Well, all the modified checks in HZSPRM have the NOCHECK parm on for the date. According to the book, that *should* prevent HC from spitting out this message:
*HZS0420E 1 CHECKS HAVE BEEN FOUND FOR WHICH AT LEAST ONE MATCHING 539 POLICY STATEMENT HAD A DATE OLDER THAN THE CHECK DATE. THE POLICY STATEMENTS WERE NOT APPLIED TO THOSE CHECKS. THE FIRST CASE IS CHECK(IBMXCF,XCF_SYSPLEX_CDS_CAPACITY), MATCHED BY POLICY STATEMENT XCFPOL1 Guess what? It doesn't. The message comes with stupid regularity despite the NOCHECK parm (until I manually change the date in hzsprmxx). What good does specification of NOCHECK do if the policy statement isn't applied and the nocheck parm ignored, anyway? It is mighty irritating when HC spits out messages that it shouldn't at migration time to a new release. People tend to check syslog a lot more carefully at such a time, and spend a lot of time on trying to find out why the message comes up when nothing really has changed in this regard. Regards, Barbara Nitz -- Psssst! Schon vom neuen GMX MultiMessenger gehört? Der kanns mit allen: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/multimessenger ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
