If the first system IPLed is not the last system brought down, you may have to reply I to initialize the sysplex. This is because the last system leaves no compatriot behind to do final cleanup of the couple data set(s). In the last-down/first-up sequence, the system recognizes his own body odor and marches on without prompting.
. . . J.O.Skip Robinson Southern California Edison Company Electric Dragon Team Paddler SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager 626-302-7535 Office 323-715-0595 Mobile [email protected] -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Staller, Allan Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2014 9:06 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: LPAR IPL order within a Sysplex Conceptually, all members of a sysplex are considered to be capable of any operation within the sysplex (yes I know this may not be true, but this is an installation choice, not a design point). Most commands that have a SYSPLEX scope can be applied to all LPARS "simultaneously' with the RO *ALL, cmd. To continue the conceptual design point, most services (GRS, WLM,....) are operating from the same set of data (either by a couple dataset or CF policy), thus within a SYSPLEX, LPAR IPL order should make no difference. The first system to establish the sysplex set the policies, and subsequent members use those policies until modified. HTH, <snip> What things are built in a Sysplex by the first LPAR brought up in the Sysplex that would impact subsequent LPARs brought up in the Sysplex? Some possible examples... WLM, GRS, SMS etc. I am asking this question to elevate the need to maintain/preserve LPAR IPL order in a Sysplex and identify how a change in order could cause trouble. Note: All Sysplex LPARs running z/OS 1.13 </snip> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
