On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 12:21:08 +0200, Barbara Nitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>I am now advocating leaving VTAM as a lower priority task to pre-empt >>such lock-outs. Is this sensible? > >Well, I would not do it if it were an online system running IMS or CICS >relying on a VTAM connection to get data to and fro to the terminals. The >rule of thumb says that the server has to have at least the same dp as those >it gives service to. If at the same time you get the onlines below VTAM, >this may work out (not that I advocate doing this). Hmmm. The application is IMS DB/DC which runs highish priority. User access is by TCP/IP which is SYSSTC through a couple of session managers also SYSSTC. I think the VTAM interface between the application and the IP network must run in SRB mode - anyone know? IMON shows some correspondence between VTAM and TCPIP SRB usage. In this environment I think my scheme will clobber rogue VTAM users without impacting online IP users. Yes, pacing would be fine, but trying to get the AS400 guys to play ball would be very wearing. MUNGO WANT HAMMER!!!!! Dave ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
