I said > >> Those old chestnuts are bogus. There is NO GOOD REASON to run > monoplexes > >> in preference to at least a basic sysplex.
RS said > >There are. Different LPARs run different businesses, different > >companies. Different security rules. Strict for production, light for > >development. If each monoplex is a different business then ok. But that's not usually the case. It is most often just multiple LPARs within the same business, being operated as if it is still 1985. z/OS systems are not especially reliable or manageable when run like that. The reliability of the base operating system and subsystems are fine, but the net when you add in applications and workloads that push systems into uncomfortable places in the design envelope is instability and erratic service at best. The sysplex architecture is there for a reason, not just to make IBM wealthy. Clark said > 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. True enough and this is part of the "dirty little secret" we live with. Security is only as good as the weakest link. Most systems run a mix of IBM, ISV and home-grown software and it is almost laughably easy (for a guy like me anyway) to find holes in that environment. It is entirely possible to make the platform all-but bulletproof, but most aren't. That's one of the reasons you hear me harp on about integrity from time to time. If you have integrity exposures, no matter how slight, you don't really have security. 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
