>sysplex is not a way for connecting (merge) several independent systems and applications together.
I disagree. >Sysplex is meant rather to expand single system. So, the proper way is to >merge the systems before and then create sysplex. Again, I disagree. Where I first had implemented Parallel SYSPLEX (Oct 1994), we started by creating the PLEX, and once we had that we started merging our two large IMS sub-systems. We couldn't do it before because of Virtual Storage Constraint, and limits to 31-bit Central Storage. We also managed to reduce the sub-systems running from four (XRF) to three (IMSPLEX fail over). We also created a DB2PLEX to support the new IMSPLEX, by merging the two (four) existing DB2's. For our Web/PC-Serving CICS/DB2 application, we did it your 'proper' way (sort of). We expanded the existing sub-system(s) into two CICS & two DB2. But, after creating the same SYSPLEX. (This also negated the [originally] planned implementation of XRF for CICS). The proper way is to meet your business needs and implement SYSPLEX, application merging, in a low risk and properly planned way. What makes sense at one shop does not necessarily make sense at another. - Too busy driving to stop for gas! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
