The point was to avoid changing code to handle a variety of system names. IDENTIFY is no help in that regard.
Besides, my system name stays the same when I go to DR and run on a CP instead of an IFL. Brian Nielsen On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 11:36:53 -0700, Schuh, Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrot e: >If that is all you need, then the IDENTIFY command is as good as anything, and much easier than most. You can base your actions on the nod e name. > >Regards, >Richard Schuh > > -----Original Message----- >From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Nielsen >Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 11:31 AM >To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU >Subject: Re: Can I verify zVM is running on an IFL? > >Right now I only run z/VM in an IFL LPAR, but may eventually also run it = > >in a CP LPAR. > >I can see where it might be nice to be able to base actions on LPAR type = > >rather than on system name in EXECs common to all systems. Doing so wou l= >d >reduce the work required when adding new systems (1st level or 2nd level )= >. > >Knowing may or may not have some application at Disaster Recovery where w= >e >recover on a CP instead of an IFL. > >There may also be value to knowing when running a CSE complex. > >Brian Nielsen > > >On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 13:19:52 -0400, Alan Altmark <[EMAIL PROTECTED] m= >> >wrote: > >>On Tuesday, 06/13/2006 at 12:00 AST, "Stracka, James (GTI)" >><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Works great! Thank you. >> >>Like Mr. Bitner, I too would be interested to know how folks intend to u= >se >>this information. I'm not denying the need, but want to understand the >>importance. The only one I've seen so far is: >>- Verify that the LPAR is configured correctly >======================== ========================= =======================
