On our MP3000 to z/890 upgrade (we had both internal MP3000 dasd and
twin Ramac Dasd Subsystems) that we also converted to an IBM DS6800.
I took one escon channel from each Ramac subsystems and gave it to the
z/890.
Now both the MP3000 and z/890 had some shared dasd.
I took one escon channel from our IBM 3590 and gave it to the z/890.
Now I can IPL a tape (VM that is) from the z/890.
The DS6800 couldn't be attached to the MP3000 as the 6800 was ficon.
Now I could install z/VM 5.1 on the z/890 to the DS6800.
When z/VM 5.1 was up and running, I copied all of our MP3000 dasd thru
the Ramac to the DS6800.
I could IPL and test our VSE and Linux systems.
At conversion time, I recopied all the VSE and Linux packs.
First IPL was to change passwords and CPUIDs.
Second IPL was to test production (gave system to applications and
operations to try things).
Third IPL (sometimes not needed) to go into production.
As I had 9 VSE systems and 17 Linux images, as each one was refreshed,
I could start the testing while the next system was being copied.
I had rexx execs of the DDRs to export each system and to import it on
the z/890. That way, during conversion, I didn't have to think, just
run the execs.
When I'm bored to death during a conversion, that is the best
conversion<G>
Tom Duerbusch
THD Consulting
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 3/28/2006 11:44 AM >>>
Hello DJ,
I have been thinking along those lines. It will really depend
upon when the EMC box comes in. the Current EMC does not have any
more
ESCON available. I am thinking that that we could live with one
escon
on the new system and 3 escon on the MP3000.
Then the carts become the problems. They only have 2 escon.
I am working questions in my mind.
Ed Martin
Aultman Health Foundation
330-588-4723
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ext. 40441
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On
>> Behalf Of Dave Jones
>> Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 12:24 PM
>> To: [email protected]
>> Subject: Re: mp3000
>>
>> Ed, will it be possible for you to have the new hardware installed
>> alongside the existing M3K box?
>>
>> DJ
>>
>> Edward M. Martin wrote:
>> > Hello David, Alan, and others,
>> >
>> > The overall problem is getting from z/4.3 on the MP3000 to
>> > At Z/800/890/900/990 with out any user interruption.
>> >
>> > Ok I have 20 minutes at midnight.
>> >
>> > I am thinking do z/VM 4.3 to z/VM 4.4 upgrade. Now I should be
>> > able to run on whatever box they throw at me.
>> >
>> > I am using SFS right now for all the UltraQuest/Nomad2 (4gl)
>> > stuff.
>> > I am thinking easy move of that stuff.
>> >
>> > Then on to z/VM 5.x.
>> >
>> > Oh, just because, it looks like I have a DASD (EMC Symmetrix)
>> > upgrade too.
>> >
>> > Ed Martin
>> > Aultman Health Foundation
>> > 330-588-4723
>> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > ext. 40441
>> >
>> >
>> >>>-----Original Message-----
>> >>>From: The IBM z/VM Operating System
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >
>> > On
>> >
>> >>>Behalf Of David Boyes
>> >>>Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 12:03 PM
>> >>>To: [email protected]
>> >>>Subject: Re: mp3000
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>> We are on z/VM 4.3 and was wondering if anyone has run
z/VM 4.3
>> >>>>on
>> >>>>any of these boxes (unsupported of course).
>> >>>
>> >>>It certainly runs fine on the MP3000. I've successfully run 4.3
on
a
>> >>>z890, so it probably will work OK (assuming you don't get a
multibook
>> >>>990 or something that 4.3 doesn't know how to handle). You will
need
>> >>>some PTFs if you add new device types, but if this is just a
>> >
>> > processor
>> >
>> >>>box swap, you ought to be OK.
>> >>>
>> >>>Another option nobody mentioned would be to install 5.1 on the
metal,
>> >>>create a guest id and dedicate all the 4.3 disks to it, and run
the
>> >
>> > 4.3
>> >
>> >>>system as a guest of a 5.1 system, which would be a little
better
>> >>>supported (at least the parts that deal with the real hardware
would
>> >
>> > be
>> >
>> >>>supported). That would also require the least change to the
>> >
>> > environment
>> >
>> >>>-- you could keep running the 4.3 system and just migrate users
down
>> >
>> > to
>> >
>> >>>5.1 as you do testing. 5.1 to 5.2 is a much smaller jump than
4.x
to
>> >>>5.x.
>> >>>
>> >>>You could migrate to SFS as part of the 4.x -> 5.x migration and
then
>> >>>the next upgrade is LOTS easier...
>> >>>
>> >>>-- db
