Devices you want to see intermittently are not in the "never" category 

and, as you noted, require different treatment than "never".

Brian Nielsen

On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 09:41:22 -0700, Schuh, Richard <rsc...@visa.com> wrot
e:

>Sorry, but there are the intermittent times when we need to see some of 

them. When needed, that can be accomplished via command, without requirin
g 
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
>> ========================
=========================
=======================

Reply via email to