> > > >We started down the SYSPLEX road, but never could get hardware > >resources, then dropped from 6 to 3 LPAR's after Y2K. > > > Setting up a ESCON CTC isn't all that difficult and won't cost you > anything except a pair of ESCON channels. With that, you can set up a > 3-LPAR SYSPLEX with GRS capabilities and go forward from there. Helps > immensely if you diagram it out before you start to define the IOCDS > entries.
Don't forget that (AFAIK) all currently supported processors support some form of xMIF, meaning that you don't really need actual physical CTCs for connections within the same CEC/Box/<your_favorite_name_for_a_box> so if you're just connecting LPARS in the same machine you can do it trivially. <soapbox> Here we are in 2007. It is simply staggering to me that people are still whining about perceived "problems" and costs associated with sysplex. Those old chestnuts are bogus. There is NO GOOD REASON to run monoplexes in preference to at least a basic sysplex. And if you really do need to run multiple LPARS for your work, then you need to do some soul searching about parallel sysplex. The benefits are enormous and the costs really aren't. </soapbox> PDSE sharing requires all of the sharing members to be in the SAME sysplex. Period. PDSE (and a number of other components) share control information over XCF, which by definition restricts their sharing scope to members within the boundaries of the same sysplex. So even though you can share physical DASD resources across sysplex boundaries with a GRS ring or with MIM, you cannot share those (logical) datasets, no matter how you think it ought to work. CC ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
