I stand by my original reply. All you need is an ICF LPAR in each CEC and physical links to connect the CECs, together with full CF structure duplexing. We have run this way for decades. Suffered two (!) CEC failures over the years. After repairing the failed CEC, we resumed normal operation with *no* recovery actions needed because all sensitive structures were duplexed in the non-failing CEC.
Our standalone CFs went away with the 9674. . . 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 [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Vernooij, Kees (ITOPT1) - KLM Sent: Monday, July 09, 2018 8:08 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: (External):Re: Sysplex between two hardware That was my point: you don't miss a thing. You are fully redundant with CFs in each CPC. And since the latest MQ update, all applications are capable of recovering their structures, so recovery is guaranteed in case of a CF failure. Kees. > -----Original Message----- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] > On Behalf Of Allan Staller > Sent: 09 July, 2018 16:33 > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: Re: Sysplex between two hardware > > That configuration is perfectly valid. You are merely missing some(but > not all) redundancy and recovery options. > > -----Original Message----- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] > On Behalf Of R.S. > Sent: Monday, July 9, 2018 9:20 AM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: Re: Sysplex between two hardware > > W dniu 2018-07-09 o 15:41, Mark A. Brooks pisze: > > The essence of the matter is to ensure that the selected > > configuration > meets the availability objectives of the business services supported > by the sysplex. One must consider the service restoration objectives > for the business services in light of the potential failures that can > occur for a potential choice of configuration. There are many > possibilities and different installations will of course make > different choices based on their own business objectives. Choices of > standalone CF, or structure duplexing, and the like are really all > talking about different ways of solving the "failure isolation" issue > (wherein we might be concerned about the time to restore the business > service if we simultaneously lose the data in the CF along with the > system that produced that data). Each choice has its own advantages > and disadvantages; choose the one that's right for you. > > --Mark Brooks > > --z/OS Sysplex Development > > > > However "option c", that means we don't have standalone CF and we do > not duplex CF structures is not proper one, is it? > > Regards > -- > 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
