Re: 64-bit question

2006-03-13 Thread Neubert, Kevin (DIS)
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

Re: 64-bit question

2006-03-13 Thread Mark Zelden
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

Re: 64-bit question

2006-03-13 Thread Ted MacNEIL
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

Re: 64-bit question

2006-03-13 Thread Joel C. Ewing
[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,

Re: 64-bit question

2006-03-11 Thread Joel C. Ewing
[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

Re: 64-bit question

2006-03-06 Thread Vernooy, C.P. - SPLXM
[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

Re: 64-bit question

2006-03-06 Thread Vernooy, C.P. - SPLXM
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

Re: 64-bit question

2006-03-06 Thread Mark Zelden
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

Re: 64-bit question

2006-03-06 Thread Alan C. Field
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

Re: 64-bit question

2006-03-06 Thread Ted MacNEIL
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

Re: 64-bit question

2006-03-06 Thread Mark Zelden
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