IMHO duplicate names are undesirable; you can avoid them by implementing appropriate naming conventions. Ideally the names should be constructed from a combination of the IPL volume serial and the LPAR name.
-- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 ________________________________________ From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of Matt Hogstrom [m...@hogstrom.org] Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2022 8:59 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: SYSPLEX / SYSNAME / SMFID stability We had an internal debate about the stability of SYSNAME and smfID in a sysplex. The discussion was that smfID is not stable and can be changed and that there can be more than one system in a sysplex with the same sysname / smfid. I haven’t had a chance to try it out but the argument seems to be counterintuitive that anyone would use the same SYSNAME / SMFID in a SYSPLEX. The IBM documents to not specifically say that it is not allowed but I’m curious if anyone has seen such a configuration / can think of a reason why you would do that. The problem I’m trying to get a handle on is to uniquely identify a z/OS instance over time and the SYSPLEX.SYSNAME seemed like a good combination (I still think that they will be stable over time) but I thought I’d pose the question to the brain trust here. Another proposal was to use the hostname / domain name as unique but it seems that you can have multiple instances of those depending on how many TCPIP stacks you are running in a z/OS instance. Thoughts? Matt Hogstrom m...@hogstrom.org “It may be cognitive, but, it ain’t intuitive." — Hogstrom ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
