You are probably right - having a sysplex is a better way to go, but running
two Lpars on the same box with most of the dasd offline to the opposite lpar
is a pretty safe way to go, if done right. At P&H Mining, we ran that way
for years, and never had a problem. Granted, the TEST Lpar was mostly a
sysprog lpar, but it was used occasionally for testing by the programmers.
We often had to back up their files from the PROD Lpar and restore them to
the TEST lpar so they could have valid test data. As long as you don't
share VSAM or database data, you are ok. You have to only update PDS files
on one lpar if you share them.
Eric Bielefeld
Sr. z/OS Systems Programmer
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
414-475-7434
----- Original Message -----
From: "McKown, John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Thanks. You are right in that I don't have a CF. TVS is one of my
arguments for a CF. We are splitting our single z/OS into two images
(prod vs. non-prod). I am really pushing Parallel Sysplex to the max.
But a CFL engine on our z9BC supposedly costs US $201,000! OUCH. So I
need as much "plus" as possible to sell this to management. Which is
difficult since I don't even want to split the z/OS image. I lost that
battle.
--
John McKown
Senior Systems Programmer
HealthMarkets
Keeping the Promise of Affordable Coverage
Administrative Services Group
Information Technology
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
