That would have been very helpful - there should also be a reference to z/os
3.1 rather than just the 2.5 PTFs . A mention in the PSP bucket for z/os 3.1
would have been more helpful - my first thought of course when my first IPL
failed was ‘what have I done wrong’ and part of the investigation
We intend to add WAIT006 and WAIT074 to the VM66721 APAR description to help
with "search findability".
Peter Relson
z/OS Core Technology Design
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to l
> If you instead ATTACH the device to
> the VM user, the problem will also not occur, since it is not being treated
> as a minidisk in that case.
> The type of processor or DASD controller is not relevant to the problem.
>
> Jim Mulder
>
>
>
>> To: IBM-MAI
not relevant to the problem.
Jim Mulder
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of
Keith Gooding
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2023 1:37 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Heads up: z/os 3.1 WAIT 006 under z/VM + DS6800 question
It was z/VM 7.2 (still
_
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of
> Keith Gooding <034af3894af4-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2023 1:27 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Heads up: z/os 3.1 WAIT 006 under z/VM + DS6800 question
>
> For my
ubject: Heads up: z/os 3.1 WAIT 006 under z/VM + DS6800 question
For my first z/OS 3.1 IPL (under z/VM) I got WAIT 006. After a long search I
found z/VM APAR VM66721: Z/OS GUEST IPLS FAIL AFTER APPLYING UJ92591/UJ92728.
There is no PTF as yet but there is a work-around (turn off mini-disk c
For my first z/OS 3.1 IPL (under z/VM) I got WAIT 006. After a long search I
found z/VM APAR VM66721: Z/OS GUEST IPLS FAIL AFTER APPLYING UJ92591/UJ92728.
There is no PTF as yet but there is a work-around (turn off mini-disk caching).
Those PTFa are the validated boot PTFs for z/OS 2.5 - the fun
