The same. It simpler and is, thus, less error prone. I did it that way back in 1984, when I first had IOCP responsibility, and the hardware folks here do it that way today. In fact, in those early days, I had one superset IOCP and used a REXX EXEC to select which statements went with which cpus. Our situation was that VM and TPF shared one set of devices while VM and MVS shared another, non-intersecting, set. There was one short string of DASD that was shared by all. Keeping it all in one source file made it easier to spot conflicts.
Regards, Richard Schuh > -----Original Message----- > From: The IBM z/VM Operating System > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Alan Altmark > Sent: Friday, May 30, 2008 6:33 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Real device number assignments > > Pop quiz: > > For those of you who have multiple boxes (CECs) sharing > devices, do you assign the same device number in the IOCDS to > the device for each CEC? > > Example: Given a shared 3390 volume, if it is known as > device number 800 on CEC A, do you assign it device number > 800 on CEC B? > > If you don't do that, what device numbering scheme do you use? > > Alan Altmark > z/VM Development > IBM Endicott >
