On Tue, 23 Nov 2010 10:48:09, Mark Zelden <[email protected]> wrote: >On Tue, 23 Nov 2010 10:01:58, Arthur Gutowski <[email protected]> wrote: >> Guess I'm "old school", and I just don't see the need for these R/O FS. > >Times change... adapt or become extinct. :-)
I get that. We (Ford) almost did go the way of the dodo. That's still fresh. We just had a discussion over the zFS default for ServerPac (we're installing 1.12), and the real reason came out. This introduces a big change to our cloning process, and we're not confident we can absorb it during the upgrade. >Is anyone using the new support in z/OS 1.12 for VSAM indirect cataloging >yet for cloning? > >I haven't ordered 1.12 yet, missed SHARE, and haven't looked at the >implementation details yet. It looks like a non-starter. I don't see any support for VOLUME specification in the BPXPRMxx MOUNT statement, the TSO/E nor Unix command, nor in automount. Without that, I can't see how it makes my cloning process any easier. I still have to maintain unique DSNames for my maintenance FS'. Hence, a rename is still required during a clone, even if all our systems take advantage of it for IPL volumes. All it seems to buy me is I can take &SYSR1. out of the FILESYSTEM parm of the MOUNT statements. BFD. If I missed something, I'll be receptive to some illumination. Regards, Art Gutowski Ford Motor Company ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
