On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 20:47:16 +0000, Ted MacNEIL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>ITYM that it's your *opinion* that TSO and production should be kept separate, but what do you mean by that? > >No! It's not my opinion. If you are going to claim "Best practices," I think you need to justify it with facts. >It's from an old document from IBM, and I tend to agree with it. What document? How old? >It's not for security reasons; RACF/ACF2/TOPSECRET can handle that. I didn't think so. > >It's for performance reasons. >You either have poor TSO response, or you have it impacting production. If you don't have adequate resources, you will not meet all of your goals. > >Neither is a good thing! > >>Separate LPAR? > >Good enough. Nonsense. Simply separating your "Production" and TSO in their own LPARs will not guarantee adequate TSO response time without "impacting" production. Having sufficient resources and reasonable goals will. What is sufficient depends upon the goals. If everything must complete in the shortest possible time once submitted, you will need a lot more resources to meet peak load. OTOH, if there is sufficient work that can run a little slower, the peaks can be smoothed and the work can all get done with fewer resources. WLM can do an ecxellent job of maintaining good response time for TSO and CICS environments as well as for batch production and test workloads. And it can do it with the processors running very near capacity. Tom Marchant ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
