On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 14:29:04 -0600, Staller, Allan wrote: >You got it. The XCF couple dataset uses the stamp from the GMT clock. >Instead of SET CLOCK= twice a year, you would issue SET TIMEZONE twice a >year . > Sigh. They _can't_ seem to get it right.
>NOTE: The XCF couple dataset cannot handle the back time change. It >"remembers" the last time it was used and will fail the IPL if the >timestamps are not in ascending sequence. I would allocate a new set of >XCF couple datasets and IPL with those (or wait 5 hours for the IPL). >After IPL, you can dynamically migrate back to the original files if >desired. > The OP, being in the Western Hemisphere, shouldn't need to wait 5 hours. On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 15:49:09 -0500, Blaicher, Christopher Y. wrote: > >If the programmers coded ZONE with the right option, then there is no problem. > For those that are still sensitive, what you can do is stop processing those >applications just before the switch time and restart the processes right after >without doing the IPL. In the Spring that means you need about a 10 minute >outage. In the fall you have to stop them for about an hour and ten minutes >to let the clock catch back up. > >This is a programming short-coming and I have been of the opinion for 10 years >that they need to fix it and stop making operations jump through hoops every >Spring and Fall. Just my personal 2 cents on this. > I fully agree. But who's "they". Every application provider, I suppose. -- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
