For certain.

Regards, 
Richard Schuh 

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: The IBM z/VM Operating System 
> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Gregg
> Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 11:03 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Devices OFFLINE at IPL
> 
> So if it can't be controlled at the LParr, then priv class 
> C(B too?) needs to be locked down to the few MVS security folk trust.
> 
> On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 1:49 PM, Brian Nielsen 
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Devices you want to see intermittently are not in the 
> "never" category 
> > and, as you noted, require different treatment than "never".
> >
> > Brian Nielsen
> >
> > On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 09:41:22 -0700, Schuh, Richard 
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >>Sorry, but there are the intermittent times when we need to 
> see some 
> >>of
> > them. When needed, that can be accomplished via command, without 
> > requiring an update to the IOCP or LPAR Profile. The MVS security 
> > people want us to not even be able to vary them online except in 
> > special circumstances; thus, the Not_Accepted status. More 
> proof that, 
> > "All generalities are wrong, including this one."
> >>
> >>Regards,
> >>Richard Schuh
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: The IBM z/VM Operating System
> >>> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Brian Nielsen
> >>> Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 9:16 AM
> >>> To: [email protected]
> >>> Subject: Re: Devices OFFLINE at IPL
> >>>
> >>> If you never want to see certain devices in the VM LPAR then the 
> >>> IOCP should be coded to not allow that LPAR to access the devices.
> >>>
> >>> Brian Nielsen
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 09:03:33 -0700, Schuh, Richard 
> <[email protected]> 
> >>> wrot=
> >>> e:
> >>>
> >>> >We have thousands of devices in the IOCP that we never want
> >>> to see on
> >>> >ou=
> >>> r
> >>> VM system; however, there are some we do need to access from VM 
> >>> intermixe= d with them. In this case, we find it better 
> to add yet 
> >>> another category, =
> >>>
> >>> Not_Accepted, which prevents the devices from being 
> sensed and the 
> >>> building of control blocks for them. This prevents bloat 
> in the use 
> >>> of =
> >>>
> >>> storage and in any monitor displays or reports. If you went ahead 
> >>> and sensed the devices and took them offline after the IPL, the 
> >>> device blocks=
> >>>
> >>> would be built for them and they could affect the way space is 
> >>> allocated =
> >>>
> >>> and used in your monitor segment.
> >>> >
> >>> >As with all things that affect the configuration, you must take 
> >>> >care whe=
> >>> n
> >>> specifying that devices are to be kept offline or not 
> even sensed. 
> >>> It is =
> >>>
> >>> certainly best to insure that you do not include devices 
> which you 
> >>> need i= n the offline or Not_Accepted lists. As we like to say, 
> >>> "Your gun, your bullet, your foot."
> >>> >
> >>> >Regards,
> >>> >Richard Schuh
> >>> 
> ====================================================================
> >>> ====
> >
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Gregg Reed
> "No Plan, survives execution"
> 

Reply via email to