Re: SG24-5451
Thank you very, very much!!! Brian -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Base SYSPLEX setup
The box isn't maxed out, but it's pretty close. It's a base z13s and no money to upgrade it. The cards are a cheap way to get by (they are under $400 with $0 increase in maintenance costs), whereas the cost of a CF is far greater. We can't use the software CF option (build a CF lpar without a actual CF processor) because that would take us over the tipping point and no budget to add any more MSU's to resolve it. Maybe in a year or so, but for now that's not a viable option. Brian -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: HMC in Service Mode, IPL Question
No Jesse, I explained userid translation between HMC and SE. However this translation has no relationship to object locking. Magic "SooSysprog" is not magic and does not play any important role in multiple access. An access to SE or CPC is controlled by mechanism similar to GRS, simply another user cannot access object which is already in use. So, for example multiple remote users can logon HMC simoultaneously and each of them can access different CPC. However when you access Single Object Operations on CPC A, then CPC A is locked by you. It's like DISP=OLD on dataset. Note 1: Single Object Operations is rather rare or at least less frequently used activity. Simoultaneous access may have sense, but it is not allowed. However many things can be done without SOO access. Note 2: As far as I know, on z15 actions previously accessible only from SE are now available from HMC directly. So, there is no longer need to use SOO (almost). I have described that in my manual (I used to teach HMC/SE and HCD, I created my own course materials), however it is not main topic :-) -- Radoslaw Skorupka Lodz, Poland W dniu 30.05.2020 o 00:27, Jesse 1 Robinson pisze: (Oops. This reply went to the wrong thread.) We have never defined any installation userids on any SE. The only users defined are the standard IBM supplied one. Are you saying, if we defined at least a few of our own, we could have multiple 'sysprogs' logged on simultaneously? . . J.O.Skip Robinson Southern California Edison Company Electric Dragon Team Paddler SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager 323-715-0595 Mobile 626-543-6132 Office ⇐=== NEW robin...@sce.com -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of R.S. Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2020 9:25 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: (External):Re: HMC in Service Mode, IPL Question CAUTION EXTERNAL EMAIL I think you mean user like SooSysprog. Soo means Single Object Operations. This is complex issue, and it is fixed in 2.15 (z15 machines) - I know that from guy who is part of HMC/SE development team. Regarding z14 and older HMC levels the devil is in user table. 1. Some people do not define users and use pre-defined one like SYSPROG, OPER, SERVICE, etc. Sometimes even with default passwords. ;-) It's not worth further investigation. 2. Some people use LDAP, let's ignore it for clarity. 3. Some people do define custom userids, preferably each person has its own userid. However there is some "gotcha" here. You define users in HMC. HMC, but not SE. SE has still its own, predefined set of users. What happens when user JOHN1 defined as clone of SYSPROG logs on HMC? He is JOHN1. What about single object operations? Well, SE doesn not know JOHN1. However SE knows and trust HMC. In that case JOHN1 will be mapped to SooSYSPROG, which is SYSPROG equivalent. So, JOHN1 may manage SE. My recommendation is to repeat user definition on each SE and HMC in your shop. Of course there is no requirement all users have to be equally defined. However the above ...has no meaning for your issue. Why? Because of locked resource. SE object is busy and that's why any other person cannot perform SOO. The same apply for for many other objects in SE and HMC. Regarding Service Mode - I see no cons against IPL during this time. Note, IPL has very little to do with SE. Yes, SE initiate IPL process, but it is very limited. -- Radoslaw Skorupka Lodz, Poland W dniu 28.05.2020 o 17:33, Jesse 1 Robinson pisze: We have remote access to HMC/SE. We can perform most actions remotely, but in one area we're stuck--unless something has changed. Only one individual can log on to an SE at one time because the userid generated is SOOxxx based on the function being exercised. When that userid is logged on, subsequent accesses to the SE are denied. If an SE/CEC has been left in Service Mode by a remote user, I'm not sure how one would get int to turn it off. (Now that I think about it, that action may be disallowed.) I am curious about the original question: re-IPL while in Service Mode. Whether it's a good idea, is it even possible? . . J.O.Skip Robinson Southern California Edison Company Electric Dragon Team Paddler SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager 323-715-0595 Mobile 626-543-6132 Office ⇐=== NEW robin...@sce.com -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Seymour J Metz Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2020 8:12 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: (External):Re: HMC in Service Mode, IPL Question CAUTION EXTERNAL EMAIL Technically, it's easy. Installation policy varies all over the landscape. IMHO a VPN would address the security issues, but it's not my dog. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of R.S. [r.skoru...@bremultibank.com.pl] Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2020 6:26 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re:
Re: Meaning of reason code A618 on ABEND S222?
Yes, "ABEND S222" was shorthand. > What exactly are you "looking at"? I am looking at my report (or rather, an image of the output of my report program, as displayed on a 3270 emulator). I posted my code that generates the field in the report. Yes, I know from experimentation (totally unrelated to this query: different LPAR, different employer, different decade) that it is possible to create an ABEND with an S222 completion code "one's self" (as opposed to via a CANCEL command or a CALLRTM) and of course if one did so, then all bets are off as to bit and field settings. My interpretation from the system log is that FTP is cancelling the job by issuing a console command of the form $CJ(). What's a guy to do? The TCB is of course long gone. The TCBRV316 bit is apparently not getting propagated to the SMF record. SMF30ARC is documented as "Abend reason code" with no qualification as to determining its validity. Charles -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Peter Relson Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2020 6:30 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Meaning of reason code A618 on ABEND S222? I am looking at some SMF 30 S222 ABEND completion codes. Most of them are S222- as you would expect A handful have a non-zero reason code, many of them A618. What exactly are you "looking at"? Are you referring to something formatted from fields SMF30SCC and SMF30ARC? The ABEND 222 documentation does not mention reason codes That's because the system completion code 222 (it is not "ABEND 222" if you want to be picky) that you get from a cancel does not have a reason code. It comes from CALLRTM TYPE=ABTERM,COMPCOD=(5),TCB=(11),DUMP=NO,STEP=YES (or the same with DUMP=YES). The reason is not x'A618' (or 0 for that matter). There is no reason code. Some messages do not differentiate that fine point, such as IEF472I RUNJOB TC1 - COMPLETION CODE - SYSTEM=222 USER= REASON= which (presumably for simplicity) uses the value from TCBARC to show REASON= even when there is no reason code. In this case, TCBARC is 0. There is a bit indicating if the reason code in TCBARC is valid. That's (ridiculously-named) bit TCBRV316 which would be 0. A "better" name will likely be added in the future. SMF30ARC, similarly, is set unconditionally from TCBARC. I don't see anything indicating that SMF 30 captures the "validity bit". I have a (vague, possibly faulty) recollection of being disturbed at finding something issuing an abend with system completion code x'222' as if that was a cancel and as if it was OK to do so (in general, it is not, but it would have been that way for a long time and been somewhat incompatible to change). Such an abend might have some sort of reason code -- and of course should be documented -- if indeed that is the case. A x'222' system abend (as opposed to a x'222' abterm) is not a true cancel and might not be treated as such. Peter Relson z/OS Core Technology Design -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: GDG relative number updates
To clarify I have been using TEST/TESTAUTH to debug my code since the tso allocate command doesn’t resolve relative GDG I’ll have to debug tool terminal manger to see what’s gong on Thanks > On May 31, 2020, at 12:58 AM, Brian Westerman > wrote: > > I believe that since V2 of z/os that there is now a setting that you can > control if you want the relative GDG updated at the end of the step or the > end of the JOB. > > Brian > > -- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Meaning of reason code A618 on ABEND S222?
I am looking at some SMF 30 S222 ABEND completion codes. Most of them are S222- as you would expect A handful have a non-zero reason code, many of them A618. What exactly are you "looking at"? Are you referring to something formatted from fields SMF30SCC and SMF30ARC? The ABEND 222 documentation does not mention reason codes That's because the system completion code 222 (it is not "ABEND 222" if you want to be picky) that you get from a cancel does not have a reason code. It comes from CALLRTM TYPE=ABTERM,COMPCOD=(5),TCB=(11),DUMP=NO,STEP=YES (or the same with DUMP=YES). The reason is not x'A618' (or 0 for that matter). There is no reason code. Some messages do not differentiate that fine point, such as IEF472I RUNJOB TC1 - COMPLETION CODE - SYSTEM=222 USER= REASON= which (presumably for simplicity) uses the value from TCBARC to show REASON= even when there is no reason code. In this case, TCBARC is 0. There is a bit indicating if the reason code in TCBARC is valid. That's (ridiculously-named) bit TCBRV316 which would be 0. A "better" name will likely be added in the future. SMF30ARC, similarly, is set unconditionally from TCBARC. I don't see anything indicating that SMF 30 captures the "validity bit". I have a (vague, possibly faulty) recollection of being disturbed at finding something issuing an abend with system completion code x'222' as if that was a cancel and as if it was OK to do so (in general, it is not, but it would have been that way for a long time and been somewhat incompatible to change). Such an abend might have some sort of reason code -- and of course should be documented -- if indeed that is the case. A x'222' system abend (as opposed to a x'222' abterm) is not a true cancel and might not be treated as such. Peter Relson z/OS Core Technology Design -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Base SYSPLEX setup
A coupling facility using a share CP processor only needs a few percent of the processor dedicated. If you are maxed out on CPU and can't tolerate a slight slowdown at peak times, then one step up to the next MSU setting should be enough. On Sun, May 31, 2020 at 7:05 AM Brian Westerman wrote: > > Hi, > > I'm looking for information on how to set up a base SYSPLEX with only Ficon > CTC's that seem to be referred to as XCF CTC's. > > I'm sure someone had done this before and is probably doing it now for > Multiple LPARs that are running on the same processor CEC. Configuration > help (parms etc.) would be greatly appreciated. I think all we need to do to > connect the 3 existing LPARs is purchase 2 FICON cards (we currently have no > extras). Unfortunately, the IBM docs seem to talk a lot about the full > parallel sysplexes (with Coupling facilities), but we don't have them, and > they seem to be a great deal more expensive than FICON cards which are all we > need to implement GRS anyway (that's our goal). We can also apparently > create a virtual CF, but the overhead appears to be far greater than we can > spare. > > Any CXF CTC setup information would be greatly appreciated. > > Thanks > > Brian > > -- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN -- Mike A Schwab, Springfield IL USA Where do Forest Rangers go to get away from it all? -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: GDG relative number updates
Take another look: I wrote foo(bar). Neither foo nor bar is goovoo; foo is the base name and bar is the *relative* generation. If you specify "goovoo(-1), (+1), (0), etc" in your JCL the job will fail on a JCL error. Again, gooovoo is part of the name that Allocation constructs, *not* what you specify in the JCL for a relative GDS. Splitting hairs? Report an Allocation issue to the JES2 team and you'll delay the problem resolution. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of Ron@Ipsicsopt [ron.hawk...@ipsicsopt.com] Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2020 8:15 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: GDG relative number updates Shmuel, Apologies for my autocorrect. You say foo, I say goovoo, I did not say GgggV00. I think we're splitting hairs to say the initiator is not an element of JES2, but I'll agree that it is more correct to say the imitator does it. Ron Get Outlook for Android On Sun, May 31, 2020 at 2:03 PM +1000, "Seymour J Metz" wrote: There's no Samuel in this room! GV00 is absolute. For relative you specify foo(bar), where bar is 0, +baz or -baz. The Initiator construct the name foo.GgggV00, where ggg is the calculated absolute generation. The Initiator does put the new GDS into the catalog. The version for a relative GDS is alwaysd 00; you need to code an absolute name if you want a different version. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of Ron@Ipsicsopt [ron.hawk...@ipsicsopt.com] Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2020 11:27 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: GDG relative number updates Samuel, Relative gdg I believe is goovoo(-1), (+1), (0), etc specified in JCL. Is that correct? I did not think this was stored in the catalog, but resolved during job initiation/allocation. If not, then how and when is it resolved? Ron Get Outlook for Android On Sun, May 31, 2020 at 10:18 AM +1000, "Seymour J Metz" wrote: JES2 had no involvement with processing GDG and GDS requests. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of Ron Hawkins [ron.hawk...@ipsicsopt.com] Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2020 4:30 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: GDG relative number updates I always thought JES2 resolved relative GDG numbers during job initiation. -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Joseph Reichman Sent: Wednesday, 27 May 2020 11:02 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: [IBM-MAIN] GDG relative number updates Hi I have have my sdump file DSN as a GDG I save the dsn name in the variable portion of the SDWA I am wondering when the system updates the relative number is it after a close and when you open the dataset again the number has been updated Thanks -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Base SYSPLEX setup [EXTERNAL]
Brian, you really don't need more FICON cards then 2 to support CTC connections between lpars. It all comes down to how much redundancy you want. We support connections between 11 lpars on one CEC with just 2 cards. We use one card as what we call the primary connection and one card we call the alternate connection. The idea is to isolate the pairs to a single card incase of a failure. This was only those pairs are affected and the other pair is still functioning. There is a difference in setting up the CTCs definitions depending on if you are using a set of FICON switches or not. Most examples you see show FICON switches. We found out the hard way when we converted off of FICON switches you need to code a serial number in the control unit definition to make the connection work properly. When you get XCF working across the CTCs then software like GRS will use XCF for its communications. If you don't get XCF working then you have to code stuff to tell GRS how to communicate between lpars. You need to look at other software as well. I believe some things like CICS will see that XCF is running and it might try to create a XCF group on the fly for communications. Thanks.. Paul Feller GTS Mainframe Technical Support -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Gadi Ben-Avi Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2020 2:18 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Base SYSPLEX setup [EXTERNAL] Hi Brian, When building a sysplex using CTC's, each LPAR mist have connectivity to all of the other LPARS. If you have more than two LPARS, it gets complicated very fast. I've always had to get help from IBM for defining the CTC's in HCD. Once you have to connectivity defined, the rest is fairly easy. It's all in the 'Setting up a sysplex' Manual. You have to setup COUPLExx members in parmlib. Here you define the devices that are used for communication. Once that is done and all of the systems are in the sysplex, GRS knows it (I think) and can be defined and used. IF you have two LPARS, then two ficon cards are enough for two sets of communication paths. If you have three LPARS, then you will need 3 Ficon cards If you have four LPARS, then you will need 6 ficons cards This assumes that you have two paths between LPARs to avoid a single point of failure. The IOCP definitions also get complicated the more LPARs you have. Maybe getting an ICP (A dedicated CPU for the coupling facility) and more memory, will not be as expensive as you thing, and will be a lot simpler. Gadi -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Brian Westerman Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2020 10:05 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Base SYSPLEX setup Hi, I'm looking for information on how to set up a base SYSPLEX with only Ficon CTC's that seem to be referred to as XCF CTC's. I'm sure someone had done this before and is probably doing it now for Multiple LPARs that are running on the same processor CEC. Configuration help (parms etc.) would be greatly appreciated. I think all we need to do to connect the 3 existing LPARs is purchase 2 FICON cards (we currently have no extras). Unfortunately, the IBM docs seem to talk a lot about the full parallel sysplexes (with Coupling facilities), but we don't have them, and they seem to be a great deal more expensive than FICON cards which are all we need to implement GRS anyway (that's our goal). We can also apparently create a virtual CF, but the overhead appears to be far greater than we can spare. Any CXF CTC setup information would be greatly appreciated. Thanks Brian -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN Email secured by Check Point -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN -- Please note: This message originated outside your organization. Please use caution when opening links or attachments. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: GDG relative number updates
Shmuel, Apologies for my autocorrect. You say foo, I say goovoo, I did not say GgggV00. I think we're splitting hairs to say the initiator is not an element of JES2, but I'll agree that it is more correct to say the imitator does it. Ron Get Outlook for Android On Sun, May 31, 2020 at 2:03 PM +1000, "Seymour J Metz" wrote: There's no Samuel in this room! GV00 is absolute. For relative you specify foo(bar), where bar is 0, +baz or -baz. The Initiator construct the name foo.GgggV00, where ggg is the calculated absolute generation. The Initiator does put the new GDS into the catalog. The version for a relative GDS is alwaysd 00; you need to code an absolute name if you want a different version. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of Ron@Ipsicsopt [ron.hawk...@ipsicsopt.com] Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2020 11:27 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: GDG relative number updates Samuel, Relative gdg I believe is goovoo(-1), (+1), (0), etc specified in JCL. Is that correct? I did not think this was stored in the catalog, but resolved during job initiation/allocation. If not, then how and when is it resolved? Ron Get Outlook for Android On Sun, May 31, 2020 at 10:18 AM +1000, "Seymour J Metz" wrote: JES2 had no involvement with processing GDG and GDS requests. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of Ron Hawkins [ron.hawk...@ipsicsopt.com] Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2020 4:30 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: GDG relative number updates I always thought JES2 resolved relative GDG numbers during job initiation. -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Joseph Reichman Sent: Wednesday, 27 May 2020 11:02 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: [IBM-MAIN] GDG relative number updates Hi I have have my sdump file DSN as a GDG I save the dsn name in the variable portion of the SDWA I am wondering when the system updates the relative number is it after a close and when you open the dataset again the number has been updated Thanks -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
TIME a data set was created?
I don't know if CA-ASM2 through some of its' exits could record the Time a dataset was created. I do know that it was capable of recording the creating job name using some of the Reserved fields in the FMT1.DSCB. k.kri...@comcast.net -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: SG24-5451
It is in the IBM Publications Center - https://www.ibm.com/e-business/linkweb/publications/servlet/pbi.wss -Original Message- >From: Brian Westerman >Sent: May 30, 2020 11:26 PM >To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU >Subject: SG24-5451 > >Hi, > >Does anyone still have a copy of the redbook SG24-5451 > >SG24-5451-00 > >Parallel Sysplex - Software Management for Availability > > >I thought it should have been at redbooks.com, but it comes up with an Oops >message. > >Brian -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Base SYSPLEX setup
Hi Brian, When building a sysplex using CTC's, each LPAR mist have connectivity to all of the other LPARS. If you have more than two LPARS, it gets complicated very fast. I've always had to get help from IBM for defining the CTC's in HCD. Once you have to connectivity defined, the rest is fairly easy. It's all in the 'Setting up a sysplex' Manual. You have to setup COUPLExx members in parmlib. Here you define the devices that are used for communication. Once that is done and all of the systems are in the sysplex, GRS knows it (I think) and can be defined and used. IF you have two LPARS, then two ficon cards are enough for two sets of communication paths. If you have three LPARS, then you will need 3 Ficon cards If you have four LPARS, then you will need 6 ficons cards This assumes that you have two paths between LPARs to avoid a single point of failure. The IOCP definitions also get complicated the more LPARs you have. Maybe getting an ICP (A dedicated CPU for the coupling facility) and more memory, will not be as expensive as you thing, and will be a lot simpler. Gadi -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Brian Westerman Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2020 10:05 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Base SYSPLEX setup Hi, I'm looking for information on how to set up a base SYSPLEX with only Ficon CTC's that seem to be referred to as XCF CTC's. I'm sure someone had done this before and is probably doing it now for Multiple LPARs that are running on the same processor CEC. Configuration help (parms etc.) would be greatly appreciated. I think all we need to do to connect the 3 existing LPARs is purchase 2 FICON cards (we currently have no extras). Unfortunately, the IBM docs seem to talk a lot about the full parallel sysplexes (with Coupling facilities), but we don't have them, and they seem to be a great deal more expensive than FICON cards which are all we need to implement GRS anyway (that's our goal). We can also apparently create a virtual CF, but the overhead appears to be far greater than we can spare. Any CXF CTC setup information would be greatly appreciated. Thanks Brian -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN Email secured by Check Point -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Base SYSPLEX setup
Hi, I'm looking for information on how to set up a base SYSPLEX with only Ficon CTC's that seem to be referred to as XCF CTC's. I'm sure someone had done this before and is probably doing it now for Multiple LPARs that are running on the same processor CEC. Configuration help (parms etc.) would be greatly appreciated. I think all we need to do to connect the 3 existing LPARs is purchase 2 FICON cards (we currently have no extras). Unfortunately, the IBM docs seem to talk a lot about the full parallel sysplexes (with Coupling facilities), but we don't have them, and they seem to be a great deal more expensive than FICON cards which are all we need to implement GRS anyway (that's our goal). We can also apparently create a virtual CF, but the overhead appears to be far greater than we can spare. Any CXF CTC setup information would be greatly appreciated. Thanks Brian -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
