It's common practice for us to have at least two service levels in play at the same time. One for the 'next big thing' and one for 'keep the lights on' in the current production release. Having distinct static service environments means that nothing gets in anyone else's way. Either can be cloned and migrated independently with minimal confusion. It helps greatly to have a naming convention for 'release level' that's zapped into the system (we use a spot in NUC) for querying wherever a clone migrates.
. . . J.O.Skip Robinson Southern California Edison Company Electric Dragon Team Paddler SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager 323-715-0595 Mobile jo.skip.robin...@att.net jo.skip.robin...@gmail.com > -----Original Message----- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] > On Behalf Of Mike Smith > Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2016 04:18 PM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: [Bulk] Re: Cloning a Sysres and ZFS > > I vote for Bruce's method also. This will allow multiple versions (a > maintenance > version of current and the next Version release) to be mounted at the same > time. Allows two people or parallel work on both systems. > > I even went so far as to write a REXX routine which would create the mount > point if it did not exist, read the BPXPRMxx member of parmlib for all the > File > Systems, and mount and/or create mount point/mount the files systems for the > select SYSRES set. All the DDEFs for the SYSRES set used the same path prefix > '/RESVOL1' . This is easy to zoneedit after a clone also. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
