Sysplex may have been conceived as a way for applications and systems to "grow beyond a box", but like it or not, it has evolved into a means to merge independent systems together. Understanding the technical limitations (we're closer to that now), each shop can decide how far to exploit it. There are advantages and costs at each stop, and these should be weighed and decided upon by all affected parties within the organization.
That's the hard part - IBMs internal disconnect between development and the various sales & marketing groups have, IMHO, contributed to some of the difficulties we've discussed in this, and related threads, recent and past. The constant bait-and-switch tactics with the customer base doesn't help, either. After 12 months of planning and implementing our "shamplex", now IBM tells us we can save even more money by moving to an ELA. <!*&$...@!> Why this wasn't an option last year... Not too suprisingly, this has prompted some in our shop to posit institution of an ELA and dismantling of our now reasonably-stable sysplex. It's a wonder my head hasn't exploded. SIGH. It is what it is. We are stuck in a rickety-plex for now, but I'd at like to get to DASD, Tape, and RACF sharing (saving T&E on administration and SW deployment), if not true data sharing, where justified. Regards, Art Gutowski Ford Motor Company ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
