On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 21:09:15 -0600, Ed Gould <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Feb 26, 2006, at 8:21 PM, Eric N. Bielefeld wrote: > >> We have shared dasd between our Prod & Test Lpars ever since we had >> Lpars over 10 years ago. I have never seen a problem. Now, most >> of the stuff that is shared is load libraries that are shared with >> the Test Lpar, rather than keeping 2 copies. All production data >> is only online normally on the Prod lpar. >> > >Eric, > >Count yourself lucky. Don't bury your head in the sand. The extra >cost (in overhead) is peanuts, IMO. >There is no excuse since GRS is free (or almost, ok a couple of bucks). >Sooner or later you will be burned. > There are no free rides. There are costs in performance and possibly hardware depending on the configuration used to set up a GRS ring (although things have changed over the years with sysplex, GRS over XCF etc.). I'm not advocating doing this, but I have been at lots of shops that do so. As long as they know the risks and can manage them, I don't see the problem. Several of my long time clients in small shops did the same thing for their sysprog sandbox LPARs. Considering only 3 or 4 people (sysprogs) could ever logon to those test systems, I would say the risk was very managable. Mark -- Mark Zelden Sr. Software and Systems Architect - z/OS Team Lead Zurich North America / Farmers Insurance Group mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Systems Programming expert at http://expertanswercenter.techtarget.com/ Mark's MVS Utilities: http://home.flash.net/~mzelden/mvsutil.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
