Re: SYSPLEX distance

Hi Skip, One possible option for the survivability of a 24x7 z/OS environment would be to place the Primary DASD Control Unit(s) at a different site ( a 3rd site ) from the Mainframe CEC's. Then, if one or the other Mainframe CEC "glass house" is unusable, the other ( in theory ) continues to

Re: SYSPLEX distance

@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Peter Hunkeler Sent: Monday, January 15, 2018 11:49 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: (External):AW: Re: SYSPLEX distance > I'm still not clear on how a 'geographically dispersed sysplex' (original > definition, not 'GDPS') would work. You say "original

AW: Re: SYSPLEX distance

> I'm still not clear on how a 'geographically dispersed sysplex' (original > definition, not 'GDPS') would work. You say "original definition". I seem to remember, but might be wrong, that the term GDPS was coined when sysplexes were al contained within a single building or in buildings near

Re: SYSPLEX distance

Abstract: Asynchronous CF Lock Duplexing is a new enhancement to IBM’s parallel sysplex technology that was made generally available in October 2016. It is an alternative to the synchronous system managed duplexing of coupling facility (CF) lock structures that has been available for many

Re: SYSPLEX distance

am Subject: Re: SYSPLEX distance If this helps: We run a parallel sysplex with sites at 16 - 18 km (2 separate routes with some difference in distance) with active systems and CFs at both sites, without problems. Most Sync CF Requests to the Remote CFs are converted to Async. To minimize

Re: SYSPLEX distance

Subject: (External):Re: SYSPLEX distance > -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] > On Behalf Of Rob Schramm > Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2018 9:01 AM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: Re: SYSPLEX distance >

Re: SYSPLEX distance

> -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On > Behalf Of Rob Schramm > Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2018 9:01 AM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: Re: SYSPLEX distance > > SFM and planning for what your

Re: SYSPLEX distance

SFM and planning for what your surviving system should always be done. And yes early on there was a failure of one of the two dark fiber connections and the sysplex timers were not connected properly to allow for a continued service. Planning planning planning. On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 10:22 AM

Re: SYSPLEX distance

One company had data centers in Miami and New Orleans. Miami shut down for a hurricane, and wasn't back up before Katrina hit New Orleans. On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 6:44 AM, Timothy Sipples wrote: > J.O.Skip Robinson wrote: >>Losing XCF connection to a sysplex member would be

Re: SYSPLEX distance

J.O.Skip Robinson wrote: >Losing XCF connection to a sysplex member would be a whole >nother level of impact that I've never been willing to sign >up for even though our network today is far more reliable >than it was 20 years ago. Isn't losing XCF connectivity something worth planning for? It's

Re: SYSPLEX distance

to:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On > Behalf Of Alan(GMAIL)Watthey > Sent: 07 January, 2018 8:43 > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: Re: SYSPLEX distance > > Thanks to everyone for their insights and pointers on this matter. It > is > obviously going to be very complicate

Re: SYSPLEX distance

8:09 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: (External):Re: SYSPLEX distance I was part of a group that ran a parallel sysplex that was 13 miles apart. The time it takes the light to travel adds up. This was back in 2007. It worked. It ran that way for at least a few years. It was not a GDPS

Re: SYSPLEX distance

⇐=== NEW > robin...@sce.com > > -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On > Behalf Of Alan(GMAIL)Watthey > Sent: Saturday, January 06, 2018 11:43 PM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: (External):Re: SYSPLEX

Re: SYSPLEX distance

com] Sent: 04 January 2018 8:42 am Subject: Re: SYSPLEX distance Please make sure you take one recent (late 2016) innovation into consideration: Asynchronous CF Lock Duplexing. My understanding is that this recently introduced Coupling Facility feature offers performance improvements in many scenar

Re: SYSPLEX distance

:42 am Subject: Re: SYSPLEX distance Please make sure you take one recent (late 2016) innovation into consideration: Asynchronous CF Lock Duplexing. My understanding is that this recently introduced Coupling Facility feature offers performance improvements in many scenarios, including some distance

Re: SYSPLEX distance

> On Jan 3, 2018, at 7:55 PM, Mike Schwab wrote: > > Searched for ibm zos cryptography. First 10 results seemed useful. A > share expo, some intros, some PDF manuals. > https://www.google.com/search?q=ibm+zos+cryptography > (off list) I glanced through the google list

Re: SYSPLEX distance

Please make sure you take one recent (late 2016) innovation into consideration: Asynchronous CF Lock Duplexing. My understanding is that this recently introduced Coupling Facility feature offers performance improvements in many scenarios, including some distance "stretched" Parallel Sysplexes. IBM

Re: SYSPLEX distance

Searched for ibm zos cryptography. First 10 results seemed useful. A share expo, some intros, some PDF manuals. https://www.google.com/search?q=ibm+zos+cryptography On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 6:53 PM, Edward Gould wrote: >> On Jan 3, 2018, at 3:42 PM, Mike Schwab

Re: SYSPLEX distance

> On Jan 3, 2018, at 3:42 PM, Mike Schwab wrote: > > It says global, but limited intercontinental links limit you to one continent. > > On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 3:31 PM, Edward Gould wrote: Mike, At one previous employers place wanted to span

Re: SYSPLEX distance

It says global, but limited intercontinental links limit you to one continent. On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 3:31 PM, Edward Gould wrote: >> On Jan 3, 2018, at 2:51 AM, Mike Schwab wrote: >> >> https://www.ibm.com/it-infrastructure/z/technologies/gdps

Re: SYSPLEX distance

> On Jan 3, 2018, at 2:51 AM, Mike Schwab wrote: > > https://www.ibm.com/it-infrastructure/z/technologies/gdps > > >

Re: SYSPLEX distance

Also keep in mind if you are reading old Redbooks if they reference Sysplex timers. The change from Sysplex Timer to STP changed timer signalling from discrete ETR links to using CF links for timing signals. This may have influence on distances and latency planning. Dana On Wed, 3 Jan 2018

Re: SYSPLEX distance

Alan, after the redbook the team and I have been involved in many projects to distribute workloads across distance. The main issue is the secondary effect of distance, which depends on how your applications are written. In my experience this is mainly related to data access and

Re: SYSPLEX distance

Some additional sources of info: System z Parallel Sysplex Best Practices: http://www.redbooks.ibm.com/redpieces/abstracts/sg247817.html Parallel Sysplex on IBM Z: https://www.ibm.com/it-infrastructure/z/technologies/parallel-sysplex

Re: SYSPLEX distance

https://www.ibm.com/it-infrastructure/z/technologies/gdps https://www.infoworld.com/article/2614033/disaster-recovery/data-centers-under-water--what--me-worry-.html On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 12:18 AM, Alan(GMAIL)Watthey wrote: > I have had a strange request from management as