On 3 January 2013 12:39, ibmmain <[email protected]> wrote: > These ADCD systems are not set up for migration from one z/OS release to > another at all, so data transfer from one system to the next appears to be a > must.
I'm puzzled. I haven't installed an ADCD for a while, but the layout used to be explicitly designed for z/OS migration, with a clear split between the volumes that would be expected to be replaced in a migration, and those that wouldn't. >>the ADCD has evolved over the years it hasn't been cleaned up properly and >>the team that build it is quite small > That's what I figured. An overworked, too small group that cannot keep up > with the demands, so they do the best they can. Which falls far flat of IBMs > propagated 'best practises'. As far as RACF is concerned, an ADCD system > would never survive an audit, even with mild auditors. I expect the IBM argument would be that the target market is very small, and doesn't pay IBM much money. They've clearly taken steps to reduce the cost of production (partly by outsourcing some of the work to India, where the team doubtless has much less experience than the Dallas folks). Tony H. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
