McKown, John wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of R.S.
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 1:00 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Changing an IODF in batch
<snip>
Why don't you create both versions in advance ?
Let's say IODF10 for PROD, IODFA0 for DR. The only difference
is LIBRARY
ID. And two LOADxx members.
No batch jobs, no HCD procedures at all. Less time to launch DR site.
Free of charge.
It is also possible to have ONE IODF for both sides, however
it has no
advantage in this case IMHO.
Just my $0.02
--
Radoslaw Skorupka
Lodz, Poland
I have created the IODF for our normal disaster system. However, what
happens in a real case and we cannot get to the system for which I have
the pregen'ed IODF? I am tasked to make our D.R. "dead simple". I must
assume an absolute minimal amount of knowledge on the part of the actual
restoration personnel. Updating a batch job is much simplier than
documenting, step by step in detail, how to use the HCD panels. I
already have step-by-step for the ISMF panels. And it is very tedious to
maintain that documention as the ISMF/HCD panels change.
That's why I suggested to *AVOID* doing any changes to IODF, doesn't
matter in batch or ISPF. Just NO CHANGES. Simply IPL using different
Load Parameters (to be exaxct: other LOADxx suffix in the parameters).
No procedure is needed, no knowledge is needed. It can be used in remote
copy scenario, restore from tapes scenario (using "tech" LPAR), or bare
metal scenario (stand alone utilities).
Does any simpler solution exist?
--
Radoslaw Skorupka
Lodz, Poland
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
