Re: CSA Shrank in DR

2016-05-11 Thread phil yogendran
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: >

Re: CSA Shrank in DR

2016-05-10 Thread John Eells
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

Re: CSA Shrank in DR

2016-05-06 Thread phil yogendran
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

Re: CSA Shrank in DR

2016-05-06 Thread 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.

Re: CSA Shrank in DR

2016-05-06 Thread Tom Marchant
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

Re: CSA Shrank in DR

2016-05-06 Thread John McKown
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

Re: CSA Shrank in DR

2016-05-05 Thread Roach, Dennis
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

Re: CSA Shrank in DR

2016-05-05 Thread phil yogendran
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,

Re: CSA Shrank in DR

2016-05-05 Thread Bob Rutledge
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

Re: CSA Shrank in DR

2016-05-05 Thread John McKown
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'

CSA Shrank in DR

2016-05-05 Thread phil yogendran
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