On Friday, 01/11/2008 at 09:51 EST, David Boyes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I believe the requirement for PVM makes it very unattractive for > > installations to move forward with that next level of CSE. > > The problem isn't the need for PVM, it's the difficulty of obtaining PVM > in the "recommended" environment. Special bid prereqs for clustering > function makes it darn hard to want to use the facilities that are > already there.
Actually, it's not all that hard any more. The Special Bid is there, on the shelf. All you have to do is ask for it. No fuss, no muss. > ISFC would be nice, but PVM already supports all the same connection > methods that ISFC does, plus a few more that ISFC doesn't. I'd *really* > rather not make this dependent on CTCs. When CP can support a geographically dispersed clustering model, then we will need to have the ability to establish connections via a WAN infrastructure. As it stands, you already have to have FICON connectivity between systems, as it were, so you can share the DASD. Having another chpid for CTCs (if you don't already have one) shouldn't be a deal-breaker. Granted, you will need extra ports on the FICON switch where a port shortage would drive up the cost. But if that's the case, then I think you were about to buy another switch anyway. This means it's a littler sooner than you had originally thought. [Same issue applies to ESCON.] ISFC's zero-configuration (just ACTIVATE ISLINK) characteristics make it an ideal technology for those who want fast deployment with minimal education. (No one here, of course.) But I would advise that creating an ISFC Collection, as it is known, does introduce the requirement of a flat userid name space. By that I mean that user ALAN on VM1 must be the same person as ALAN on VM2. If, for example, you enroll ALAN in MYSFS on VM1, then ALAN on VM2 will have access with all the same rights, privileges, and responsibilities. This begs for centralized directory managment. Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott
