On Wednesday, 08/09/2006 at 04:23 ZE2, Kris Buelens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > But Alan, I think I do see a real showstopper: > If one issues CP FORCE myserver > - Myserver gets the signal via SHUTTRAP > - Myserver however cannot make a difference between > - FORCE myserver > - SHUTDOWN > for case 1, it must stop itself only, for case 2 it must stop others and > itself. > > So please, tell me how myserver can differenciate. > I see one thing, that may nearly answer my question: issue CP Q SIGNAL > SHUTDOWN; when all those registered users are ending, we can suppose there is a > shutdown. But, it is only SUPPOSE, nothing certain.
You are correct. The signal architecture does not differentiate between LPAR deactivation, SHUTDOWN, FORCE, or LOGOFF. Having support in myserver is because *myserver* needs to do something special to preserve state, and it doesn't matter *why* it is being terminated. This is why my suggestion is not for a common single server to use SHUTTRAP to stop a bunch of other servers. Instead, each server yells "STOP ME" and waits for the auto-op to do it. The auto-op uses SHUTTRAP for its own purposes, specifically to delay the implicit FORCE while it is handling the shutdown (and SEND CP LOGOFF) of other guests. So, if you FORCE an individual guest, only that guest's shutdown procedure is invoked. If it's a SHUTDOWN, they all get invoked. If there is a dependency relationship, then you SHUTTRAP only the *first* server and let the auto-op sequence the shutdown of the others in the relationship. Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott
