Our site is considering GDPS, and we've come to the conclusion that z/VM
must be a non-participant. Our current plan is to move z/VM on to its own
logical controller, outside the grasp of GDPS. I think that the last straw
was that we could participate in GDPS only if our two z/VM systems did not
share any DASD; we run a CSE complex, and all of our DASD is shared, so it's
not even an open consideration.
--
.~. Robert P. Nix Mayo Foundation
/V\ RO-OE-5-55 200 First Street SW
/( )\ 507-284-0844 Rochester, MN 55905
^^-^^ -----
"In theory, theory and practice are the same, but
in practice, theory and practice are different."
On 5/14/07 1:54 PM, "Stracka, James (GTI)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We mirror our volumes from one data center to another but we are not using IBM
> DASD.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Behalf Of Marcy Cortes
> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 7:06 PM
> To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
> Subject: GDPS/XRC mirroring of VM volumes
>
>
> Is anyone out there doing this?
>
> We're attempting to mirror some volumes from one data center to the
> other to improve our disaster recovery times.
> It turns out there are a lot of restrictions when doing VM volumes -
> timestamping of I/O is not done (it is by Linux guests though) so lots
> of error messages are generated.. Intelligent automation can surpress
> those... But apparently we shouldn't even put MVS and VM in the same
> system data mover (SDM) according to IBM? We're also having problems
> getting the secondary copies flashed to tertiary copies.
>
>
> Marcy Cortes
