In
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
on 01/18/2007
at 12:48 PM, Rugen, Len [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
The alternative is to go over to the dark side..
Or to *bsd or Linux.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
ISO position; see http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html
We don't
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on
01/18/2007
at 01:30 PM, Craddock, Chris [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Don't forget that (AFAIK) all currently supported processors support
some form of xMIF,
EXPN? The last I heard, PR/SM still didn't provide any form of virtual
CTCA. Or are you alluding to the fact that
In
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
on 01/17/2007
at 01:42 PM, Rugen, Len [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Do I need to setup GRS (yuck) in a ring to safely share PDSES?
Star is preferred, but you do need GRS.
I don't think I want or need XCF.
XCF is part and parcel of sysplex.
In
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
on
In
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
on 01/17/2007
at 05:45 PM, Jim Mulder [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Basic sysplex came in MVS/ESA SP4.1. PDSE came in MVS/ESA SP4.3.
PDSE came in as part of DFSMS. I don't recall which release.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
ISO position; see
Craddock, Chris wrote:
We started down the SYSPLEX road, but never could get hardware
resources, then dropped from 6 to 3 LPAR's after Y2K.
Setting up a ESCON CTC isn't all that difficult and won't cost you
anything except a pair of ESCON channels. With that, you can set up a
3-LPAR SYSPLEX
On 19 Jan 2007 04:37:48 -0800, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
Craddock, Chris wrote:
We started down the SYSPLEX road, but never could get hardware
resources, then dropped from 6 to 3 LPAR's after Y2K.
Setting up a ESCON CTC isn't all that difficult and won't cost you
anything except a
I said
Those old chestnuts are bogus. There is NO GOOD REASON to run
monoplexes
in preference to at least a basic sysplex.
RS said
There are. Different LPARs run different businesses, different
companies. Different security rules. Strict for production, light for
development.
If each
The previous shop I worked at had an MP3000-H50. Are you saying that
instead of 1 Prod Lpar and 1 Test Lpar, we should have had 2 Prod Lpars and
2 Test Lpars so we could run in sysplex mode? We also would need to define
a coupling facility, which I believe IBM always recommends 1 whole engine
On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 17:45:43 -0500, Jim Mulder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Basic sysplex came in MVS/ESA SP4.1. PDSE came in MVS/ESA SP4.3.
Jim Mulder z/OS System Test IBM Corp. Poughkeepsie, NY
Thanks Jim. Brain cramp ... I don't know why I thought PDSE was
around since ESA V3.
On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 17:11:44 -0500, Jack Kelly
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
if you have mim, why would you put grs on top of that?
Because MIM doesn't protect PDSE.
Search the archives. Don't forget IBM-MAIN-ARCHIVES.
This for example:
http://bama.ua.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0309L=ibm-mainP=R25353
We started down the SYSPLEX road, but never could get hardware
resources, then dropped from 6 to 3 LPAR's after Y2K.
Setting up a ESCON CTC isn't all that difficult and won't cost you
anything except a pair of ESCON channels. With that, you can set up a
3-LPAR SYSPLEX with GRS
This is about the 4th time I've installed the LAST OS upgrade we will
ever need on the mainframe. Each one has been the max allowed upgrade
just weeks prior to EOS of the current one. Many of us live under
political rules, not technical ones.
The alternative is to go over to the dark
On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 12:48:28 -0600, Rugen, Len wrote:
This is about the 4th time I've installed the LAST OS upgrade we will
ever need on the mainframe. Each one has been the max allowed upgrade
just weeks prior to EOS of the current one. Many of us live under
political rules, not technical ones.
I had hoped that our mainframe would be gone before I needed to exploit
PDSEs for end users. Apparently Oracle 10G produces load modules that
require LIBRARY datasets. We have 3 LPAR's on a z800 but not a SYSPLEX.
Do I need to setup GRS (yuck) in a ring to safely share PDSES? The only
To share PDSEs, all LPARs must be a member of the same sysplex. From z/OS
DFSMS: Using Data Sets, topic 3.8.9.3.3 Choosing Volumes for PDSEs in a
Sysplex:
-=-=-=-=-
PDSEs are designed to be shared within a sysplex. When choosing volumes
for PDSEs in a sysplex, be sure to follow these rules:
, January 17, 2007 2:43 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: SYSPLEX for PDS-E Sharing
I had hoped that our mainframe would be gone before I needed to exploit
PDSEs for end users. Apparently Oracle 10G produces load modules that
require LIBRARY datasets. We have 3 LPAR's on a z800
On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 13:42:48 -0600, Len Rugen wrote:
I had hoped that our mainframe would be gone before I needed to exploit
PDSEs for end users. Apparently Oracle 10G produces load modules that
require LIBRARY datasets. We have 3 LPAR's on a z800 but not a SYSPLEX.
It is NOT safe to share a
On Wed, 2007-01-17 at 13:42 -0600, Rugen, Len wrote:
How much pain is there to setup a GRS ring? When I RTFM, everything
seems to talk about a XCF. I don't think I want or need XCF.
Depends on how your systems are configured. If you have multiple systems
all the same it can be a pain.
I've probably missed something but I've found that setting up GRS via
escon ctc (or whatever) has been rather straight forward. Most confusing
thing has been assigning the right device numbers between the lpars/cpc.
The sysname issue has always been more related to going to sysplex. The
issue
PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Shane
Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 3:20 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: SYSPLEX for PDS-E Sharing
On Wed, 2007-01-17 at 13:42 -0600, Rugen, Len wrote:
How much pain is there to setup a GRS ring? When I RTFM, everything
seems to talk about a XCF. I
XCF is the cross-system communication facility.
No, you won't have to sacrifice a CP.
Jon
snip
Isn't XCF the coupling facility? I'm only a 2-way processor, wouldn't I
have to sacrifice one processor to the CF LPAR?
/snip
I have CTC's for VTAM and MIM and extras that I think I can use for a GRS
ring.
Oh! You didn't mention you had MIM!
I don't remember the details, but we did it accross two SYSPLEX environments
with MIM almost 10 years ago.
I'm no longer at that company, and it was out-sourced in 2001, so I
On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 14:56:56 -0600, Tom Marchant [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
It is NOT safe to share a PDSE outside of a SYSPLEX. This has been
discussed several times here. When you search the archives, make
sure you also search the archives for IBM-MAIN-ARCHIVES. All of
the older stuff is
IBM Mainframe Discussion List IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU wrote on 01/17/2007
05:35:15 PM:
On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 14:56:56 -0600, Tom Marchant
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
It is NOT safe to share a PDSE outside of a SYSPLEX. This has been
discussed several times here. When you search the archives,
snip--
Isn't XCF the coupling facility? I'm only a 2-way processor, wouldn't I
have to sacrifice one processor to the CF LPAR?
I was seeing all the crap about msys for setup and JVM's. Now that I
read more, I'll just do it, it looks easier. I
25 matches
Mail list logo
