Restricting QUIESCE is certainly prudent, but so is allowing for situations in which you really do want QUIESCE.
Did management tell you to IPL without first looking up the wait state code? I assume that the QUIESCE would have shown up in MT had they allowed an SA DUMP. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 ________________________________________ From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of Pommier, Rex [rpomm...@sfgmembers.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2021 9:58 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: z14 HMC log information I'm going to agree with *most* of it. I don't like the part about killing the RACF admin. I'm not the one who initially set up the OPERCMDS security but I missed the fact the QUIESCE command wasn't set as "don't let anybody use". Hari-kari is not on my bucket list. :-) On to Radoslaw's comment about logging - it is logged, after the fact. QUIESCE does exactly that - it stops the LPAR in its tracks. Do not pass Go, do not collect $200. No z/OS logging at the time it happens. IBM hardware support found and reported the wait state back to us from some hardware logs that were forwarded to them from our CE. The z/OS logging takes place after the PSW restart from the HMC occurs and yes, it shows the console or user that executed the command. However in our case since the LPAR stopped in the middle of the day and we had managers breathing down our necks to get the system back up we didn't have time to properly diagnose until after the fact - which included an IPL which in turn did not allow the logging of the quiesce command to take place. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
