Is this RNL correct?

2008-06-30 Thread McKown, John
We had some DFHSM problems over the weekend (deadly embrace) on our basic sysplex. Looking at the output of some commands that I have automation issue, I found what I think may be a problem with an RNL entry: RNLDEF RNL(EXCL) TYPE(GENERIC) QNAME(SYSZVVDS) Should this be removed or changed to:

Re: Is this RNL correct?

2008-06-30 Thread Mark Zelden
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 08:49:34 -0500, McKown, John [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We had some DFHSM problems over the weekend (deadly embrace) on our basic sysplex. Looking at the output of some commands that I have automation issue, I found what I think may be a problem with an RNL entry: RNLDEF

Re: Is this RNL correct?

2008-06-30 Thread Jimmy Wagner
John, The exclude version of the RNL is what we have here. No issues since it was set up by IBM during a MIM to GRS conversion over 3 years ago. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to

Re: Is this RNL correct?

2008-06-30 Thread Bobbie Justice
We use the GRS RNL Pattern Conversion list for all three of the below. from II10752: The resource SYSIGGV2 MUST be converted to a SYSTEMS enqueue when using catalogs in ECS mode. Failure to do so will result in damage to catalogs in ECS mode. This is applicable to