Re: LUD list

Thank you Chuck. Your posts are great.

Now, if I can only persuade people here to do maintenance that has already been determined. But, this goes back to an earlier post from me concerning issues with potential link loader errors - which, I am glad to know, is unlikely.

John McKee


-----Original message-----
From: CRPence CRPbottle@xxxxxxxxx
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2010 10:44:43 -0600
To: midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: LUD list

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
--
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list
To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.