MPC ACTIVATION ENHANCEMENTS/FICON CTC RECOVERY
Symptom .. NF FUNCTION Status ... CLOSED UR1
Severity ... 4 Date Closed . 07/10/15
Component .. 569511701 Duplicate of
Reported Release . 180 Fixed
in CTC or basic mode, or FCTC.
On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 12:33 PM, R.S. [EMAIL PROTECTED] THIS, PLEASE!
wrote:
Mark Pace wrote:
As I understand it, that was true for ESCON CTC, I'm using FICON CTC, or
device type of FCTC. It is supposed to be supported.
AFAIK not. You cannot make GRS ring over FCTC
On Thu, 6 Mar 2008 13:54:36 -0500, Mark Pace wrote:
From z/OS 1.9 MVS:Planning Global Resource Serialization.
These links can be either a data link in a parallel CTC adapter. In ring
mode, link or CTC link means either an IBM 3088 data link, a parallel
CTC adapter, or an ESCON(R) channel
Even IBM support still believes that. When sent a AskQ they replied that I
needed to change the IOdevices to BCTC. :-(
I've replied with the excerpt from the book. I'm waiting to see what they
say today.
On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 6:04 AM, Zaromil Tisler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Thu, 6 Mar
Well the book is wrong according to IBM.
*a sysplex when all systems are part of the same GRS plex, then XCF
can be used for communication between systems and it can make use
of FCTC device types.
.
Otherwise you cannot specify a FCTC device type for GRS to use as a CTC
for communication. *
Well
I've succeeded in getting the IO devices online on each z/OS system. But
when I IPL with GRS turned on I get
ISG046E CTC 4C00 DISABLED DUE TO HARDWARE ERROR CODE=05
On 1 system and
ISG046E CTC 3C00 DISABLED DUE TO HARDWARE ERROR CODE=05
on the other.
I've looked at II14241 and verified that
Marc,
I had a very interesting experience building our GRS ring. One point I have not
seen mentioned is that for GRS the CTC's must be a device type of BCTC. If
you would like to discus offline, just email me direct.
Jimmy
snip
I've succeeded in getting the IO devices online on each z/OS
As I understand it, that was true for ESCON CTC, I'm using FICON CTC, or
device type of FCTC. It is supposed to be supported.
On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 10:30 AM, Jimmy Wagner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Marc,
I had a very interesting experience building our GRS ring. One point I
have not
seen
Mark Pace wrote:
As I understand it, that was true for ESCON CTC, I'm using FICON CTC, or
device type of FCTC. It is supposed to be supported.
AFAIK not. You cannot make GRS ring over FCTC links.
Note: you can make GRS ring over XCF links which can be defined over
FCTC. However XCF means
, the z900 doc ID is SB10-7034-01, ESCON
and FICON CTC Reference. Don't know the updated book is for z990, z9, z10.
It's been a while since we've had to go through this en masse, but if you send
me a note offline, I can perhaps send you some HCD screen shots (easier than
looking at IOCP statements, IMHO
On Mon, 3 Mar 2008 14:32:03 -0500, Mark Pace
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is a FICON director required to do FICON CTC? I'm looking through a
Red
Book and all examples show a FICON director. I would think, that like
ESCON
CTC, I could just connect two FICON channels together using
*TO* with
the CTC's on that CU. Also, the CTC devices on that CU should be defined
to
the OS config for the LPAR's you will talk *FROM*. I always need a pad of
paper when I connect CTC's...
There's a z9/z990/z900 redbook, the z900 doc ID is SB10-7034-01, ESCON
and FICON CTC Reference. Don't know the updated
Is a FICON director required to do FICON CTC? I'm looking through a Red
Book and all examples show a FICON director. I would think, that like ESCON
CTC, I could just connect two FICON channels together using the appropriate
cable.
I defined to CHPIDs as FC
created a CU on each as FCTC
and added
Of Mark Pace
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 13:32
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: FICON CTC
Is a FICON director required to do FICON CTC? I'm looking through a
Red
Book and all examples show a FICON director. I would think, that like
ESCON
CTC, I could just connect two FICON channels together using
Mark Pace wrote:
Is a FICON director required to do FICON CTC? I'm looking through a Red
Book and all examples show a FICON director.
No. You don't need director.
Depending on your topology, the director can be required, but again, it
depends.
BTW: If you want multiple-LPAR, single-CPC
I would guess your logical addresses are not right. Can you share your
IOCP?
Regards,
Kevin
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Mark Pace
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 11:32 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: FICON CTC
:
I would guess your logical addresses are not right. Can you share your
IOCP?
Regards,
Kevin
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Mark Pace
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 11:32 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: FICON CTC
On Mon, 3 Mar 2008 16:01:14 -0500, Mark Pace wrote:
I'm leaning on the connection at the moment, but here are the relevant
sections from my IOCDS
CHPID PATH=(CSS(0),3C),PARTITION=((MP),(=)),PCHID=132,TYPE=FC
CHPID PATH=(CSS(0),4C),PARTITION=((BP),(=)),PCHID=133,TYPE=FC
CNTLUNIT
List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Mark Pace
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 15:01
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: FICON CTC
I'm leaning on the connection at the moment, but here are the relevant
sections from my IOCDS
CHPID PATH=(CSS(0),3C),PARTITION=((MP),(=)),PCHID=132,TYPE=FC
CHPID
3 then 1. Set LIMIT reports to no (2) and put a / in the
CTC selection field.
Alan
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Mark Pace
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 15:01
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: FICON CTC
I'm
On Mon, 3 Mar 2008 16:14:44 -0500, Bielskie, Stephen wrote:
Also, after you define them, you can put a 'K' next to the FCTC control
unit in HCD and it will show you what other FCTC Cus it is connected to.
If there are blanks on either column of this display, there is a
definition error.
Steve
I
Correct. I want a point-to-point connection.
On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 4:19 PM, Brian Peterson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I thought the HCD reports and the K command would only work if the CTC
included a Director. The original poster was trying to define a CTC with
point-
to-point connections
Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Mark Pace
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 1:16 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: FICON CTC
RESOURCE PARTITION=((CSS(0),(BP,5),(IT,1),(MP,4),(PS,3),(TA,2)*
)),MAXDEV=((CSS(0),65280,0))
On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 4:05 PM, Brian
: Monday, March 03, 2008 4:16 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: FICON CTC
RESOURCE PARTITION=((CSS(0),(BP,5),(IT,1),(MP,4),(PS,3),(TA,2)*
)),MAXDEV=((CSS(0),65280,0))
On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 4:05 PM, Brian Peterson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 3 Mar 2008 16:01:14 -0500, Mark Pace
Don't know...I never defined one without a director.
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Brian Peterson
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 4:20 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: FICON CTC
On Mon, 3 Mar 2008 16:14:44 -0500
RESOURCE PARTITION=((CSS(0),(BP,5),(IT,1),(MP,4),(PS,3),(TA,2)*
)),MAXDEV=((CSS(0),65280,0))
On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 4:05 PM, Brian Peterson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 3 Mar 2008 16:01:14 -0500, Mark Pace wrote:
I'm leaning on the connection at the moment, but here are the
List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Field, Alan C.
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 4:08 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: FICON CTC
In HCD you can produce a CTC Connection Report. Have you done that and
verified that it at least thinks they can connect to each other?
In HCD option 3
If you are using or planning to use FICON CTC links (for VTAM) you might
want to get on the interested parties list or open your own marketing
request to IBM the same as
MR0413054727 VTAM RECOVERY OF FICON CTC LINKS
MR0130072900 VTAM RECOVERY OF FICON CTC LINKS
We converted to use FICON CTC
On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 10:58:42 -0500, Knutson, Sam [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
If you are using or planning to use FICON CTC links (for VTAM) you might
want to get on the interested parties list or open your own marketing
request to IBM the same as
MR0413054727 VTAM RECOVERY OF FICON CTC LINKS
On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 14:50:06 -0600, Patrick O'Keefe
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 10:58:42 -0500, Knutson, Sam [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
If you are using or planning to use FICON CTC links (for VTAM) you might
want to get on the interested parties list or open your own marketing
On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 16:04:00 -0600, Mark Zelden [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
...
Someone else told me they have seen the problem - but only when
a CEC was down for hardware changes and other LPARs IPLed. But
many LPARs being IPLed at different times is SOP during scheduled
outage windows once a
The archive search and I aren't getting along this morning.
Are there any recommendations for a MIH value for FICON CTCs?
We haven't got anything specified in IECIOSxx but are having some
difficulty getting VARY commands to them to complete.
We're wondering if there is a
Discussion List IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: FICON CTC MIH
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 10:04:37 -0600
The archive search and I aren't getting along this morning.
Are there any recommendations for a MIH value for FICON CTCs?
We haven't got anything specified in IECIOSxx
Office
323-715-0595 Mobile
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Alan C. Field [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent by: IBM Mainframe Discussion List IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
01/29/2007 08:04 AM
Please respond to
IBM Mainframe Discussion List IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
To
IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
cc
Subject
FICON CTC MIH
The archive
Most disk vendors now are probably recommending at least 5 minutes or larger
15-30, the last time I checked with a vendor.
-
Too busy driving to stop for gas!
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
-- snip --
We haven't got anything specified in IECIOSxx but are having some
difficulty getting VARY commands to them to complete.
-- snip --
We make pretty extensive use of FICON CTCs, including 'channel extension'
over DWDM. Our IECIOS00 has no entries at all for CTCs, so we're taking
defaults.
Marian Gasparovic wrote:
z900 was the last one which supports parallel channel, maybe that
confused you.
...but you can still use old stinkin' BusTag devices on z9. Using ESCON
converters. Works like a charm.
BTW: If you don't order ESCON channels, there won't be them in your box.
Minimal
State University
Pullman, WA 99164-1222
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Shane
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2006 2:45 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: GRS and Ficon CTC
Radoslaw wrote:
Do you mean GRS over CTC
Why do you think z9 = no ESCON ? It is not true, ESCON is still supported
Marian Gasparovic
IBM Slovakia
On 5/23/06, Gibney, Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, really what is being said here is:
z9 = no ESCON = no GRS via CTC = Only CF plexes!
Gibney, Dave wrote:
So, really what is being said here is:
z9 = no ESCON = no GRS via CTC = Only CF plexes!
And no monoplexes in GRS ring!
Or, am I confused.
Why z9=no ESCON ?
I have a lot of ESCONs in my shining z9.
BTW: Bruce mentioned CF structures as link option for GRS
99164-1222
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of R.S.
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 11:40 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: GRS and Ficon CTC
Gibney, Dave wrote:
So, really what is being said here is:
z9
BTW: Bruce mentioned CF structures as link option for GRS *ring*.
Isn't it mistake ?
I only heard (and used) about structure for GRS *star* mode.
I was also surprised to read that but it is very clear. Apparently if
you are forced to use a ring, because you have more than one sysplex,
you can
z900 was the last one which supports parallel channel, maybe that confused you.
Marian Gasparovic
IBM Slovakia
On 5/23/06, Gibney, Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Guess I'm confused, I was sure I read it somewhere that z9(8)90 and
up were FICON only. I'm still at a z800 myself.
There has been some discussion about a GRS ring on a Z9. This is necessary
at times due to multiple sysplexes sharing DASD, such as our environment.
We have a GRS ring containing 1 sysplex and 2 monoplexes. It has some
quirks. If anyone desires some info on how to set up, please contact me off
still use the CF to communicate between systems in each plex, but I guess you
need some other method to go between the plexes.
There is a restriction (from day one) that a CF can only be used by one SYSPLEX
at a time.
So, Inter-PLEX communication must be handled differently.
As an aside, there
Shane Ginnane wrote:
Anyone thought about it ???.
Is it possible ???. Manuals don't mention it, and it sure doesn't look
like it from the messages at start up.
Looks like I am going to have to go find some ESCON CTCs. Anyone have a
solution ???.
Yes, some of us thought about it. g
Do you
Is it possible ???. Manuals don't mention it, and it sure doesn't look
like it from the messages at start up.
Actually, the 1.7 GRS Planning manual SA22-7600-04 is pretty clear. For
a ring config,
In this document, link, path, and CTC link can mean an IBM 3088 MCCU
data link, a parallel
Radoslaw wrote:
Do you mean GRS over CTC, but *not* over XCF ?
Yep ... :(
IMHO you can't do it. GRS requires pretty ancient device type (BCTC),
while this type is not supported on FICON chpid.
Yes, I was expecting the same way, hoping for different.
Probably it is IBM recommendation to
Anyone thought about it ???.
Is it possible ???. Manuals don't mention it, and it sure doesn't look
like it from the messages at start up.
Looks like I am going to have to go find some ESCON CTCs. Anyone have a
solution ???.
Shane ...
CONFIDENTIAL
The information contained in this e mail and
49 matches
Mail list logo
