Nope. Just use a different name (it must start with IXC). Obviously you have to add it to pathin/pathout in COUPLExx to be available at IPL time, but you can add it dynamically while your LPAR(s) are still up to verify it is working.
PATHIN STRNAME(IXCSTR1,IXCSTR2) PATHOUT STRNAME(IXCSTR1,IXCSTR2) One thing you may want to look at (although I'm not sure if it will help) are the RMF CF and XCF reports from the one system that is up for the time frame when you IPL the other 15 LPARs. Mark -- Mark Zelden Sr. Software and Systems Architect - z/OS Team Lead Zurich North America / Farmers Insurance Group - ZFUS G-ITO mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] z/OS and OS390 expert at http://searchDataCenter.com/ateExperts/ Systems Programming expert at http://expertanswercenter.techtarget.com/ Mark's MVS Utilities: http://home.flash.net/~mzelden/mvsutil.html On Fri, 5 Oct 2007 13:27:06 -0400, Chris Burgess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Thanks Mark for the info. I have not tried an additional structure, we only have one now. Is there any trick to setting up a second? > > >Thanks, >Chris Burgess > EMC² >where information lives > >Phone: 1-800-445-2588 x42149 > 1-508-249-2149 >Pager: 1-877-443-8447 >Fax: 1-508-544-2076 >Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >-----Original Message----- >From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Zelden >Sent: Friday, October 05, 2007 12:00 PM >To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU >Subject: Re: IXC454I messages > >On Fri, 5 Oct 2007 09:41:04 -0500, Chris Burgess ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>I have trying to research the cause of IXC454I messages when we IPL and >>have come up empty. We have a test environment where we bring up one >>LPAR (to initialize the Sysplex) and when complete, we bring up 15 more in one >>shot. A few will come up completely and others get IXC454I messages. We are >>running a z/9 BC with 4 CP's and one SAP. The CF is internal and we are using >>IC's and a list structure for communications. The LPARs are a mixture of z/OS >>1.6-1.9. We tried increasing the IC's to 8 and the results were the same. We >>have another z/9 BC that has 4 CP's, 1 ICF and 2 SAPs. We see the same >>issues there. Any help would be much appreciated. >> > >I know you only have 1 CF and you probably don't want to define CTCs >for XCF signaling, but have you tried additional signaling structures? >Even if you aren't using transport classes, there can be a benefit to >having multiple structures in use for the same CF. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
