>Many things CAN be done, but not necessarily were intended by designer.
Are you in contact with the designer(s)? Or, just a mind-meld? >As I said, there's nothing wrong in such usage, but it could yield unusual >issues. Name one! >Q1: Why did you merge the systems? What was a goal? To have lower fees? That >would mean priceplex. If the systems remained to be independent then >technically it would be reasonable to have two independent sysplexes. They were split because of Virtual Storage constraint problems, as I stated. They were sharing through ISC links. They weren't meant to be independent -- they had to be prior to SYSPLEX. It is only reasonable to have multiple SYSPLEX's if you want to spend extra money on CF's and external timers. >Q2: Wasn't it possible to expand one of the system to sysplex and then migrate >THE APPLICATION from another system? The IMS sysprogs, dba's, and apps decided this was the best approach, least cost, and least risk. They were the experts, and it was (very) technically feasible. IBM agreed and helped us. As I've said before, your way is NOT the only way. You have to do what's best for your shop. We did it in a three month project, it was very successful. We didn't do it on a whim. IBM even gave us tips, tools & techniques on application merging. We were the first Bank in Toronto to go to Parallel SYSPLEX, and while PSLC was one of the reasons, it wasn't the only one. The others were: 1. Simplification 2. Application Merging 3. Removal of a sub-system 4. Console conolidation (for free) 5. Removal of XRF 6. True data sharing 7. Faster/better recovery 8. Improved availability 9. Better prepared for growth Pricing schemes were pretty basic in October 1994. PricePlex didn't exist; GoldPlex didn't exist: just PSLC did. At that time, you could buy the equipment, and not even hook it up. You'd still get the discount; the software savings were greater than the cost of the hardware, in a shop our size. Then they introduced a requirement that you had to have at least 50% of your workload sharing, or you didn't get the discount. Too many shops were just buying the equipment as shelfware, and IBM couldn't convince many to actually implement it. If you were doing console consolidation, and running a big batch workload, you met the criteria. But, we were able to do much more with CICS, IMS, and DB2. All the other fancy pricing schemes came later. - 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
