We have two LPARs in a sysplex, S0W1 and S0W2. Our normal process is to IPL S0W1 first and then IPL S0W2. We normally take down S0W2 first for backups, etc. TCPIP connectivity works fine under those conditions. When both systems are up and we need to IPL only S0W2, the following occurs.
1. Both systems up, connectivity is fine.
2. Take down S0W1, connectivity for S0W2 is fine.
3. IPL S0W2, connectivity on S0W2 is lost. It seems to happen while S0W1 is still in NIP.
TCPIP on S0W2 takes an error. Sorry, I don't have the messages that are issued. We have to IPL S0W2 to get connectivity back.
Display from S0W1 during normal condition:
UNIT TYPE STATUS
0400 OSA A-BSY
0401 OSA A
0402 OSA A-BSY
0403 OSA OFFLINE
0404 OSA A-BSY
0405 OSA A
0406 OSA A-BSY
0407 OSA OFFLINE
0408 OSA OFFLINE
0409 OSA OFFLINE
040A OSA OFFLINE
040B OSA OFFLINE
040C OSA OFFLINE
040D OSA OFFLINE
040E OSA OFFLINE
040F OSA OFFLINE
Display from S0W2:
UNIT TYPE STATUS
0400 OSA OFFLINE
0401 OSA OFFLINE
0402 OSA OFFLINE
0403 OSA OFFLINE
0404 OSA OFFLINE
0405 OSA OFFLINE
0406 OSA OFFLINE
0407 OSA OFFLINE
0408 OSA A-BSY
0409 OSA A
040A OSA A-BSY
040B OSA OFFLINE
040C OSA A-BSY
040D OSA A
040E OSA A-BSY
040F OSA OFFLINE
From PLEXMAP:
[manager] # tap0 define network adapter (OSA) for communication with Linux
name awsosa 0009 --path=A0 --pathtype=OSD --tunnel_intf=y # QDIO mode
device 400 osa osa --unitadd=0
device 401 osa osa --unitadd=1
device 402 osa osa --unitadd=2
device 408 osa osa
device 409 osa osa
device 40A osa osa
[manager] # eth1 define network adapter (OSA) for communication with network
name awsosa 0019 --path=F1 --pathtype=OSD # QDIO mode
device 404 osa osa --unitadd=0
device 405 osa osa --unitadd=1
device 406 osa osa --unitadd=2
device 40C osa osa
device 40D osa osa
device 40E osa osa
I am confused with the unitadd parameters. The IODF does not specify any UNITADDs, so from the prospective of zOS, the unitadds are the same as the last two digits of the address. I can rationalize that the unitadds for eth1 404-406 are there since it is shared with tap0 400-402, If that is the case, then why aren't unitadds required for the 404-407 40C-40E pair? This may be unrelated to our problem, but I abhor inconsistency.
SherrilJohnson