system, is
there a way to add logic to the system config file to control which DASD I want
online and which I vary offline at IPL time, without customizing the IOCP..
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2010 10:26:02 -0500
From: r...@velocitysoftware.com
Subject: Re: Devices OFFLINE at IPL
To: IBMVM
, July 14, 2010 2:01 PM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: Devices OFFLINE at IPL
On Wednesday, 07/14/2010 at 02:03 EDT, Gregg
reed.gr...@gmail.com wrote:
So if it can't be controlled at the LParr, then priv class
C(B too?)
needs to be locked down to the few MVS security folk
cliffordjackson...@msn.com
Sent by: The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
07/15/2010 10:24 AM
Please respond to
The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
To
IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
cc
Subject
Re: Devices OFFLINE at IPL
I have a production site and a DR site
Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf
Of Mike Walter
Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2010 8:48 AM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: [IBMVM] Devices OFFLINE at IPL
Yes! Use the Record Qualifiers capability of the SYSTEM CONFIG file.
For example:
System_ID 2094 %%1234 PRODVM
From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf
Of clifford jackson
Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2010 8:25 AM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: Devices OFFLINE at IPL
I have a production site and a DR site, the production site is being
: Thursday, July 15, 2010 9:15 AM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: [IBMVM] Devices OFFLINE at IPL
Presumably, if you are at the DR site, your main site is unavailable. That may
be all you really need.
One possibility, procedural instead of program logic, would be to use the
SALIPL screen
@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
To
IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
cc
Subject
Re: Devices OFFLINE at IPL
The drawback to Mike's approach is that your system name changes at your
DR site. That would cause more problems than it would solve for us.
Dennis
Yep, that was one consideration
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 09:14:33 -0700
From: rsc...@visa.com
Subject: Re: Devices OFFLINE at IPL
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Presumably, if you are at the DR site, your main site is
unavailable. That may be all you really need.
One possibility
Would the following be the proper way to specify devices, in the SYSTEM CONFIG
file, that I
don't want to come online at an IPL:
Devices ,
Online_at_IPL -,
Sensed -,
Offline_at_IPL 0500-050F
Thanks,
Billy
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Devices OFFLINE at IPL
Would the following be the proper way to specify devices, in the SYSTEM
CONFIG file, that I don't want to come online at an IPL:
Devices ,
Online_at_IPL -,
Sensed -
That's one way, as long as the device numbers are never, ever used in
this VM system. If they are, on the next IPL it will cause a little
problem.
Another possibility is to have an exec go through the DASD device list
and vary off the devices based on whether the volume 'belongs' to the VM
, Your gun, your bullet, your
foot.
Regards,
Richard Schuh
-Original Message-
From: The IBM z/VM Operating System
[mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Rich Smrcina
Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 8:26 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
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
Isn't Not_accepted/Not_Sensed(unsupported) more to do with how CP
handles devices Dynamically defined/added by a different
LPar(Not_Accepted, specifically)?
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 12:41 PM, Schuh, Richard rsc...@visa.com wrote:
Sorry, but there are the intermittent times when we need to see
, 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
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
For certain.
Regards,
Richard Schuh
-Original Message-
From: The IBM z/VM Operating System
[mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Gregg
Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 11:03 AM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: Devices OFFLINE at IPL
So if it can't
a device dynamically
added to the LPAR.
Regards,
Richard Schuh
-Original Message-
From: The IBM z/VM Operating System
[mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Gregg
Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 9:52 AM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: Devices OFFLINE at IPL
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2010 12:10:40 -0700
From: rsc...@visa.com
Subject: Re: Devices OFFLINE at IPL
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
If a device is sensed and there is a device present, a VMDBK is built for it
regardless of its online/offline status. There may be other blocks created
I don't know, give it a try; from LP1 define a device on LP2 that has
a CU w/paths candidate/access lists. If LP2 has not_accepted it won't
show up... w/o intervention, such as cp set accepted... then if you're
wild enough to have 2 LPars w/DynIO enabled, you can steel the cookie
and define a
We have already been doing it for a few years.
Regards,
Richard Schuh
-Original Message-
From: The IBM z/VM Operating System
[mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Gregg
Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 1:06 PM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: Devices OFFLINE
Cheers! give me a logon and priv class... naw. I could be wrong, I
have been wrong, let's run w/that.
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 4:25 PM, Schuh, Richard rsc...@visa.com wrote:
We have already been doing it for a few years.
Regards,
Richard Schuh
--
Gregg Reed
No Plan, survives execution
On Wednesday, 07/14/2010 at 02:03 EDT, Gregg reed.gr...@gmail.com wrote:
So if it can't be controlled at the LParr, then priv class C(B too?)
needs to be locked down to the few MVS security folk trust.
- Never give privilege class C to anyone who is not a trained AND trusted
z/VM systems
24 matches
Mail list logo
