Barbara Nitz wrote:
[snip]
thanks for basically asking the same questions I have asked in the ETR I had opened. I
was given to understand (not as clearly, of course) that I have no idea what I am talking
about. And why do I even question IBMs "best practises"? As this has happened
for *every* HC ETR I have ever opened (and also for quite a few emails that I had
exchanged in hopes of improving the product) I have resolved to not bother anymore. If I
cannot make a check fit, I just delete it. We have a line in every checklist that says
'get HC to shut up'. And we installed the downloadable version before we migrated to 1.6,
so we've been putting up with HC for a long time.
1) I hope someone at IBM is paying attention to this.
The only reason we still start the STC is that *very few* checks actually do
make sense, the RACF_sensitive_resources being among them. Another is the RSM
MAXCADS check, as this is the only way to actually see how many CADS are in use
short of taking a dump. (It may be that showmvs also reports on this.)
I've found these to be extremely useful checks as well.
One thing helping to keep our platform down is sysprogs that fail to
enable new function year after year. Another good reason for checks is
to get those "Luddites" to enable "missing" functionality on their
systems. A message that must be explained ... well ... must be explained.
To me it appears that IBM is promoting the health checker as a way to prevent customers from using
the variety of options that z/OS supports (just to make life for the support groups easier). To
that effect, every component gets beaten to write a 'health check'. Hence some duplicate checks,
some extremely poor documentation, some checks that I consider plain stupid, and a lot that appear
to be written hastily (we call that "unloved" in German-"lieblos") and not
thought out. If you don't distort your installation to follow those so-called 'best practises', IBM
will basically tell you that you're on your own, and if you don't do it, it's your own fault if you
have problems.
My sense is that various z/OS components have been told they *must*
write checks. That might not have been the best approach.
I still consider the *idea* of looking at best practises very valid and very
good, but not how HC implements it, and not what I consider IBMs
closedmindedness about the product and its checks.
2) I hope someone at IBM is paying attention to this.
--
Edward E Jaffe
Phoenix Software International, Inc
5200 W Century Blvd, Suite 800
Los Angeles, CA 90045
310-338-0400 x318
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.phoenixsoftware.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
