Joel C. Ewing wrote: >Have things changed? There has been considerable discussion on Dynamic >LNKLIST in the past on this list.
Yes, I remember those discussions. >Basically "ACTIVATE" was always safe, provided it is OK that newly started >address spaces use the new LNKLST and old address spaces continue with the >previous LNKLST concatenation until restarted. But "UPDATE" has always been >advertised as with risk. >"Be careful when you use UPDATE. Updating an address space while a program in >that address space is fetching a module can cause the fetch to fail or to >locate an incorrect copy of the module. The system does not attempt to verify >the validity of the data for UPDATE". I agree 100% with that quote. >I was always lucky when I did LNKLST UPDATE, but I also did this with the >awareness that if it did cause some critical address space to fail that an IPL >might be the safest recovery -- that there was a nonzero, hopefully low, >probability that using this to avoid a service interruption could instead >cause a bigger service interruption. I was also lucky, but when we do a LNKLST UPDATE, we rather do it after hours if we simply cannot do a IPL. >As the nature of potential UPDATE-induced failures is highly dependent on >address space activity, ... Agreed. First thing IPL, if not possible, do that UPDATE during a quit time while taking an extreme risk that something may go down the drain... As always YMMV. I still want to see why the OP wants that route. Thanks Joel for your kind comments. Groete / Greetings Elardus Engelbrecht ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
