On Mon, 7 Dec 2009 09:48:30 -0500, Scott Rowe <scott.r...@joann.com> wrote:
>In my experience, GRS-Star with shared CP CFs is still significantly faster >(at least one order of magnitude) than GRS Ring using XCF. For the group's sake, I should have made the "YMMV" disclaimer. Our N.A. systems fared much better with Star than our European systems, but the configurations, workloads and constraints are quite different. >Also, the purpose for the extra CF can be used to upgrade CF code without a Sysplex outage. OK, ya got me. We are spoiled with a second CEC... > I guess it's also remotely possible that a CF code fault could cause a CF failure, though I have yet to see this. I keep a second CF running for this purpose, though I don't currently have any active structures in it. Maybe so in the midst of a CF code upgrade (planned outage), else a code fault on CF1 seems very likely to recur on CF2 in very short order. Any sort of unrecoverable physical failure would most likely throw machine casters up, rendering the second CF moot. Regards, Art Gutowski Ford Motor Company ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
