On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 16:48:24 +0100, R.S. <r.skoru...@bremultibank.com.pl> wrote:
>Arthur Gutowski wrote: >> Very bizarre. I assume you mean 2084, as 2064 will not allow you to create >> CSS'. BTW, with a 2064 processor, # IM reports consistently with the >> definitions above. > >I mean 2064, z/900. For *the test above* I chose 2064. Single CSS. >However I noticed same discrepancy on XMP machines. > >BTW: number of CSSes shouldn't be a factor, because U command shows >devices accessible from *this CSS* (=CPC for SMP machines). >You cannot type U for 2084 CPC, but you can do it for 2084.CSS OK, bad assumption on my part. The fact that I do not see this discrepancy on a 2064 (z900) with HCD on my system led me astray. I do, however, see it on 2084.CSSx, which I thought was where this started. I agree, it should not be a factor, but apparently something is different. If you're interested in comparing notes (PTF levels), we can pursue offline. Regards, Art Gutowski Ford Motor Company ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
