PDSEs are only an "integrity" issue when they are mis-used - as in, shared DASD across sysplex boundaries containing PDSEs that are shared, sure way to disrupt their "stability", yet I've seen too many shops that still do this (and, NO, MIM will not help the situation - PDSEs use XCF to provide all the "integrity" needed within the SAME sysplex boundary) - working just fine as designed if rules are followed.
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 8:15 AM, Chase, John <[email protected]> wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Ed Finnell > > > > > > In a message dated 1/6/2009 6:32:36 P.M. Central Standard Time, > > [email protected] writes: > > > > You can't run z/OS without PDSE. > > So, issues or not, PDSE is here to stay. > > > > > > >> > > Unless the auditors determine them to be a business integrity issue? > > If the auditors "determine" PDSEs to be a business integrity "issue", > then they necessarily determine that z/OS itself is a business integrity > "issue", leaving only two choices: Get a different operating system or > get different auditors. > > -jc- > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
