Tony: I agree that it is implausible. One customer is in Singapore, the other is in Iowa. If they are using the same service bureau, they haven't told us about it.
Mike Shaw MVS/QuickRef Support Group Chicago-Soft, Ltd. On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 11:06 PM, Tony Harminc <[email protected]> wrote: > On 5 December 2011 16:54, Mike Shaw <[email protected]> wrote: > > Everyone: > > > > The POPs contains the text below within the description of the STIDP > > instruction: > > > > "When the format bit is zero, the contents of the > CPU-identification-number > > field, in conjunction with the machine-type number, permit unique > > identification of the CPU." > > > > Now, I always thought that the text above was stating that the CPU serial > > number (6 chars, of which the rightmost four are useful) was 'guaranteed' > > to be unique across all CPUs manufactured by IBM for that machine-type > > number. However, I've found a case where two different customers of ours > > both have 2817 machine types and the same CPU serial number. > > > > Is this a nomenclature issue? One customer has a 2817-605, and the other > > has a 2817-704. Both boxes have the same CPU serial number. Is the > > 'machine-type number' mentioned in the POPs text above supposed to refer > to > > the type plus sub-model, or just the type? > > > > I thought I understood this until I found this apparent duplicate CPU > > serial number case. > > This seems implausible... Are you sure your customers are not both > using the same service bureau, and that one doesn't sell time to the > other? > > Tony H. > --
