On Fri, 2006-12-01 at 14:25 +0900, Timothy Sipples wrote: > Speaking of paranoid, what has been your experience with concerns about > XCF, console, and GRS "risks"? This is for the beginning Parallel Sysplex > customer: they're thinking that these three base Sysplex features could > undermine isolation between workloads they want isolated. > > Is this a reasonable feeling on their part?
Customer(s) feeling paranoid about letting vendors put all their eggs in one basket ???. Personally I'd say that's not unreasonable. As for workload isolation, I've never had it raised as an issue - maybe they're thinking WLM ???. XCF is a comms protocol - generally I don't have much problem convincing customers this is not a "bad thing". GRS can normally also be characterised as a benefit. The rest can be a problem, depending on the paranoia index. I used to like to use the wizards for initial sizings - meant I could blame IBM should they be wrong. May not be a viable option for you of course .... :0) Just had another look at the wizards - bit different these days. Maybe they copped too much flack. Shane ... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
