I believe that the STP-to-9037 scenario was envisioned as an emergency fallback option, not an upgrade (or rather downgrade) procedure. The kicker is that your z10 does not have the STP feature now, but the z10 is no longer upgradable. The only possibility I see is to acquire a different CEC, either a comparable z10 that already has STP or an affordable z196 or even z114.
Bean counters become myopic from studying beans too closely. . . J.O.Skip Robinson Southern California Edison Company Electric Dragon Team Paddler SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager 626-302-7535 Office 323-715-0595 Mobile jo.skip.robin...@sce.com From: Mark Jacobs <mark.jac...@custserv.com> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU, Date: 02/06/2014 06:15 AM Subject: Re: Sysplex Common Time Source Sent by: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU> You've hit the problem, we have two z196 processors that are STP capable, but can't have the 9037's attached, and one z10 where we can attach the sysplex timers, but that processor doesn't have the STP feature. Mark Jacobs On 02/06/14 09:05, Dana Mitchell wrote: >> On 02/06/14 06:38, Scott Chapman wrote: >>> I believe that you can have a mixed CTN where one CEC doesn't have STP, but in that case the external time source must be >> the 9037 and I'm pretty sure that at least one of the CECs must be both STP and 9037 capable. I don't know what the implications > are from converting from a pure STP environment back to a mixed environment, but it seems like when we did the conversion to > STP there was some sort of fall-back provision. >> > The STP Implementation Guide Redbook SG24-7281 describes migrating from STP-only CTN to Mixed CTN. They add this caution: > > A migration from STP-only to Mixed CTN may take considerable time due to the potential > difference in time between the Current Time Server and the Sysplex Timer, at the start of the > migration. Once the migration is selected, the STP facility will need to steer the Coordinated > Server Time (CST) towards the time being provided by the Sysplex Timer. > > On Thu, 6 Feb 2014 07:27:15 -0500, Mark Jacobs <mark.jac...@custserv.com> wrote: >> That was what we originally though too, but our local IBM support person >> told us we couldn't. Thinking further about configuration activities to >> migrate to mixed CTN mode, I'm not seeing how on the non STP capable >> processor we're going to be able to set the name of the mixed CTN, since >> it isn't going to have the STP tab for that CEC, >> > In a mixed CTN, one or more CECs can be only attached to the 9037's and not even required to be STP capable. There must be at least one CEC that is STP capable and attached to 9037's. > > > Dana ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
