Ron - Thank you for your follow up. I thought that Skip was making a point about the importance of the role of the application. If not, then I must respectfully *disagree* with Skip.
I am concerned that many still cling to the misperception that a 'fuzzy' copy is acceptable as is. As you very correctly point out, a 'fuzzy' copy is ok if, and only if, the application suite expects and deals with such. Hal. -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ron and Jenny Hawkins Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2005 5:53 PM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: DASD and Mirroring Hal, I'm not so certain that you are agreeing to the same point that Skip is making. I take Skip's point as meaning that the success of any Remote Copy design requires attention to the creation of IO consistency in the event of a failure. On the other hand your point to me applies to the ability of an application to recover from an abrupt failure, independent of whether Remote Copy is used or not. The ability to restart an application or a batch stream is not a delivered by Remote Copy. If a site fails the Online and Batch must recover in the same manner irrespective of whether the systems restart in the original centre, or fails over to the DR Centre. The open files may be recovered, deleted, rolled-back/forward, etc - whatever is required to get started. Disk Mirroring delivers a customer the same restart ability in both sites, providing IO Consistency is also delivered by the Remote Copy architecture. It doesn't matter whether restart is in the original copy or the mirrored copy, open datasets should already be dealt with by the application. Ron ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
