Again, a TogglePlex can (unambiguously, I think) *reduce* service interruptions. The 2 minute figure was merely an example, just like the Sunday and 2:00 a.m. examples that appeared right next to it. Obviously how much reduction is achievable is highly application architecture dependent.
Also, from an operations point of view you should always protect the most critical (least interruptable) applications and users first, as determined through recent business-side consensus. Can you toggle X, Y, and Z (where X +Y+Z is some big number of "things") within 2 minutes (or even 5 or 10 minutes)? Maybe not. But maybe you don't have to. Maybe you can toggle a subset first (and more quickly), then move on to the remainder. (This is also basic disaster recovery strategy: get the "heart, lungs, and brain" back in operation first, then move on to things like the stomach and pituitary. So it's probably good practice anyway.) You might call this a "phased toggle" (or "rolling toggles"?) I suppose, with the interruption for each *particular* user (or user class) shortened even while there might be a series of interruptions across the entire user population. Again, this is all highly application architecture dependent. You're arguing that Parallel Sysplex is better. I totally agree (and say so again). Heck, beyond that, GDPS is even more better. But if (for whatever reason -- perhaps even a bad reason) the choice is only between a single production LPAR and a TogglePlex, a TogglePlex is a positive step forward. - - - - - Timothy Sipples IBM Consulting Enterprise Software Architect Based in Tokyo, Serving IBM Japan / Asia-Pacific E-Mail: [email protected] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
