<whine> I'm a small site, but I don't have these problems. But that's only because I haven't had time and priority to actually get Healthchecker running yet. Just a couple monoplexs here, Healthchecker and several others assume full sysplex in the doc on how to get is up and running. </whine> -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Shane Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 4:51 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Running with SQA/ESQA > 100% CHECK(IBMVSM,VSM_SQA_THRESHOLD) doesn't allow that as normal
On Mon, 2007-09-10 at 10:53 +0200, Barbara Nitz wrote: > But: I am curious how many other folk delete health checker checks > because they're just plain stupid. I'm sure we've been here before. IBMs defaults have typically been "subject to discussion". The health checker is based on the (recommended ???) defaults ... I'm sure Scott and I "discussed" this over a beer or two (there were quite a few on offer) a few years back in Long Beach. Like Barbara, I'd also like to see some justification for the alerts. Some of them are just inane - especially for smaller sites that may lack experienced staff. Shane ... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
