On Thu, 3 Apr 2008 14:44:53 -0500, McKown, John wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom Marchant >> >> >> On Thu, 3 Apr 2008 09:21:19 -0500, John McKown wrote: >> > >> >Just another "I hate sysplex" message from me. No, don't bother to >> >justify it. At my shop, it is not justifiable as far as I am >> concerned >> >(only one box). >> >> Sysplex *is* justifiable on one box. >> >> With a good sysplex design, you can shift all production work >> to the other >> LPAR, then shut down the idle one and IPL at any time. Then >> shift all the >> work to the upgraded LPAR and IPL the other one. It could mean zero >> downtime to do a software upgrade. And zero risk if >> something makes the IPL >> take longer. >> >> -- >> Tom Marchant > >That's part of the argument that I hear. But it is not ZERO down time. >It is simply LESS downtime. In our shop, to simply recycle a CICS region >(down then up) takes a minimum of about 10 minutes (no, I've not done a >stop watch on this)....
How many weeks do your CICS regions stay up? I didn't say you could do this all in an afternoon. It *could* mean zero down time if you take enough time to shift the workload. When you bring up your CICS regions tomorrow after your nightly maintenance, you bring it up on the other LPAR. You shift all your new TSO sessions to the other LPAR. Eventually, everything is moved. Maybe it takes a day or a weekend to get everything shifted. -- Tom Marchant ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
