I think I have to disagree. I can't see where there is any evidence that altering the LINKLIST while things are running would not "work". If that were the case, I think there would be a lot of angry people opening problems with IBM support, and I would be one of the first on that list of people.
Not using the features is not an option, that's why we asked for them in the first place. I know that IBM doesn't always provide what we ask for, but in this case it was done and it has never been unsuccessful for me. I install and upgrade new systems for clients many times per year and I have yet to have this process fail or to experience a problem with this method. I "could" just be lucky, but with the frequency that I use these commands and the number of systems I use them on, I would think that I would have experienced a problem by now.:) Brian On Tue, 19 Aug 2014 08:25:18 -0500, Shane Ginnane <[email protected]> wrote: >On Tue, 19 Aug 2014 08:28:22 -0400, Peter Relson wrote: > >>The only thing that is truly safe is to let new address spaces and jobs >>use the new lnklst while old ones continue to use the old one. > >This has always been my approach - protect the long running address spaces. >Of course, on a sysprog sandpit it can be a matter of "full steam ahead, and >damn the users". The users in that case being (only) "us". > >Shane ... > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, >send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
