I'm confused. We have use ICC and on one OSA-E and currently we have 7 Consoles and 7 VTAM sessions defined on each of four LPARs for a total of 56 sessions. We can have a max of 120 clients so will be adding some more VTAM sessions. The consoles are defined as NIP consoles and are available and one is the IPL console.
Admittly, we only been up on our z890 since Feb 4 but only had two outages. We lost one out of seven consoles due to a "clear subchannel interrupt missing" and all of them when the network folk took the switch off line. Craig -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Diehl, Gary (MVSSupport) Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 3:44 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: z990 IP Consoles John, Thanks for your comments. On our intranet, we can control who can get into what via firewall rules. We want multiple operators to be able to view the same master console(s) at the same time for proper monitoring, shift turnover, monitoring cross over between multiple office locations, etc. Also, if I'm looking at the console and I want my team mate that is 800 miles away to see what I'm seeing, it's a good thing to have them also be able to get into the same master console and watch me type commands and see what is going on (or vice versa!). AP Viewer allows this. Why can't ICC? I would never expect VTAM to allow multiple connections to the same LU, it's not designed to allow it, but it does allow multiple connections to the same host. A host can have one IP address, and accept multiple clients. Why can't ICC, with it's one IP address, accept multiple clients? Also, the consoles _won't_ autoreconnect after IPL. Or after any kind of error. Not until you go through an annoying set of commands to reset it thoroughly, and then "jump in really quick" to get the first connection, and pray nobody else tries to connect to it, or you have to do it again. Also, the ICC consoles didn't automatically come up after IPL when the CONSOLE address space initialized -- they had to manually be varied on later. I think we would have been happier if we had simply gotten "connection refused" when trying to connect via a second telnet session, rather than an obscure error, a lock-up of console services on the ICC, and an annoying manual recovery process. I'd like to hear from anyone else that has tried the ICC. What are your comments? Did you have the same problems we had? Best regards, Gary Diehl ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
