John -
That's the point how do others like this get around it. To us it
makes more sense to take the check point out of the CF and have both on
DASD mirrored. Then comes the performance hit on the large sysplex . We
are just trying to find out what others have done....
Thanks
Andy
Internet: Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"IBM Mainframe Discussion List" <IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU> wrote on 06/15/2007
07:49:13 AM:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Andy White
> >
> >
> > We are planning for a disaster recovery site we
> > control and mirror using XRC over distance. We currently have
> > the JES2 check point for a few systems in a sysplex in an
> > external CF, then the second check point is on DASD and in
> > duplex mode. Its our understanding the second check point on
> > DASD is and know its can be up to 10 writes off from the one
> > in the CF. As a result if you are in this mode do you come up
> > as warm or cold when it comes to JES2?
> >
> > We would like to come up warm so we don't loose work
> > especially if a disaster should happen late during the batch
> > run. Do you just come up and reconfigure using the back up
> > check point from DASD being mirrored and just orphan the
> > output not written to the check point? I mean if you loose a
> > dozen or so output doesn't sound like a lot.
>
> How about the case where, among the "dozen or so output" lost, was the
> paycheck run?
>
> -jc-
The information contained in this message may be CONFIDENTIAL and is for the
intended addressee only. Any unauthorized use, dissemination of the
information, or copying of this message is prohibited. If you are not the
intended addressee, please notify the sender immediately and delete this
message.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
