On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 Barbara Nitz wrote: >Yes, you're competely right. There is no defined support structure for the tool. >The last time I loudly complained here about the sizer (which was a few years >back) Bill Neiman of XCF development came forward and looked at the problem >and fixed it. I am hoping he will do so again, and we can take this offline then.
Although I can no longer comment on how IBM might respond to your post on IBM-MAIN about the CFSIZER, I will offer the following observation: 1) CFLEVEL 15 will have some impact on the size of some number (if not all) the structures in your coupling facilities. 2) It is possible that the change in the size can impact your availability position (e.g. you no longer have sufficient 'white space' for a successful failover if a CF fails). It may even be true that the migration may *fail* or result in an outage if you cannot allocate all of the structures in a CFLEVEL 15 CF (because the required increase in structure size overtakes the now smaller 'white space'). 3) It *should be* in IBM's best interests to provide you with appropriate capacity planning information for this migration, a failure or outage during the migration or after, because you were inappropriately prepared will, probably escalate quickly to a *crit-sit*. 4) It *should be* incumbent on you, as a systems programming professional, to point out these risks to your management, as well as to the vendor, and request that appropriate mitigation be made available to you. Scott Fagen Enterprise Systems Management ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
