In previous and current assignments I have, in test, destroyed a DB and attempted an IPL, after 45 minutes of bleeding-finger console responses we gave up and IPL'd off a good DB. We have forced the DB offline, fail soft testing, and after 50-70 console responses were able to get 1 TSO user logged on via UADS. Then there was the day I cam into the office and my DB was GONE! Only because I had a recent backup on an available volume, and a handy IBM tech (thank you Russ) we had no real outage and lost only 4 hours of password updates. All of which underscores the point, you want a dozen different options before you are forced to use UADS, and an on-line available copy of the DB is a life saver.
Cheers, Joe On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 9:09 AM, John Eells <ee...@us.ibm.com> wrote: > I would not want to run with such an MPF exit or AUTORxx member active in > production. You can have it there for emergencies and activate it with a > SET command. This keeps the pain level of failsoft mode a lot more > tolerable. We used to have a couple of such exits waiting in the wings for > recovery to automate operator approvals during system recovery, though at > this point I can't recall specifically for what other messages they > automated the responses. > > I absolutely agree with those who express a preference for a one-pack > recovery system, by the way. But I'm a belt-and-suspenders kind of guy and > would still want one more last-ditch recovery option. > > > Skip Robinson wrote: > >> This problem occurs so seldom that I never thought of automating a >> response. As of R12 or so, we now have AUTORxx, which can reply to WTORs >> very early in the IPL. Not sure who here would have to approve such a >> change. The chances of mischief being perpetrated are minimal, but it does >> open a very small window for a clever miscreant. >> >> . >> . >> . >> J.O.Skip Robinson >> Southern California Edison Company >> Electric Dragon Team Paddler >> SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager >> 323-715-0595 Mobile >> jo.skip.robin...@att.net >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >>> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] >>> On Behalf Of Ed Jaffe >>> Sent: Sunday, February 14, 2016 07:37 AM >>> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU >>> Subject: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] UADS (was Re: [Bulk] Re: COBOL v5) >>> >>> On 2/13/2016 8:04 PM, Skip Robinson wrote: >>> >>>> This opinion is based on (thankfully) limited experience. If you are >>>> forced to IPL without a usable RACF data base, you are totally >>>> scr*wed. During IPL, operator will be prompted to allow even READ >>>> access to *every* data set opened by *every* task except for a tiny >>>> handful like JES that bypass integrity. By the time you get to the >>>> point of actually logging on to TSO, operator's fingers will be >>>> bleeding profusely. If at any time during this process, you are >>>> god-forbid required to start over, yet more finger tips will have to >>>> sacrificed. >>>> >>> >>> We solved this with an MPF exit that would always reply 'Y' to each of >>> those >>> prompts (except for the first few IIRC). >>> >> <snip> > > -- > John Eells > IBM Poughkeepsie > ee...@us.ibm.com > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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
