This conversation is really interesting (to me).
Wouldn't it be better have a mirrored RACF DB? (of course do the
copying and back up as well).
Maybe IBM could chime it as well?
Ed
On Feb 17, 2016, at 11:38 AM, Elardus Engelbrecht wrote:
Radoslaw Skorupka wrote:
It's IMHO very obvious that offline RACFdb can be copied as
regular dataset, Actually I did mean copy of live RACF db with the
tools like IEBGENER or ADRDSSU (in monoplex) with no ill effects.
So my *very limited* experience says it is not so easy to get
inconsistent copy of RACF db.
Of course it is still russian rulette, so even if the risk is
small (I didn't say that!), it's still worth to use proper tools.
Russian Roulette? ;-)
True. Risks are truly small if you're grown up and very
responsible... ;-)
I'd suggest always use UT200 then UT400 (against the copy) if needed.
Correct! This is what I do. First UT200, then UT400 (on that copy
you said) and then perhaps usual DFDSS dump very later.
Reason: UT200 is easier to use and faster.
Yup! UT400 does some re-org during the copy.
Groete / Greetings
Elardus Engelbrecht!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
