Hi... The even/odd starting address may cause you some problems depending on the combination of CP HiperSockets and device driver support. It is safer to stick with an even-numbered starting address when you define the NIC. With the latest CP and the latest device drivers this should work either way, but why tempt fate?
Cornelia is correct in pointing out that the portname does not matter here. HiperSockets does not require a portname, and if your configured portname does not match that of other interfaces using the same network, that is OK. If you were using dedicated OSA-Express devices with this interface, you would have to specify the portname and it would have to match the portname configured by the other users of that OSA port. Most users of Guest LAN are not affected by this because each DEFINE NIC creates an "adapter" in your virtual machine, so portnames only have to match within the devices that are part of that adapter range. Most users create the default adapter (three devices) and there is no risk of portname conflict. If you defined a TYPE QDIO NIC with six or more devices, all interfaces using that NIC would have to agree on a portname. That is NOT a problem on z/VM 4.2.0 because the OSA-Express simulation is not available at that level. You were concerned about the partial results in Q NIC DETAILS: > Q NIC DETAILS > Adapter 0960 Type: HIPER Name: UNASSIGNED Devices: 3 > Port 0 MAC: 00-04-AC-00-00-0E LAN: SYSTEM LNXLAN02 MFS: 16384 > Connection Name: HALLOLE State: Startup > Device: 0960 Unit: 000 Role: CTL-READ > Unassigned Devices: > Device: 0961 Unit: 001 Role: Unassigned > Device: 0962 Unit: 002 Role: Unassigned > ------------ > > The dev numbers do match with the contents of /proc/subchannels. I'm > slightly perplexed as to why the nic is in "State: Startup" and why 0961 > and 0962 are "Unassigned". That just means the driver started by initializing 0x960 as the Control-Read device, and encountered the IDX failure that you reported. We were still in "Startup" state and no attempt was made to initialize 0x961 or 0x962 so they are still reported as "Unassigned" devices. I believe your CP system has been installed with only the z/VM 4.2.0 base tapes, and no service. After the suggested APARs (VM62958 or VM62938) are applied your current configuration should work properly. Regards, Dennis Musselwhite ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) IBM Corporation -- z/VM Development -- CP Network Simulation
