Here is what I thought was a dumb question until someone posed it to me yesterday.
Why have a separate QA LPAR and not just leave QA in the DEV LPAR? The more I tried to come up with a good reason, the more I could not find one. Then I started to take the logic to its extreme and ask myself, "Why do we have LPARs at all? Can't MVS (z/OS) handle it? Why replicate the z/OS operating system a gazillion times when z/OS already has everything needed. I know single point of failure at all that jazz, but then what do we have a DR box for anyway? If it were really my money I was playing with, would I have sooooooo many LPARs just for neatness or so-called integrity, control, apple pie, and motherhood? I know RAS, Reliablity, Available, Serviceability. But that cannot be achieved with a single instance of z/OS, a software sandbox, and a DR box? Don't we already logically separate DEV, TEST, UAT, and PROD in separate CICSes, DB2s, etc. Why then do we need to separate them physically in their own LPARs, incur the addition cross LPARpay hire licensing fees (not counting sub-capacity licensing) only to bring them all back again logically with SHARED PARMLIB, SYSRES, MASTERCAT, JESPOOL. Is this just IBM's and ISVs way of making more money? These are hard questions like, "Is the emperor really wearing anything?". Are fewer LPARs necessarilly a bad thing? After all there is L ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
