<snip>
Currently studying the migration guide for z/OS 1.13 (we're running 1.11
now), and note that 1.13 delivers zFS with a default of sysplex=filesys.
...snippage
Q1: Has anyone here IPLed a z/OS 1.13 system into a "supported
back-level" sysplex WITHOUT shared file systems AND without having
specified sysplex=filesys in the "back-level" members?
Q2: What observable effect(s), if any, would occur if we specify
sysplex=filesys in our 1.11 images without sharing file systems?
</snip>
Re: Q2 as far as I can tell, absolutely no observable impact. This
assumes, of course, that you have the "normal" sysplex setup for your
file systems.
i.e. sysplex root, version roots,....
Re: Q1. (disclaimer, I haven't tried it). I would think you would
receive the message and the ZFS system will not initialize.
According to my copy of the migration guide, z/OS 1.13 will not even
join the sysplex if FILESYS=NO is specified:
"If you try to bring in zFS z/OS 1.13 when sysplex=filesys is not active
on all systems you will receive message IOEZ0072I sysplex
member sysname is not running sysplex=filesys. ZFS on this initializing
member will terminate......."
However under "Is the migration action required, the response is "Yes,
if you have a shared files system environment with more than one system
in the SYSPLEX"
TIA,
-jc-
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
