On Sat, 28 Jul 2012, Michael MacIsaac wrote:
> function enableDevice { chccwdev -e $1; udevadm settle; }
>
> and always call that function instead chccwdev -e. So my question is
> still: "If a udevadm settle is always required after a chccwdev -e, then
> why is it not just built into the command?
Sebastian,
> So I still think it is sufficient to do:
> chccwdev -e xxx ;udevadm settle ;dasdfmt xxx
... which is somewhat the conclusion I came to with the previous test
script. So everyone wanting to script with chccwdev -e could write a
function such as:
function enableDevice { chccwdev -e
On Fri, 27 Jul 2012, Florian Bilek wrote:
> I can confirm that the udev settle is returning always with zero. I have
> the timeout set to even to 60 sec and an exit if the device node is
> available. And that is stlll not enough because udev exits. Without exit I
> had set the timeout to 30 secs. O
Roger, One of the Applications we are deploying (AND it is a BIG ONE -
380 SERVERS) is the Fed's PACER court system with Electronic Filings.
We have renamed it to MEC (Mississippi Electronic Court). It eventually
will have a total of 380 servers, 180 On the LPAR's z/VM and the rest on
VMWARE.
Ca
Point Taken, BUT, I might add, this worked on a Z9 where we have about
40 instances on a single LPAR, and one of those was a JAVA resource hog
from out state tax commission. Still only have about 200 more to set up.
Ben Duncan - Business Network Solutions, Inc. 336 Elton Road Jackson
MS, 39212
"N
