On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 07:39:43 -0500, Jousma, David <[email protected]> wrote:
>Thanks Ed, Kees, and Barbara for your responses. > >Yes, a sysplex cold-start is assumed. > >But, I still have this nagging idea in my head though that SMS >controlled volumes have sysplex name on them somewhere. We do have a >separate plex up at times for early z/OS upgrade testing(not up right >now), and I seem to recall that if I try to write data across sysplex >boundaries, I get SMS error messages that the volume is owned by another >plex, and the write fails. Even though the "old" plex name and the >"new" plex name would not have active systems at the same time, wouldn't >the affect be the same? Wouldn't allocations to SMS disk after the >sysplex rename, and subsequent restart fail? > >Does this sound familiar? > THat just means the volume is not defined to SMS in the plex you are in. The message you are seeing is probably "home grown" from the ACS routines. But you bring up another consideration. If you were to rename your sysplex, you need to check the SMS base configuration to see if it is being done by LPAR name (SYSTEM) or SYSPLEX name (SYSGRP) or a combination. If it is being done by sysplex, you want to add the new name prior to changing the sysplex name. I've had to go through this when renaming an LPAR (which is actually worse than renaming a sysplex). Mark -- Mark Zelden Sr. Software and Systems Architect - z/OS Team Lead Zurich North America / Farmers Insurance Group - ZFUS G-ITO mailto:[email protected] z/OS Systems Programming expert at http://expertanswercenter.techtarget.com/ Mark's MVS Utilities: http://home.flash.net/~mzelden/mvsutil.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
