I would not advocate actually DOING this, but just for the record it's, possible:
When I started at SCE in the mid 90s, all DASD was genned as non-shared. It was physically connected and logically accessible from multiple MVS systems, but in practice, volumes were never actually USED by more than one system. Not catalogs. Not spool. Not RACF. Other systems' volumes were always offline to each other. Back in the days of SLED DASD, we had to move logical volumes constantly from one physical location to another. With devices genned as non-shared, copy/restore could be done from another system during quiet times without the owning system getting hung up on device reserves. It actually worked pretty well, I guess, considering the requirement. With the advent of sysplex, DASD had to be really shared, so the old strategy went by the wayside. As I said, not necessarily to be recommended, but it did work. . . . JO.Skip Robinson Southern California Edison Company SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager 626-302-7535 Office 323-715-0595 Mobile [EMAIL PROTECTED] IBM Mainframe Discussion List <[email protected]> wrote on 10/12/2005 09:55:27 AM: > Is there a performance penalty if one defines the DASD with the shared > attribute when running in a monoplex. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
