In <[email protected]>, on
02/17/2010
at 10:26 AM, George Henke <[email protected]> said:
>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?
Do you freeze DEV when doing QA on a new release of the operating system?
If not, then you need both.
>Can't MVS (z/OS) handle it?
Handle what? Multiple release and service levels? Separation of DASD?
>Why replicate the z/OS operating system a gazillion times when z/OS
>already has everything needed.
Needed for what?
>I know single point of failure at all that jazz, but then what do we
>have a DR box for anyway?
Hint; what does the D stand for?
>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?
That's a question that only you can answer. It's not my dog.
>But that cannot be achieved with a single instance of z/OS, a software
>sandbox, and a DR box?
If you never install service or upgrade.
>Don't we already logically separate DEV, TEST, UAT, and PROD in separate
>CICSes, DB2s, etc.
To some extent.
>These are hard questions like, "Is the emperor really wearing
>anything?".
No, they are loaded questions like "Have you stopped beating your wife?"
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
ISO position; see <http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html>
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
