No, it was using TCP/IP, IUCV, DASD and SPOOL. From TRACK, all of the devices had been detached from it. I suppose that it is possible that CP transfers the devices elsewhere but leaves a skeleton VMDBK so that pointers in the various control blocks that have outstanding responses do not point at whatever replaced the VMDBK.
Regards, Richard Schuh > -----Original Message----- > From: The IBM z/VM Operating System > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Marcy Cortes > Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 1:31 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: LOGOFF/FORCE PENDING > > Was it using tape? > > > Marcy > "This message may contain confidential and/or privileged > information. If you are not the addressee or authorized to > receive this for the addressee, you must not use, copy, > disclose, or take any action based on this message or any > information herein. If you have received this message in > error, please advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail > and delete this message. Thank you for your cooperation." > > > -----Original Message----- > From: The IBM z/VM Operating System > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Schuh, Richard > Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 12:47 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [IBMVM] LOGOFF/FORCE PENDING > > For all of you who are sitting on pins and needles awaiting > the outcome of our incident, you can get off the pin cushion > now. After several hours, but before a dump could be taken, > the logoff completed. There is no incident. The secret is > still safe. (Get that grin off of your face, Chuckie!) > > Regards, > Richard Schuh > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: The IBM z/VM Operating System > > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Dave Wade > > Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2009 4:32 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: LOGOFF/FORCE PENDING > > > > I do, but only for fun.... > > > > Dave > > G4UGM > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: The IBM z/VM Operating System > > > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Schuh, Richard > > > Sent: 01 October 2009 00:11 > > > To: [email protected] > > > Subject: Re: LOGOFF/FORCE PENDING > > > > > > > > > Are you still using a system that has the DMK prefix? > > > > > > Regards, > > > Richard Schuh > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: The IBM z/VM Operating System > > > > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of P S > > > > Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2009 3:58 PM > > > > To: [email protected] > > > > Subject: Re: LOGOFF/FORCE PENDING > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 6:53 PM, Rich Greenberg > > <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > On: Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 03:22:49PM -0700,Wandschneider, > > > > Scott Wrote: > > > > > > > > > > } Please keep the list posted with any updates to this > > > subject. I, > > > > > for } one, am *very* interested in your PMR. As I recall > > > this has > > > > > been a } nagging problem since the VM/370 days. As I > > > update our VM > > > > > systems I am } taking the FORCE command away by changing > > > > its privilege > > > > > class, but in } the process have upset operations and > > > > others as their > > > > > procedures } actually call for forcing users off, instead > > > > of logging > > > > > on, then logging } them off. > > > > > > > > > > Scott et al, > > > > > Have the operators do a: > > > > > > > > > > CP SEND CP target LOGOFF > > > > > > > > > > BEFORE doing a FORCE. Much safer. > > > > > > > > Doubtful. Since DMK, a FORCE has consisted of "Set the > logoff bit > > > > and stack a CPEBK to go to the dispatcher". So no real > > > difference. > > > > > > > > Now, in DMK-time... > > > > = > >
