I've never been comfortable with changing severity levels for a problem. It's
either a Sev1 - critical function not available - or it's not. The impact to
the business doesn't change just because of convenience. I've had managers try
to play the raise and lower game and frequently had closed do
Shmuel Metz wrote:
>> I figured IBM looked at the sev 1s and said "oh, it's them again" and just
>> treated it like a sev 2. :-) (boy who cried wolf syndrome)
>That's why I prefer to open incidents as Sev 3[1]; when I open one at Sev 1 or
>Sev 2, I don't have a rack record of severity inflati
In <9045833222889555.wa.markmzelden@listserv.ua.edu>, on
11/30/2012
at 02:18 PM, Mark Zelden said:
>What I've done in those cases is to open as a Sev 2 and then
>explain the criticality of the situation and say "please treat
>this like a sev 1" and that has worked well for me. Of cour
In
<9673478860418448.wa.charles.kreiterbwc.state.oh...@listserv.ua.edu>,
on 11/30/2012
at 12:23 PM, Chuck Kreiter said:
>I always reserve SEV 1 to issues that have made my primary systems
>unusable. I have had IBM'ers tell us to raise to SEV 1 in the
>morning and then drop to SEV 2 at quittin
I tend to agree with Gregory and others. If it's Severity 1 then that
should mean you're working on the problem round the clock. A serious
problem should be treated seriously, basically.
However, a *little* nuance is in order. For example, we now have
smartphones and high speed networks with VPNs.
Sev 1 can also cover security/integrity issues. Long ago I reported that
under Profs (or maybe OfficeVision) a user could send a document (script
file) to another user with embedded codes (.sy I think) which executed
CMS or CP commands when the document was formatted, because the system's
DCF (
e"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main
To:
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 9:53 AM
Subject: Changing PMR Severity (Was: Makes me love most of my z/OS software
vendors)
On 11/29/2012 10:55 PM, Timothy Sipples wrote:
Nevertheless, you are allowed to mark the problem incident as Severity 1
whenev
m...@listserv.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Thomas Conley
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 11:23 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Changing PMR Severity (Was: Makes me love most of my z/
OS software vendors)
On 11/30/2012 10:53 AM, Edward Jaffe wrote:
On 11/29/2012 10:55 PM, Timothy Sipples
On 11/30/2012 12:44 PM, Mark Zelden wrote:
With all the EAV fun you've already had, was that on an EAV volume in
cyl managed space?
Lol! You call that "fun"?? :D
This most recent issue was on, what some people on this list would call, a
'MOD-81' volume. It is an EAV, but the 5000-cylinder ZFS
On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 12:31:18 -0800, Edward Jaffe
wrote:
>Follow-up: Based on the PDA logs, IBM thought that one large (5000 cylinder)
>ZFS
>seemed to be a trigger for whatever the problem was. We backed that up manually
>via BACKDS command and then the normal dailies started working again. (Whe
On 11/30/2012 12:12 PM, Gibney, Dave wrote:
I have become curious. I know you run multiple Lpars at different levels of
z/OS. It seem s unlikely to me that HSM is failing in all of them. And that you
should be able to get your back-ups, at least temporarily form a working copy :)
In this p
On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 12:07:57 -0800, Edward Jaffe
wrote:
>On 11/30/2012 10:20 AM, McKown, John wrote:
>> To me, and to every shop I've ever worked at, SEV 1 means "we're dead and we
>> are all staying here until we are working again." One time, this meant a 36
>> hour shift for all 3 sysprogs.
Washington State University
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU]
> On Behalf Of Edward Jaffe
> Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 12:08 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: Changing PMR Severity (Was: Makes me lo
On 11/30/2012 10:20 AM, McKown, John wrote:
To me, and to every shop I've ever worked at, SEV 1 means "we're dead and we are all
staying here until we are working again." One time, this meant a 36 hour shift for
all 3 sysprogs. I was much younger then.
The inability to run daily system backup
I, too, use SEV 1 only when the system is unusable. I feel fortunate that I've
only had a handful of SEV 1's over the past 17 years.
I've never had IBM make a request to raise the level as described, but I
suspect if they did, I could agree to it. That is, if I believed the issue was
SEV 2,
I always reserve SEV 1 to issues that have made my primary systems unusable. I
have had IBM'ers tell us to raise to SEV 1 in the morning and then drop to SEV
2 at quitting time. This never set well with me. I had a supervisor (who was
and remains an idiot) who wanted me to open a SEV 1 ticket
l Sev 1' - but in
> general I try to let the realities of the impact dictate...)
>
> Thanks!
> Greg Cardillo
> Email: gregory.cardi...@hp.com
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU]
> On B
I won't do that. It's a double edged sword. I've had my management tell me
to make something a SEV1, I *think* mostly because it's important to them, or
maybe impatience.
My stock answer is always, if it's a SEV1, I have to do anything to resolve it,
up to and including disrupting the syste
BM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Thomas Conley
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 11:23 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Changing PMR Severity (Was: Makes me love most of my z/OS software
vendors)
On 11/30/2012 10:53 AM, Edward Jaffe wrote:
&
On 11/30/2012 10:53 AM, Edward Jaffe wrote:
On 11/29/2012 10:55 PM, Timothy Sipples wrote:
Nevertheless, you are allowed to mark the problem incident as Severity 1
whenever you have somebody on shift.(*) Therefore it's possible to have
your first qualified support person come in at, say, 8:00 a.
On 11/29/2012 10:55 PM, Timothy Sipples wrote:
Nevertheless, you are allowed to mark the problem incident as Severity 1
whenever you have somebody on shift.(*) Therefore it's possible to have
your first qualified support person come in at, say, 8:00 a.m. and raise
the PMR to Severity 1. Then, as
21 matches
Mail list logo
