On 19 Jan 2007 04:37:48 -0800, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote: >Craddock, Chris wrote: >>>> 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. > >There are. Different LPARs run different businesses, different >companies. Different security rules. Strict for production, light for >development. > Gjiven the source of most test data, I believe that we in the development area have been very lax in security. Being light on security in the development area will come back to haunt us. In most of my development work I have had access to what was basically some form of a copy of production data which has then been manipulated.
>> rest snipped ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
