What he said is true. It does depend upon the choices taken. Tom Moulder
-----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick Fochtman Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2007 11:56 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Data replication at a remote site - elementary doubt ------------------------<snip>-------------------------- >I'm afraid I must respectfully disagree with the collective wisdom of the group :-) > >The most technically correct answer to your questions is: it depends. > >We used to do the controller to controller method (IBM's PPRC), but have recently implemented IBM's XRC. XRC requires a live operating system running at the remote site to manage the replication. > > ------------------------<unsnip>--------------------------- Not true; XRC can be "driven" from either end. We evaluated both possibilities and found that having the DataMover at the remote site was more cost-effective than running it locally, thanks to services provided at the remote site by our DR provider. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.16.2/613 - Release Date: 1/1/2007 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
