Sorry, but there are the intermittent times when we need to see some of them. When needed, that can be accomplished via command, without requiring an update to the IOCP or LPAR Profile. The MVS security people want us to not even be able to vary them online except in special circumstances; thus, the Not_Accepted status. More proof that, "All generalities are wrong, including this one."
Regards, Richard Schuh > -----Original Message----- > From: The IBM z/VM Operating System > [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Brian Nielsen > Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 9:16 AM > To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU > Subject: Re: Devices OFFLINE at IPL > > If you never want to see certain devices in the VM LPAR then > the IOCP should be coded to not allow that LPAR to access the devices. > > Brian Nielsen > > On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 09:03:33 -0700, Schuh, Richard > <rsc...@visa.com> wrot= > e: > > >We have thousands of devices in the IOCP that we never want > to see on > >ou= > r > VM system; however, there are some we do need to access from > VM intermixe= d with them. In this case, we find it better to > add yet another category, = > > Not_Accepted, which prevents the devices from being sensed > and the building of control blocks for them. This prevents > bloat in the use of = > > storage and in any monitor displays or reports. If you went > ahead and sensed the devices and took them offline after the > IPL, the device blocks= > > would be built for them and they could affect the way space > is allocated = > > and used in your monitor segment. > > > >As with all things that affect the configuration, you must take care > >whe= > n > specifying that devices are to be kept offline or not even > sensed. It is = > > certainly best to insure that you do not include devices > which you need i= n the offline or Not_Accepted lists. As we > like to say, "Your gun, your bullet, your foot." > > > >Regards, > >Richard Schuh >
