I always use a single shared GLOBAL zone and multiple targets. It's much simpler to keep track of and the only problem I have ever run into is a site the IBM ran an audit on and they wanted to know why they had 8 LPARs but 24 target|dlib zones. Apparently IBM doesn't do it that way. Aside from that little episode it has worked out quite well, and it allows me a great deal of flexibility if I ever had to fall back to something. If you are short on DASD or TAPE, you probably wouldn't want to keep them all around. I try to keep 3 copies of everything if I can though. I also have all datasets cataloged to ****** for the res and symbolics for the dlib volume(s) and secondary res (which I need for some sites), and take care to make sure I keep the IEASYMxx under control. I maintain a large number of sites in that way and I have no problems with them at all. I have a series of CLONE jobs that I run for each upgrade tath copy the packs, duplicate and update the DDDEFs, etc. but I think most people do that as well. The SMPe volume(s) which are normally SMS controlled (but not always) tend to get large, but controllable. As someone else mentioned, the naming conventions for the OMVS datasets is very important, and you need to have a way to identify them quickly and easily. They should have both the system identifier and the lpar identifier (unless they are shared) in the dataset name. You have 44 characters, and there is no reason to get stingy with using them.
It is very important that you establish a method of operation and stick with it, and document, document, document (then document some more). Brian On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 15:57:41 +0000, Seymour J Metz <[email protected]> wrote: >I would go for a shared GLOBAL and 3 TARGET/DLIB pairs. I would use REPORT >SYSMOD to help keep them in synch. Of course, often there are installation >standards in place as to maintenance methodology, and you can't change things >without getting the appropriate approval. > > >-- >Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz >http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 > >________________________________________ >From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [[email protected]] on behalf of >Bill Giannelli [[email protected]] >Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2020 11:38 AM >To: [email protected] >Subject: Separate SMPe environments for maintenance levels > >I want to setup separate SMPe environments, say 3 for different maintenance >levels. One matching production then 2 others for maintenance levels "coming >next". My question is, when I what to update my PROD environment with one of >the other maintenance levels, do I need to go thru receive, apply, accept that >I would have done in the "prior" SMPe environment? Or is there a quicker way >to "synch" up the 2 environments? >thanks >Bill > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, >send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, >send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
