On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 00:00:00 GMT, Ted MacNEIL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >MIM in the CF performs just as well as GRS*. >But, I'd rather use the 'free' GRS. >And, I've had too many problems with a certain ISV. > Perhaps, but MII has been very solid code and bery good support over the years. Also more dynamic changes than GRS - especially in past years. I've had some issues with MIA (tape) in the past, but no glearing problems with MII (integrity). No one ever mentions MIC in these threads. While sysplex will let you consolodate your consoles within a sysplex, with MIC you can issue commands and view console messages that span the boundries of sysplex. Most people miss the fact that MIM can run with a control file in the CF and perform as well as GRS STAR, but many shops that run MIM do so specifically because it can span sysplexes. Also, some recent threads (and past threads) talk about a DASD shared control file. While you can do that, the best option is CTCONLY which uses 2 sets of CTCs (primary + backup) for communications and has a virtual control file that lives on one of the active LPARs in the MIMplex. Obviously if you have FCTCs your better off than with ESCON CTCs. It's not GRS STAR (or MIM in a CF), but performance is still good. Mark -- Mark Zelden Sr. Software and Systems Architect - z/OS Team Lead Zurich North America and Farmers Insurance Group mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Systems Programming expert at http://Search390.com/ateExperts/ Mark's MVS Utilities: http://home.flash.net/~mzelden/mvsutil.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
