Thank you John. I will review your recommendation and then go back to
all our systems and try and implement it ASAP. This is clearly a
preventable issue and I don't want to deal with a re-occurrence.
On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 9:56 AM, John Eells wrote:
> phil yogendran wrote:
>
phil yogendran wrote:
Thank you very much, all. You have been most helpful. I have run into this
problem before so I need to spend more time on it. All of your suggestions
and recommendations will help me get to the bottom of it. Much appreciated.
Some time ago, I wrote a post about setting
Thank you very much, all. You have been most helpful. I have run into this
problem before so I need to spend more time on it. All of your suggestions
and recommendations will help me get to the bottom of it. Much appreciated.
On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 9:15 AM, Peter Relson
>DR: SQA 988KCSA 3.43M
>Prod:SQA 1.11MCSA 4.28M
Did you mean that the size of CSA shrank or the amount of CSA being used
shrank?
I think some of the posts thought it was the former, but the above makes
me think it's the latter.
On Thu, 5 May 2016 14:22:23 -0500, John McKown wrote:
>On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 2:07 PM, phil yogendran wrote:
>
>> We recently performed a DR exercise and on one of the LPAR's, the CSA was
>> smaller by about 800k. Parmlib specification in DR and production were
>> identical. The LPAR affected is
On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 3:12 PM, phil yogendran wrote:
> I did think it was a bigger IODF but in my case SQA in DR has gone down
> implying a smaller IODF. However, CSA has also gone down. Here's some
> inform from DR and Prod;
>
> DR: SQA 988K
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: CSA Shrank in DR
I did think it was a bigger IODF but in my case SQA in DR has gone down
implying a smaller IODF. However, CSA has also gone down. Here's some inform
from DR and Prod;
DR: SQA 988KCSA 3.43M
Prod
I did think it was a bigger IODF but in my case SQA in DR has gone down
implying a smaller IODF. However, CSA has also gone down. Here's some
inform from DR and Prod;
DR: SQA 988KCSA 3.43M
Prod: SQA 1.11MCSA 4.28M
On Thu, May 5,
On 5/5/2016 3:07 PM, phil yogendran wrote:
Hello,
We recently performed a DR exercise and on one of the LPAR's, the CSA was
smaller by about 800k. Parmlib specification in DR and production were
identical. The LPAR affected is our designated 'network' box so there are
no apps or subsystems like
On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 2:07 PM, phil yogendran wrote:
> Hello,
>
> We recently performed a DR exercise and on one of the LPAR's, the CSA was
> smaller by about 800k. Parmlib specification in DR and production were
> identical. The LPAR affected is our designated 'network'
Hello,
We recently performed a DR exercise and on one of the LPAR's, the CSA was
smaller by about 800k. Parmlib specification in DR and production were
identical. The LPAR affected is our designated 'network' box so there are
no apps or subsystems like CICS or IMS running on it.
Any thoughts on
11 matches
Mail list logo