Jesse 1 Robinson wrote: >I was pretty wary of AUTOIPL on our beloved production sysplex for quite a >while but finally caved to best-practice arguments. IBM's long-held position >is that a dead system is bad for the whole sysplex. A comatose system may even >be worse, as it still registers a heartbeat but has no brain function. The >goal is to shoot a useless system and get it back up ASAP.
Agreed with all of it. What about XCF? Will it (the structures inside XCF) be infected by that dead/comatose/useless system? >It may seem reckless in view the agonizing hours we once spent trying to save >a system that we finally had to IPL anyway. Or those DBAs tried in a reckless way to repeatedly debug a dead database system until an IPL resolved everything... >So AUTOIPL requires an attitude adjustment for those of us in the biz for a >long time. I believe it's worth the trepidation (Merriam Webster's word of the >day). If you can insert a process to SMS (and wake up) the Sysprogs when AUTOIPL is being done, we will reconsider it. >Plus it never hurts to bank another excuse for more red wine. ;-) Hic! Haec! Hoc! (sorry to the creators of Asterix the Gaul... ;-D ) Thanks for your kind notes. Groete / Greetings Elardus Engelbrecht ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
