<snip> Based on the information provided, this is a bad idea. </snip>
I was not asked for my opinion, but I certainly understand yours. <snip> 1) It introduces SPOF (single points of failure). </snip> Until proven otherwise, no additional SPOF are added to the production systems. The development systems are considered to be expendable (but no one asked the developers about that). <snip> 2) A new datacenter should have its own customer number and the development MSUs should be reset to zero and calculated at the most expensive tiers (0 - 345), instead of at the cheaper clip level. </snip> The belief of those who make the decisions here is that maintaining a single sysplex will keep the licenses as they are. <snip> 3) channel extension and teleco charges - don't they make it a bad idea? </snip> That depends on distance and pricing. We're looking at cross-town sites less than 40 km away. <snip> What exactly are they trying to accomplish? At my last company, I did the opposite of what you are trying to do...I merged a development datacenter into the primary. Saved a fortune in software $$$ and improved development and testing response times and batch throughput substantially. Not to mention, reduced network traffic. </snip> We, the technicians who implement the ideas of those who make decisions and pay checks, are not asked/allowed to participate in such decisions. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
