I understand your point. Still suggest you look first at the system weight values in SFM. They establish a prioritized 'queue' of systems that will get partitioned out in case the sysplex hangs.
. . J.O.Skip Robinson Southern California Edison Company Electric Dragon Team Paddler SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager 323-715-0595 Mobile 626-302-7535 Office [email protected] -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of baby eklavya Sent: Monday, November 28, 2016 4:09 AM To: [email protected] Subject: (External):Re: Couplexx values for sysplex - Query Hello Skip , Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this . Appreciate your time and effort to help me out . The reason for implementing difference is that we have had weird issues on few of the pre-prod systems which are unfortunately a part of the production plex . We wanted to have these systems isolated immediately when there is a problem using SSD or SFM . For now , we have specified lower weights for these systems . We are also looking at a plan to take these LPARS to another sysplex so the production systems are not impacted . Since we did not want to touch anything on existing production couplexx members , thought of asking it here before proceeding . Regards, Baby On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 12:04 AM, Jesse 1 Robinson <[email protected]> wrote: > I had to dig into the doc to investigate some of the parameters you're > asking about. Some thoughts: > > -- You do NOT want to use multiple COUPLExx members across the sysplex. > Some of the parameters must be consistent across the plex. If you > introduce multiple COUPLExx members, it's only a matter of time until > a change is made for one system that is not carried over to other > systems. I don't know what effect that might have, but you don't want > Level 2 to have to figure out what went wrong. CLEANUP(nn) for example is > specified in COUPLExx. > Different values would mean different COUPLExx members. A risk. > > -- Even parameters that CAN be different across the sysplex should not > be changed just because it's possible. Do you have a strong reason for > wanting different values for INTERVAL or OPNOTIFY? However you set > them, I don't see in the doc any compelling argument for implementing > differences. You can use weighting values in the SFM policy to give > priority to beloved cows at the expense of chickens and goats. You > still have a single policy across the sysplex. > > . > . > J.O.Skip Robinson > Southern California Edison Company > Electric Dragon Team Paddler > SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager > 323-715-0595 Mobile > 626-302-7535 Office > [email protected] > > -----Original Message----- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] > On Behalf Of baby eklavya > Sent: Saturday, November 26, 2016 12:21 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: (External):Couplexx values for sysplex - Query > > Hello Listers, > > We are doing a change to set values for INTERVAL ,CLEANUP and OPNOTIFY > in COUPLExx different for few systems in our sysplex . I understand > that INTERVAL can be set different for each system in the plex after > you enable USER INTERVAL on the Functions statement . > > I would be interested to know if you have any thoughts against setting > up different values for CLEANUP on systems within a sysplex . > > Btw , we are on z/os 2.1 and are planning to implement SSD on all > systems within the plex . > > > Regards, > Baby ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
