The previous shop I worked at had an MP3000-H50. Are you saying that
instead of 1 Prod Lpar and 1 Test Lpar, we should have had 2 Prod Lpars and
2 Test Lpars so we could run in sysplex mode? We also would need to define
a coupling facility, which I believe IBM always recommends 1 whole engine
for. Of course, our H50 only had 1 engine. As I see it, a sysplex would
not be very practical in that situation.
Eric Bielefeld
Sr. z/OS Systems Programmer
Lands End
Dodgeville, Wisconsin
414-475-7434
----- Original Message -----
From: "Craddock, Chris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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.
.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
