On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 09:48:23 -0600, Leonardo Vaz <leonardo....@cn.ca> wrote:
>Hello all, > >We are in the process of reviewing XCF definitions, like getting rid of XCF >signaling though CTCs and we are wondering if we have too many classes defined. > >Do you think it’s best to have just a couple of classes defined or to have >them more fine-grained? > >Can anyone send me their output of the following command? >D XCF,CD,CLASS=ALL > Why do you want to get rid of the CTCs? I'm assuming they are FICON by now. Even if your CF links are faster as someone once put it to me, a direct pipe is quicker than a mail box (referring to "LPAR A" sending something to "LPAR B". I admit to not looking in a while nor talking to Mark Brooks about it (IBM developer), but I don't think there is any harm in having more granularity - even if it isn't as necessary these days (I'm sure Barbara Nitz will chime in too and you can see past posts in the archives about this). I currently have 2 sets of CTCs and structures for 1K, 8K, 32K and 61K. Would my DR life be easier without all the CTC connections and different COUPLExx members? Yes - but I do it anyway. Regards, Mark -- Mark Zelden - Zelden Consulting Services - z/OS, OS/390 and MVS mailto:m...@mzelden.com Mark's MVS Utilities: http://www.mzelden.com/mvsutil.html Systems Programming expert at http://expertanswercenter.techtarget.com/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
