Must have missed the GRSplex :) part of your post. Still, when I think about it, a parm or cntl lib like I have with VPS is DISP=SHR. I could update members from my development LPAR and I would expect the VPS in my production LPAR to have trouble reading them.
In fact, that is exactly what happened a few years back. It is why I reverted the VPS and DRS printer definition cntl files back to PDS. It's not the serialization that is the problem. It's the missing signal to the other LPAR that the PDS/E has been updated. > -----Original Message----- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] > On Behalf Of Mark Zelden > Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2013 10:27 PM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: Re: PDS/E, Shared Dasd, and COBOL V5 > > On Wed, 11 Sep 2013 21:48:32 +0000, Gibney, Dave <gib...@wsu.edu> > wrote: > > >Very simple set-up. No ring at all. Independent monplexes. NO > serialization. > > So in what way do you disagree with my earlier post? I wrote you can > share PDSE using NORMAL sharing without a sysplex as long as you have a > GRSplex. > > Regards, > > Mark > -- > Mark Zelden - Zelden Consulting Services - z/OS, OS/390 and MVS > mailto:m...@mzelden.com > ITIL v3 Foundation Certified > Mark's MVS Utilities: http://www.mzelden.com/mvsutil.html > Systems Programming expert at > http://search390.techtarget.com/ateExperts/ > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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
