>Technical possibilities may not always reflect business needs. True, but we, as technicians, have a responsibility to meet, or compromise with, as much of the business need as possible.
>For example, there is no painless and easy way to merge RACF db's and for sure >it is IRRUT400 is not recommended way to do this. I've worked with RACF since 1984, and we never had different DB's across systems. We used whatever sharing methodologies were supported by IBM. >Sysplex was meant as a way for the systems to grow up and to achieve higher >levels of availability. You are limiting what can be done with a proper exploitation of SYSPLEX. >It wasn't a method to merge several applications under one system. I disagree, as I've already stated. We couldn't merge our two IMS applications, and get rid of XRF, without SYSPLEX. - Too busy driving to stop for gas! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
