > SA22-7601-09 > > z/OS® console support can be operated in one of two modes: shared mode > |and distributed mode. > > | > IPL option > | > IEASYSxx and IPL prompt CON= parameter: > | > | > CON=(...,DISTRIBUTED) to operate in DISTRIBUTED mode > | > CON=(...,SHARED) to continue to operate in SHARED mode > > > In a future release, the ability to operate in shared mode will be > removed. > > > Kenneth Klein > > > > John McKown <joa...@swbell.net> > Sent by: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu> > 06/14/2011 11:57 AM > Please respond to > IBM Mainframe Discussion List <IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu> > > > To > IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu > cc > > Subject > Re: 1.12 upgrade, required PTFs I missed. > > > > > > > never heard of either. where is that specified? > > On Tue, 2011-06-14 at 11:18 -0400, Ken Klein wrote: > > Interesting John, as we are migrating v.10 to v.12 as well. But we are > > still running con=shared and not con=(distributed,... > > Did you go to "distributed" with your consoles? > > > > Kenneth Klein > > kenneth klein tema toyota com > > > > > > > > John McKown <joa...@swbell.net> > > Sent by: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu> > > 06/13/2011 04:35 PM > > Please respond to > > IBM Mainframe Discussion List <IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu> > > > > > > To > > IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu > > cc > > > > Subject > > 1.12 upgrade, required PTFs I missed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Someone asked what PTFs I missed that stopped our 1.10 to 1.12 upgrade. > > > > APAR OA32522. PTF ua54267 for 1.12 and ua54265 on 1.10 . I had neither > > one applied. > > > > This is my first sysplex upgrade and I am ignorant. Our test sysplex is > > a singe image sysplex and my usual tests showed no problems. I really > > don't much like our basic, 2 image, sysplex. It was forced due to > > politics. And the programmers still don't have want they argued for: a > > guaranteed amount of CPU during month end. They used to be in low > > importance WLM classes in an initiator. Now the initiators in their > > image are usually all drained to give their CPU to production. The only > > one who likes it is my manager, for system level testing of z/OS and > > program products. > > > -- John McKown Maranatha! <>< ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
