Hi, We have our sandbox system where we run SMP/E - and it's the only system where SMP/E is installed. We do choose to apply maintenance on this running system in general (yes - we know that this may not be the recommended approach). It's a bit theoretical, but should someone manage to apply an RSU, and for some reason not have reviewed/understood the holddata correctly, then we IPL that system to test the maintenance (and because it is officially 'unstable' between maintenance application and IPL). That is the IPL that could put us in a wait state. However in our case we would be able to create the IPL text appropriately from another system in this particular event (that is why I say it is not such a risk for us).
I would prefer the system to issue a warning message + logrec - best of all a WTO prompt saying the system will struggle on, but at extreme risk and no applications should be started until the system is reIPLed correctly. I fear this might start off some other discussion, and I know the scope and impact and risk is totally different, but when I get a Windows message saying I must reboot my workstation or the system may become unstable, I carry on working, and I've never had cause to regret that approach. As I said - it doesn't particularly affect us, but for some it might be possible that they can't run the ICKDSF job appropriately - and by artificially ensuring that the system won't come up in any shape, you are removing one potential capability of an environment to run that one job in certain system configurations. And the reason I triggered was because I don't like the reason "to protect IBM" in this context. I supppose it is also like instances where customers might choose to run unsupported, but a vendor puts a block in the product to stop it running after EOS date, even though it might technically otherwise still work for a customers needs. Best regards, David Tidy IS Technical Management/SAP-Mf Dow Benelux B.V. -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jim Mulder Sent: 29 September 2010 19:44 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: IPLTEXT and NUCLEUS dates IBM Mainframe Discussion List <[email protected]> wrote on 09/29/2010 02:50:34 AM: > Although this isn't too much of a risk for us, I do have to say that > protecting IBM from having to diagnose my problems by putting my SMP/E > system into a wait state doesn't quite match what I would hope for as a > customer. I don't understand what you mean by "putting your SMP/E system into a wait state". The wait state occurs when IPLing the improperly built sysres, not while running SMP/E. How would you prefer the system to behave when it detects mismatched code levels at IPL due to incomplete installation of maintenance, which could lead to unpredictable and possibly disastrous results? Jim Mulder z/OS System Test IBM Corp. Poughkeepsie, NY ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
