Craig and Mark You're probably right about "To CLPA or not to CLPA."
It may be my approach to CLPA when I ran my test systems which caused me to find support in that recommendation when no support was really meant to be there. Running my test systems involved frequent IPLing. The systems ran under VM and so IPLing of often 5 and sometimes 8 systems could be a slow process. I had quite a range of products featuring in the LPA list. Thus I was happy to have a stable LPA and eschewed CLPA as much as possible. I can see that the point Mark made about very infrequent IPL, perhaps often prompted just because LPA needed rebuilding, is the very opposite of my view of an MVS environment. I think actually that the recommendation is actually quite the opposite of what my distorted lens found. The suggestion probably assumes that you always start with CLPA but wants to say that you might like to consider having at least one IEASYSxx member which doesn't specify CLPA just in case, on a bad day, you don't happen to be able to read the data sets with the modules to be loaded into LPA and you need to get going - as you probably would, rather urgently, so that you could sort out what had happened to the missing data sets. Chris Mason ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kittendorf, Craig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main To: <IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU> Sent: Thursday, 09 November, 2006 5:39 PM Subject: Re: IPL with CLPA "IBM suggests that you have an IEASYSxx member that does not specify CLPA." I read this as having an IEASYSxx member without CLPA available if needed. Not that you shouldn't do CLPA as normal procedure. Craig -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Zelden Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 9:04 AM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: IPL with CLPA On Thu, 9 Nov 2006 02:49:53 +0100, Chris Mason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >You'll note the recommendation *not* to have CLPA permanently specified in >your IEASYSxx member. > >After a change to the "LPALST concatenation", CLPA need be specified for one >IPL and one IPL only. <snip> That may be the recomendation in the manual, but I think virtually all shops that don't use checkpoint/restart specify it. The extra minute or two during each IPL far outweighs the chances that CLPA will be missed by the operator when you need it. With the operating system being so stable these days (and for a *long* time now), IPLs are often done just to bring in IBM maintenance - which would probably include updates to libraries in the LPA concatenation anyway. Perhaps the recommendation in the manual should be changed with a note added about checkpoint/restart. As a side note... I originally wrote IPLINFO (which at that time consisted of the "IPL section" only with less information than there is today) just to find out if the system was IPLed with CLPA over the weekend if the operator was instructed to do so (this was the same shop that the auditors didn't want it done unless there was a documented change being made). When the CLPA option in IEASYSxx became available, we didn't hesitate to add it in. Mark ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
