No system is perfect,  and I have always thought that this area
we are discussing is one of the more annoying weaknesses in CMS.
>From the earliest days,  PROFILE EXEC was a user's gun,  so to speak.

In shops where I have worked thus far,  we have tried to reign-in
service machine maint employing a variety of tricks,  including such
slick VM tricks as a shared 191.   At one time,  a shared 191 was
not a problem for VM TCP/IP service v-machines.   Not so now.   [grrr!!!]

Response to Jim's point follows.

On Mon, 5 Dec 2005, Jim Bohnsack wrote:
> What SYSPROF did you refer to in the "sniplet" below?  Is that SYSPROF EXEC
> from the S-disk?  I know you were talking about TCPIP but I didn't find a
> SYSPROF on any of the 4TCPIP40 disks.  SYSPROF EXEC on the S-disk gets
> serviced and is a pain in the lower back.  I think that just about everyone
> has a SYSPROF2 or something like that.  The last RSU I put on z/VM 4.4 hit
> SYSPROF.  The official IBM SYSPROF EXEC would benefit from a call to an
> exec such as TCPRUNXT or SYSPRRUN and a cast in concrete guarantee that
> SYSPRRUN or SYSPROF2 would never be "maintained".

SYSPROF EXEC is a great improvement from the old days.
The only way I have found to  "hook it"  is to make a mod
(which is more painful here than for the TCP/IP PROFILEs because
SYSPROF EXEC is on the 190 with that delicate DCSS relationship).
Having thus hooked SYSPROF,  we call our own LCLPROF.

I very much agree with Alan's point that writing run-time mods
to the A disk is the right thing.  Trouble from my perspective
is taht the A disk might well be temp,  and the  "PROFILE EXEC
is servicable turf"  rule makes that more ... complicated.

If a service v-machine needs to write no permanent files,
but does need a R/W disk,  then temp makes a huge lot of sense.
If you apply the same local quirk to ALL service v-machines
(and could them in the TCP/IP suite!)  then a shared 191
with a shared PROFILE makes a huge lot of sense.

This is a ten+ year old argument
and I have no expectation of changing IBM's mind.
So take this as an FYI rather than a complaint ... maybe.

-- R;

Reply via email to