Bill, As one who has been burned in the past by both examples you cited, this "work in progress" gets my endorsement! :-)
Bob -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Neiman Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 3:08 PM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: IXC102D and REPLY DOWN There is work in progress now to design more effective and consistent mechanisms for removing a system from the sysplex without operator intervention. It is highly desirable to eliminate operator prompting in this situation, because a great many outages have occurred over the years when either (1) the operator or automation replies DOWN prematurely and data base corruption occurs as I described earlier, or (2) no one ever replies DOWN, and the sysplex begins to suffer from "sympathy sickness" because resources are held or protocols of one kind or another are impeded by the unresponsive system. Bill Neiman XCF Development ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
