On Fri, 30 Mar 2012 08:36:50 -0500, Elardus Engelbrecht
<elardus.engelbre...@sita.co.za> wrote:
>Mark Zelden wrote:
>
>>Rant of the day...
>
>Rant of the month? :-D
>
>>but why do I have to go and delete GRS and XCF health checks on my monoplex
>>LPARs??? Sure I can add AUTHQLVL(2) to GRSCNF00, but I pick up the default
>>from IBM.PARMLIB. We don't need no stinkin' XCF transport classes on these
>>monoplex LPARs either!
>
>What about making [persistent] changes to HZSPRMxx to get in 'good feel
>better' mode? :-)
>
That's what I was referring to. What good would it have been to just issue a
"P"
command in SDSF. But I wouldn't have to do stuff like this if IBM
put a little more thought into some of these checks. Just sayin....
ADDREPLACE POLICY STMT(GRS_AUTHQ_POL)
DELETE CHECK(IBMGRS,GRS_AUTHQLVL_SETTING)
REASON('GRS not used in monoplex')
DATE(20120330)
ADDREPLACE POLICY STMT(XCF_MONOPLEX)
DELETE CHECK(IBMXCF,XCF*)
REASON('Deleted XCF checks for monplex.')
DATE(20120330)
Overall, I like Health Checker and have used it since "day one".
Mark
--
Mark Zelden - Zelden Consulting Services - z/OS, OS/390 and MVS
mailto:m...@mzelden.com
Mark's MVS Utilities: http://www.mzelden.com/mvsutil.html
Systems Programming expert at http://expertanswercenter.techtarget.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
