RE: system save

I still don't know why IBM can't incorporate a SAVSYS process in an IPL ...

IPL to a certain point, and then while still in a restrictive state call the
BU program specified in some new system value. The BU process would run
SAVSYS and whatever else the user wanted to do in an unattended restrictive
state, then when the process ends, continue with starting up the system
using the QSTRUPPGM system value.

I seems so simple to me... Does anyone care to speculate on why this
presents such a technological challenge to IBM?

Kenneth

-----Original Message-----
From: Andy Nolen-Parkhouse [mailto:aparkhouse@attbi.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 11:21 AM
To: midrange-l@midrange.com
Subject: RE: system save


Thank you Ken,

You confirmed what I thought, that there still is no alternative for a
SAVSYS other than to log on to the console.

We have perhaps strayed from the original question, which was whether a
system save can be run from the job scheduler.  (No, the job scheduler
would initiate a batch process which would not be able to dedicate the
system.)  The logical follow-up question is, "Can we schedule a system
save in some other way?"  (Yes, although it does involve having a
console signed on).

Thanks,
Andy