× The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.



On 12/1/10 6:53 AM, jmmckee wrote:
The shop is at v5r4. No current on PTFs. Not something I am allowed
or responsible for doing. The SA does not like to get involved with
this stuff. And, as I have posted before, is antisocial.

We had a spate of devices that would not connect in 2006. At the
time, I learned that there was a maximum number that could/should be
assigned to a subsystem. I passed that on to the SA, who ignored it.
The device issues continued. He *finally* contacted IBM and was
given a procedure to recover devices that get hung. He was also told
to create an additional subsystem, which he did. Problem went away.
It is now back. Three devices, in two days, so far have been hung.

The procedure from IBM was to do a
DMPSYSOBJ OBJ(PASSTHRU#LUD#LIST) CONTEXT(QSYS) TYPE(0E) SUBTYPE(EF)

scan the spool file for the hung device

If found, vary off the device and then issue this command:
CALL PGM(QSPTLIB/QPARIXEN) PARM('device name')

That works.

My question (sorry about the length of this), does anybody know if
the underlying problem has been addressed by an APAR and PTF?

If, such exists, I >might< be able to get my supervisor to persuade
the sa (who he also directs or tries to) to apply either the latest
cum or a specific PTF.

This is nuts.

Sorry for the rant and length. Just gets frustrating.


If the IBM support did not give an APAR number describing the origin of the problem being diagnosed and corrected by the noted dump and corrective actions, then as merely a guess... I think that the HIPer APAR SE43904 might identify the problem, with the PTF SI40274 on C0292540 being the fix. Since the application of that PTF along with the other PTFs on the v5r4m0 HIPer list is a good choice for a minimal level of maintenance, application of the HIPers would seem appropriate IMO; that would include SI40691, which should prevent a temporary storage leak associated with similar code. Of course applying the cumulative versus just the HIPers might be an even better choice :-)

http://www-912.ibm.com/n_dir/nas4apar.NSF/b6c9b771e38b5ea2862564c00079d110/a8718ceab7a1e90d8625774c003c92bd?OpenDocument
http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=nas2a8718ceab7a1e90d8625774c003c92bd
http://www-912.ibm.com/s_dir/sline003.NSF/2d3aff1c6b4d6ce086256453000d971e/63b317b8c13a2a7e8625710f005c4fdd?OpenDocument
https://www-304.ibm.com/jct01003c/support/docview.wss?uid=nas39bf24152d89d03118625777500007af7

Regards, Chuck

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...

Follow-Ups:

Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.