*totally different technology...* Magic?
On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 5:11 PM Jesse 1 Robinson <jesse1.robin...@sce.com> wrote: > I'm not advocating this practice. Just saying that we did it for 25 years > without a failure. We're now moving to totally different technology where > such action is not even in the picture. > > . > . > J.O.Skip Robinson > Southern California Edison Company > Electric Dragon Team Paddler > SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager > 323-715-0595 Mobile > 626-543-6132 Office ⇐=== NEW > robin...@sce.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU> On Behalf > Of R.S. > Sent: Monday, May 25, 2020 5:53 AM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: (External):Re: Opinions/experience on sharing catalogs outside > plex > > CAUTION EXTERNAL EMAIL > > Skip, > In the past I implemented STK tapes, the largest tape system in Poland at > the time. Interesting job. :-) It seems, you shared control datasets > between datacenters. Assuming your second datacenter is for disaster > recovery, you had single point of failure. Catalog is not important there, > but availability of datasets is. How could you work with tapes in case the > datasets are lost due to catastrophe of primary DC? > IMHO the only way was to have remote copy of control datasets. Last, but > not least, as far as I remember the datasets were very specific - they have > (had?) hardcoded both volume labels and device numbers. While remote copy > replicate volume label, the dev num is IODF dependend. There was a method > for that, I forgot details. Other method could be a trick with duplicate > device numbers. > > -- > Radoslaw Skorupka > Lodz, Poland > > > > > > > W dniu 24.05.2020 o 21:29, Jesse 1 Robinson pisze: > > Until recently, we shared a catalog not only across sysplexes but > > between data centers. All because of tape. We had STK virtual tape (in > > both data centers) supported by MIA (Multi Image Allocation). These > > products require control data sets shared among all exploiting > > systems. We could have managed with uncataloged data sets, but that > > was deemed riskier in the long run than a shared catalog. The only > > entries in the catalog were for tape management data sets. We never > > had a catastrophe. 😉 > > > > . > > . > > J.O.Skip Robinson > > Southern California Edison Company > > Electric Dragon Team Paddler > > SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager > > 323-715-0595 Mobile > > 626-543-6132 Office ⇐=== NEW > > robin...@sce.com > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU> On > Behalf Of R.S. > > Sent: Monday, April 20, 2020 7:42 AM > > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > > Subject: (External):Re: Opinions/experience on sharing catalogs > > outside plex > > > > CAUTION EXTERNAL EMAIL > > > > Well, it is not good idea, but sometimes even such idea is better than > nothing. > > What's important the risk covers THIS catalog only, not whole world. > > > > And yes, this catalog and shared datasets should be shared without > "sysplex features" like changes is serialization. RESERVE should be used > here or CA-MIM should be used, but the last one is add-on tool. > > > > BTW: BCS can be defined with SHR(3 4) or SHR(3 3). For this case it has > to be SHR(3 4). AFAIK it is alterable. > > > > Again: small activity is your friend here. Small number of datasets > cataloged in the BCS is good here. Potential problems with the BCS will not > affect other BCSes. > > > > I use it for years (with limited activity). Mostly PS files and some > VSAM. No problems observed. > > Caution: PDSE *will* break despite of way how catalog is shared. No help > from CA-MIM, AFAIK. Observed many times educated many guys who used PDSE > for sharing. > > > > -- > > Radoslaw Skorupka > > Lodz, Poland > > > > > > > > > > > > > > W dniu 20.04.2020 o 14:45, Allan Staller pisze: > >> Yes, it can be done. I reiterate, IMO, this is most likely not a good > idea. > >> In order to accomplish this safely, you also need to regress GRS to > pre-GRS functionality. > >> Everything affecting this catalog must be handled w/Reserve/Release, > >> and not normal processing VSAM Sharoptions for the catalog need to be > changed. IIRC when I "undid" this the catalog hand Shareoptions (2,3) (or > was it 4,3?). > >> This option tells z/OS that the user is responsible for Catalog > seriailization. > >> SYSDSN, SYSIGGV2, SYSVTOC, SYSZVSAM (?) and the SPF* queues need to be > excluded from GRS processing. > >> > >> In my case that led to various deadly embraces that usually led to > manual intervention. > >> > >> My $0.02 USD on this is: Why point the shotgun at your foot? > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU> On > Behalf Of R.S. > >> Sent: Monday, April 20, 2020 3:45 AM > >> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > >> Subject: Re: Opinions/experience on sharing catalogs outside plex > >> > >> [CAUTION: This Email is from outside the Organization. Do not click > >> links or open attachments unless you trust the sender.] > >> > >> W dniu 09.04.2020 o 02:11, Rob Schramm pisze: > >>> I am considering sharing some usercats outside of a sysplex. What I > >>> can find is that sysiggv2 must be kept as a reserve to do so. > >>> > >>> Looking for others that have had to do this. > >>> > >>> One question I had was, what happens on a ispf 3.4 when the data set > >>> is part of the catalog but exists in another system? Ief238d? > >> My €0.02 > >> > >> 1. You can share catalogs between sysplexes. Note: we mean BCS, which > is usually called catalog. > >> 2. The less activity on the BCS the better. > >> 3. The above means: > >> 3.1. Avoid keeping non-shared datasets in the BCS. Use another BCS for > that. > >> 3.2. It is not bad idea to have multiple "small" shared BCSes. > >> 4. You cannot use any sophisticated catalog sharing features like RLS > or ECS. > >> > >> Regarding you last question: I understand it as you have entry in the > BCS, but the dataset reside on volume which is not share, that mean it is > unavailable for one system. It's nothing exotic. It's like orphan catalog > entry, which sometimes may happen even without BCS sharing (usually as > result of human error). > >> However that also means the sharing is not done correctly. The best > scenario is when all datasets cataloged in shared BCS reside on volumes > which are also shared. Preferably the BCS is also on the volume from that > group. > >> Keep it simple. > >> > >> -- > >> Radoslaw Skorupka > >> Lodz, Poland > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
