You will probably get different answers on this question. Here is my answer.
My memory says that the MAIN JES2 Subsystem needs to be JES2. If you define addition JES2 subsystems (secondary) then they can be JESA, JESB, etc... The main reason is that every piece of documentation is for JES2. You might get someone confused at operations or Level2 if you say my JESA system is down. Trust me, you do not want to confuse Level2 at 0200 am with a JES is down call. Leaving it JES2 will make everything happy. Besides I am not sure if other vendors might need to see JES2 to make their products happy. I have run JES2 as the main JES2 subsystem name forever and there have not been any fallout. When I set up a JESA system, there were many factors to consider, such as third party products, documentation, NJE/RJE partners, etc... So I only had a JESA up on my test system; never in a production box. Now for the proc, personally I would keep it the same name (again for clarification). Unless you are running a very large environment, there is no need to make it any different. In the shop I was at we had 36 images running. So in our staging library we had a different JES2 proc for each image, but during our roll out procedure, it was renamed to JES2 on the target system. That way we could maintain all of our environments in one staging Proclib. Hope this helps. Lizette Koehler ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
