This type of sysplex is called Basic by IBM. https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/zos-basic-skills?topic=sysplex-zos
Doug On Tue, 29 Nov 2022 07:43:23 -0600, Dana Mitchell <mitchd...@gmail.com> wrote: >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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
