On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 16:05:53 +0900, Timothy Sipples <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Disabling contention resolution on the client might be a temporary >workaround, but I wouldn't recommend that as a permanent workaround. The jury is still out on that one. It could be documented as a restriction >Contention resolution is a very good thing to have enabled -- it can >dramatically speed up things like macros -- and you can just about >guarantee you'll have an endless number of phone calls from clients >otherwise if you don't fix it before too long. > The workaround I posted was not a global setting. It is set only on specific workstations that need to use an SMCS console. How many users / workstations do you think that covers even in a large shop? In my experience, very few (operations). So I don't know how that could translate to "endless number of phone calls". The rest of us use SDSF (or similar) once the system is up to get to a console. Maybe you are confusing the setting in the server (TCP/IP Config) which is global - SNAEXT/NOSNAEXT. <snip> >There's an informational APAR called "Common Telnet Problems Under z/OS" >which you should check to see if there are PTFs that apply to your >particular z/OS release. The APAR is II13135. <snip> We were current on maintenance at the time of the problem. <snip> >My hunch is that Mark Zelden correctly remembers when contention resolution >indeed was a problem, <snip> Nope... never knew anything about it until we had the SMCS problem. >but I thought IBM had permanently buried those >specific problems as of z/OS 1.5. Maybe they've come back, or maybe it's >something else. Applying the fixes in II13135 should squash anything IBM >knows about on the z/OS side. <big snip> "Knows about" being the key phrase I guess. Applying all those fixes won't fix this problem. For now, I recommend the work I described in my previous post to the OP. We still have an open PMR with IBM on this (I'm not the one working on it). Apparently the change that caused the problem was in z/OS 1.7 (according to the PMR). IBM has supplied a usermod (IP) for us to test with, but we have not had a chance yet. The OP should probably open a PMR with IBM and perhaps will get a chance to test before us. Either way they can get the ++APAR if/when it is opened. There is a chance it's not even the same problem I guess. Since there is no APAR yet, I can't give the OP (nor anyone else) something to track. Mark -- Mark Zelden Sr. Software and Systems Architect - z/OS Team Lead Zurich North America / Farmers Insurance Group - ZFUS G-ITO mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] z/OS Systems Programming expert at http://expertanswercenter.techtarget.com/ Mark's MVS Utilities: http://home.flash.net/~mzelden/mvsutil.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
