On Mon, 28 Nov 2022 23:51:53 -0600, Brian Westerman <brian_wester...@syzygyinc.com> wrote:
>You're incorrect, you don't need a coupling facility to share PDS/e, you can >(and I do at several sites) use FICON CTC's just as well, and in fact it's a >lot cheaper, >(unless you already have a coupling facility installed in which case it would >be silly to not use it). > >IBM does not require a CF to share PDS/e all the way down to the member level. > Wherever you got the information you posted, it's incorrect or at best >misleading. I >maintain several sites that have no coupling facility and >sysplex sharing is no problem. It's not a "complete" sysplex, but I think >people tend to refer to it as a "baby" >sysplex. GRS ring is not a problem, >and you get a lot of the benefits of sysplex (shared consoles, command >shipping, etc.) you just don't have the CF to handle it, >instead you use the >FICON Cards as CTC's > You both and the linked doc are correct. This is a true statement "Every system that is sharing a PDSE must be a member of the sysplex and have the sysplex coupling facility (XCF) active." But XCF does not require CF, Brian's COUPLExx members have PATHINs and PATHOUTs specifying FICON CTCs, instead of STRNAMEs. Dana ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
