Dear All I am receiving lot of great responses and I should be back on Mondays.
Apologise for not responding. Peter On Tue 10 Jul, 2018, 10:24 AM Vernooij, Kees (ITOPT1) - KLM, < kees.verno...@klm.com> wrote: > Well, we don't disagree much, except that that in case of a CF failure, we > decided take the (few seconds) structure recovery delays and not have the > duplexing overhead. > > Kees. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On > > Behalf Of Jesse 1 Robinson > > Sent: 09 July, 2018 18:07 > > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > > Subject: Re: Sysplex between two hardware > > > > I stand by my original reply. All you need is an ICF LPAR in each CEC > > and physical links to connect the CECs, together with full CF structure > > duplexing. We have run this way for decades. Suffered two (!) CEC > > failures over the years. After repairing the failed CEC, we resumed > > normal operation with *no* recovery actions needed because all sensitive > > structures were duplexed in the non-failing CEC. > > > > Our standalone CFs went away with the 9674. > > > > . > > . > > J.O.Skip Robinson > > Southern California Edison Company > > Electric Dragon Team Paddler > > SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager > > 323-715-0595 Mobile > > 626-543-6132 Office ⇐=== NEW > > robin...@sce.com > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On > > Behalf Of Vernooij, Kees (ITOPT1) - KLM > > Sent: Monday, July 09, 2018 8:08 AM > > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > > Subject: (External):Re: Sysplex between two hardware > > > > That was my point: you don't miss a thing. > > You are fully redundant with CFs in each CPC. > > And since the latest MQ update, all applications are capable of > > recovering their structures, so recovery is guaranteed in case of a CF > > failure. > > > > Kees. > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] > > > On Behalf Of Allan Staller > > > Sent: 09 July, 2018 16:33 > > > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > > > Subject: Re: Sysplex between two hardware > > > > > > That configuration is perfectly valid. You are merely missing some(but > > > not all) redundancy and recovery options. > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] > > > On Behalf Of R.S. > > > Sent: Monday, July 9, 2018 9:20 AM > > > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > > > Subject: Re: Sysplex between two hardware > > > > > > W dniu 2018-07-09 o 15:41, Mark A. Brooks pisze: > > > > The essence of the matter is to ensure that the selected > > > > configuration > > > meets the availability objectives of the business services supported > > > by the sysplex. One must consider the service restoration objectives > > > for the business services in light of the potential failures that can > > > occur for a potential choice of configuration. There are many > > > possibilities and different installations will of course make > > > different choices based on their own business objectives. Choices of > > > standalone CF, or structure duplexing, and the like are really all > > > talking about different ways of solving the "failure isolation" issue > > > (wherein we might be concerned about the time to restore the business > > > service if we simultaneously lose the data in the CF along with the > > > system that produced that data). Each choice has its own advantages > > > and disadvantages; choose the one that's right for you. > > > > --Mark Brooks > > > > --z/OS Sysplex Development > > > > > > > > > > However "option c", that means we don't have standalone CF and we do > > > not duplex CF structures is not proper one, is it? > > > > > > Regards > > > -- > > > Radoslaw Skorupka > > > Lodz, Poland > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > ******************************************************** > For information, services and offers, please visit our web site: > http://www.klm.com. This e-mail and any attachment may contain > confidential and privileged material intended for the addressee only. If > you are not the addressee, you are notified that no part of the e-mail or > any attachment may be disclosed, copied or distributed, and that any other > action related to this e-mail or attachment is strictly prohibited, and may > be unlawful. If you have received this e-mail by error, please notify the > sender immediately by return e-mail, and delete this message. > > Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV (KLM), its subsidiaries and/or its > employees shall not be liable for the incorrect or incomplete transmission > of this e-mail or any attachments, nor responsible for any delay in receipt. > Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij N.V. (also known as KLM Royal Dutch > Airlines) is registered in Amstelveen, The Netherlands, with registered > number 33014286 > ******************************************************** > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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
