[Default] On 24 Jul 2019 08:24:17 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main 000001439e1549b6-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu (S B) wrote:
>Thisis a simplified description of our environment (for thesake of this >discussion) > > >Weare running z/OS V2.3 and using CA MIM > >Wehave two LPARs LPAR1 Development and LPAR2 Production there two LPARs >areshared DASD but separate JES2 Spools and not SYSPlex. We >have"PDSESHARING(NORMAL)" in IGDSMS00 and clearly onlyhave SMSPDSE running. > >Somedevelopers have PDSEs for their .JCL datasets. We used to receive >requests to restore their datasets because their PDSE datasets were >corrupted. At that time and as part of the problem resolutions (and CA' >recommendation) we added the following entries to the MIM (CAMIMGR)and that >seemed to solve the issue (we did not get any more calls for >corrupteddatasets My complaints about PDSE are that it is even less safe to share PDSEs across sysplexes than it is to share PDSs and that PDSEs are not available at NIP, i.e. SYS1.NUCLEUS, SYS1.PARMLIB, SYS1.LPALIB, SYS1.LINKLIB and other IPL data sets must be PDS's and not PDSEs. The former problem may be taken care of enough by allowing sysplex sharing if that mechanism also can handle GDPS. The latter problem in my rarely humble opinion was the same customer surly short-sightedness that didn't allow SNA 327x devices to be consoles at NIP. The PDSE restriction bars a path to migrating to FBA just as the latter restriction required my employer to have 2 Bi-Sync local 327x controllers to avoid single points of IPL failure. Clark Morris > > SYSZIGW0GDIF=YES, > > SCOPE=SYSTEMS, > > EXEMPT=NO, > > ECMF=NO, > > RPTAFTER=30, > > RPTCYCLE=60 > >SYSZIGW1GDIF=YES, > > SCOPE=SYSTEMS, > > EXEMPT=NO, > > ECMF=NO, > > RPTAFTER=30, > > RPTCYCLE=60 > >Lookingback at this issue and in preparation for COBOL Enterprise upgrade from >V4.2, accordingto many writeups/red books that I could find, in effect we >cannot have PDSEs in ourenvironment this being one of them > > IBM PDSE DATA SET SHARING Basics > >I am assuming there areother shops like us - shared DASD but not SYSPlex >what are our options inusing PDSEs if any? > >Theseare our thoughts: > >SYSPlexingthese two LPARs takes away the separation of Development and >Production during systems upgrades and applications development (e.g., test in >development for two weeks before moving to production). Alsosharing the JES2 >Spool will be complicated > >Separatingthe DASD and master/user catalogs seems to be drastic change >technically andculturally > >Any feedbackand suggestions will be great > >Thanks > >Shahnaz > > > > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >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
