Paul is thinking UNIX and needs to look at how we do MVS maintenance. The MVS maintenance philosophy is more robust than UNIX. In UNIX, the philosophy is to apply maintenance to each system separately. In z/OS we apply maintenance to a copy of the system (once). We then IPL any (not necessarily all) systems that we want using the updated copy. Once we feel it is stable, we can then IPL more systems. Shared dasd is a good thing which allows us to upgrade and fallback all systems from the same volumes. Since upgrade and fallback is usually just an IPL, we can do it within minutes without the sysprog.
Jon Perryman. >________________________________ > From: Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) <shmuel+ibm-m...@patriot.net> > > >In <4384793391606637.wa.paulgboulderaim....@listserv.ua.edu>, on >01/09/2014 > at 11:51 AM, Paul Gilmartin <paulgboul...@aim.com> said: > >>Is this "cloning", sometimes called "deployment" to a live system? >>It seems there's a flaw in the process if the live system is not >>updated by a process identical to that used on the maintenance >>system. > >Why should the current live system be updated at all? Treat it as a >fallback system and IPL from the more current system. > >>None of which would have protected me: > >What protects you is developing a robust plan for service, testing and >deployment, then sticking to it. If you do things in an ad hoc manner >then you will eventually shoot yourself in the foot. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
