To avoid misunderstandings: n*z/OS + m*CF = Parallel Syplex, and
n=1...32, m=1...16.
I don't know what "most people" interpret, and without some sociological
survey. My survey told me that no one of my family members, neighbours
or local shop seller do understand parallel sysplex as you
Radoslaw Skorupka wrote:
>RLS require Parallel Sysplex, but not everyone need it.
We should be more precise and careful, to avoid any misunderstandings. VSAM
RLS requires:
* At least one z/OS instance (let's go with exactly one in this example);
* A Coupling Facility (CF)(*), which can even be
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of R.S.
Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2018 5:25 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Sysplex between two hardware
Maybe it's illusory, but that is in David Raften document.
Obviously it's cheaper to have 2 CPCs th
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of R.S.
Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2018 5:25 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Sysplex between two hardware
Maybe it's illusory, but that is in David Raften document.
Obviously it's cheaper
W dniu 2018-07-11 o 09:41, Timothy Sipples pisze:
J.O.Skip Robinson wrote:
It's easy to diss a solution as 'budget' when it saves
someone *else* money.
I quite agree.
As it happens, I'm quite fond of the single machine z/OS Parallel Sysplex
configuration that David also describes. I wish more
Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of R.S.
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2018 3:00 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: (External):Re: Sysplex between two hardware
W dniu 2018-07-10 o 06:56, Timothy Sipples pisze:
I should also respond to this part:
Radoslaw Skorupka wrote
J.O.Skip Robinson wrote:
>It's easy to diss a solution as 'budget' when it saves
>someone *else* money.
I quite agree.
As it happens, I'm quite fond of the single machine z/OS Parallel Sysplex
configuration that David also describes. I wish more installations without
Parallel Sysplex would adopt
] On Behalf
Of R.S.
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2018 3:00 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: (External):Re: Sysplex between two hardware
W dniu 2018-07-10 o 06:56, Timothy Sipples pisze:
> I should also respond to this part:
>
> Radoslaw Skorupka wrote:
>> ...for availability reasons o
W dniu 2018-07-10 o 06:56, Timothy Sipples pisze:
I should also respond to this part:
Radoslaw Skorupka wrote:
...for availability reasons one should avoid having CF
and z/OS LPAR on the same hardware, which means
That's not phrased as IBM would phase it, and it's not correct as written.
Date: 10/07/2018 09:35
Subject: Re: Sysplex between two hardware
Sent by:IBM Mainframe Discussion List
Martin, thanks I time to time read your blogs very useful however one you
pasted for the deactivated lpar's doesn't have much on the performance
side ...anyway yes we have L
Martin, thanks I time to time read your blogs very useful however one you
pasted for the deactivated lpar's doesn't have much on the performance side
...anyway yes we have LOCK1 duplex...here's an example from our dev partitions.
STRNAME: Dxxx_LOCK1
A common pattern (and I often see the inactive LPARs in RMF* SMF) but tell me:
Do you duplex DB2 LOCK1? And how is that working out performancewise?
* I wrote about how to do this in
https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/community/blogs/MartinPacker/entry/lpars_what_s_in_a_name?lang=en
in 2014.
We took an approach where for each plex we had CF defined on two cec's as that
make sense :
1. Systems defined in the plex are defined on both CEC ...i.e. Say we have plex
of 4 systems (SYS1,SYS2,SYS3,SYS4), each with 2 systems on one CEC1(SYS1 & SYS2
Active(Normal running) the rest 2 in
gt; > Sent: 09 July, 2018 18:07
> > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> > Subject: Re: Sysplex between two hardware
> >
> > 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
> &
t; Behalf Of Jesse 1 Robinson
> Sent: 09 July, 2018 18:07
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: Sysplex between two hardware
>
> 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
> d
I should also respond to this part:
Radoslaw Skorupka wrote:
>...for availability reasons one should avoid having CF
>and z/OS LPAR on the same hardware, which means
That's not phrased as IBM would phase it, and it's not correct as written.
Even when there's some merit in physically
-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
nframe 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) redu
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 re
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
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
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
> Behalf Of R.S.
> Sent: 09 July, 2018 14:26
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: Sysplex between two hardware
>
> W dniu 2018-07-09 o 13:12, Vernooij, K
, all will be well.
The issue requiring an ETR is synchronization/tolerization for XCF.
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of R.S.
Sent: Monday, July 9, 2018 5:47 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Sysplex between
W dniu 2018-07-09 o 13:12, Vernooij, Kees (ITOPT1) - KLM pisze:
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
Behalf Of R.S.
Sent: 09 July, 2018 12:47
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Sysplex between two hardware
W dniu 2018-07-06 o
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
> Behalf Of R.S.
> Sent: 09 July, 2018 12:47
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: Sysplex between two hardware
>
> W dniu 2018-07-06 o 18:22, Jesse 1 Robinso
W dniu 2018-07-06 o 18:22, Jesse 1 Robinson pisze:
We all have lots of questions about your goals here, but the short answer to
your question is Yes, sysplex is the answer. I assume that your two boxes are
already connected in some way as to share access to data. Turning such a
configuration
[mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Timothy Sipples
Sent: Friday, July 06, 2018 5:39 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: (External):Re: Sysplex between two hardware
Peter wrote:
>We are looking up for a solution where we need a LPAR to have a hot
standby
>in other LPAR r
Peter wrote:
>We are looking up for a solution where we need a LPAR to have a hot
standby
>in other LPAR running in a different machine .
>As we are trying to create a sysplex relationship between two LPARS
running
>in a different machines .
>Apology for my ignorance and is it possible ?
Yes,
Peter,
What is your question exactly?
If you MEAN a "hot standby" - which I understand to mean a system that is IPL'd
but not being used, but could take on workload from a currently active and used
system, I'd say that's not a SYSPLEX, that's a disaster recovery scenario.
If you are trying to
29 matches
Mail list logo
