On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 00:00:00 GMT, Ted MacNEIL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> In other cases, it may be a real confidentiality concern. For example, >> in a service-bureau setting, data set names may contain customer names >> or acronyms. > >That does not make sense at all! >It's not best practice to have different customers on the same LPAR, or sharing the same UCATs! > >So, a little partitioning and you won't have to perform unnatural acts like 'hiding' a dataset. > > Best practice or not, I know many examples of different clients in a service-bureau setting sharing LPARs. If the data is protected, it's not an issue (even though it is certainly harder to protect data in that environment than stand alone envionments). I worked in a banking environment where the _same_ files supported multiple customers (customer number was part of the files). You can't expect to have a separate LPAR for every small client in all service-bureau environments. Too expensive, too much overhead. Mark -- Mark Zelden Sr. Software and Systems Architect - z/OS Team Lead Zurich North America / Farmers Insurance Group mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Systems Programming expert at http://expertanswercenter.techtarget.com/ Mark's MVS Utilities: http://home.flash.net/~mzelden/mvsutil.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
