Regarding an accidental CPC deactivate...
If you deactivate a CPC with active systems you should be receiving a
warning message identifying active systems by name along with a message
stating the action being performed is disruptive before you can proceed.
Regarding accidental object
On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 10:13:40 -0600, Joel C. Ewing [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's what had me a bit confused. When I changed the storage
distribution to be only central with no expanded, the new config didn't
take affect until I did a DEACTIVATE, then an ACTIVATE on
If you deactivate a CPC with active systems you should be receiving a
warning message identifying active systems by name along with a message
stating the action being performed is disruptive before you can proceed.
Operations types (actually most types) get into habits.
When Amdahl first came
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks, Joel. Yeah, I've taken additional precautions to help prevent
accidental outages.
One thing I'm not sure of -- Does deactivating a CPC actually turn the
processor off? Is there any way to recover or do we have to call IBM
to do a system restart?
Yup,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's what had me a bit confused. When I changed the storage
distribution to be only central with no expanded, the new config didn't
take affect until I did a DEACTIVATE, then an ACTIVATE on the LOAD
profile. I'm still trying to find out whether ACTIVATE retains the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Greetings all!
Running z/OS 1.4 in 64-bit mode. Expanded storage on the HMC's LPAR
def is set to zero (both initial and reserved) but still getting the
IEE038E AMOUNT OF EXPANDED STORAGE EXCEEDS 0G MAXIMUM message.
System
AFAIK, updating the LPAR definitions just updates the administration. It only
takes effect when the LPAR is de-activated and activated again. Activation
assignes storage from the free storage to an LPAR, de-activation returns
storage from an LPAR to the free pool.
I supppose activate of an
On Mon, 6 Mar 2006 15:51:29 +0100, Vernooy, C.P. - SPLXM
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I supppose activate of an already active LPAR does effectively nothing.
No, it will activate the current definitions which will include
destroying the running LPAR.
Mark
--
Mark Zelden
Sr. Software and Systems
On Mon, 6 Mar 2006 15:51:29 +0100, Vernooy, C.P. - SPLXM
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I supppose activate of an already active LPAR does effectively nothing.
Then Mark Z said No, it will activate the current definitions which
will include destroying the running LPAR.
I agree, but wasn't Kees
AFAIK, updating the LPAR definitions just updates the administration. It only
takes effect when the LPAR is de-activated and activated again.
There is one parameter that is dynamic.
That is processing weights.
All others require a recycle of the LPAR.
-
-teD
I’m an enthusiastic proselytiser
On Mon, 6 Mar 2006 13:35:23 -0600, Alan C. Field
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 6 Mar 2006 15:51:29 +0100, Vernooy, C.P. - SPLXM
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I supppose activate of an already active LPAR does effectively nothing.
Then Mark Z said No, it will activate the current definitions
11 matches
Mail list logo