I use:
cp spool console to maint eof
Which closes the console after every 50,000 records.
If you need it done at midnight or some other time, you could use VMUTIL, or
some other home grown exec to issue a close on behalf of a disconnected machine.
Tom Duerbusch
THD Consulting
Mike Walter
Back in my IBM days, I used to close all the console spool files every hour.
They went to another DVM on the same system which tracked their timely arrival
and then transferred them to my local DVM, which also tracked them and dealt
them out to Keeper DVM'S. I, or my backup (or OPS), got MSG
Tom (and some others),
The original post indicated use of you could use VMUTIL, or some other
home grown exec to issue a close on behalf of a disconnected machine.
See the text:
Almost every z/VM customer is forced to devise a method to close service
virtual machine consoles at midnight, or
Almost every z/VM customer is forced to devise a method to close service
virtual machine consoles at midnight, or at some time of day. z/VM
old-timers have done this for ages, but new z/VM customers don't often
have the skills necessary to implement automated closures - or even
recognize the
It's probably best not to dictate how *you* want it implemented. Be very specific in
the wording of the requirement and they will figure it out.
On 02/11/2011 01:45 PM, Mike Walter wrote:
Almost every z/VM customer is forced to devise a method to close service virtual
machine consoles at
Those of us who already have ways to do it would need to convert :-(
Actually, having a built-in way to do it would relieve us of the kludges that
we have had to construct and would be one less item that new employees would
have to learn or relearn. It is something that has been missing since
David's comment is a perfect example of the reason Rich is exactly right:
The requirement should specify the effect you want, not the method of
implementation.
And don't forget to include the business case for the enhancement in the
requirement.
Marty
Maybe a good idea, but I doubt it will fly..
With the advent of the FOR command it is simple to put CP FOR abc CMD CLOSE
CONS in a WAKEUP file.
But if they did buy it how about an enhancement to XAUTOLOG with AT
hh:mm:ss?
Come to think of it a full date would be better yet.. AT mm/dd/yy hh:mm:ss
On Friday, 02/11/2011 at 03:10 EST, Martin Zimelis
martin.zime...@gmail.com wrote:
David's comment is a perfect example of the reason Rich is exactly
right: The
requirement should specify the effect you want, not the method of
implementation.
And don't forget to include the business
See? Alan's reply is precisely why I thought it seemed prudent to run it
past others for wider consideration.
I suspect that there will be many new LoZ (a new Linux on System Z
acronym seen recently, and MUCH less to type) customers who will not
purchase IBM OM, or CA VM:Operator, but whom
On Friday, 02/11/2011 at 04:24 EST, Mike Walter
mike.wal...@aonhewitt.com wrote:
See? Alan's reply is precisely why I thought it seemed prudent to run
it
past others for wider consideration.
I suspect that there will be many new LoZ (a new Linux on System Z
acronym seen recently, and MUCH
I do not think turning the virtualization engine (CP) into a scheduler (I'm
talking command/job scheduler here folks) is a good idea. CMS was designed
specifically to be able to 'automate' and issue CP commands as well as CMS
ones (which includes a filesystem, commands to read/write files,
12 matches
Mail list logo
