This is basically what I thought, and exactly what I needed. Thanks! I don't know if I can go with a full parallel sysplex since every guest OS will be a different version of z/OS. I also don't think I really need the full capability. I only want to share a RACF database, SMS and user catalogs and user datasets between guest OS's. I don't need to share DB/2, IMS, CICS, JES or any of the other resources that usually get shared.
I'll look into it more. Thanks again! David Logan Manager of Product Development, Pitney Bowes Business Insight http://centrus.com W: (720) 564-3056 C: (303) 818-8222 -----Original Message----- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Alan Ackerman Sent: Monday, December 22, 2008 22:59 To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: CTC connections between VMs I think you're confusing him. He was asking about GRS. There are 3 differ= ent ways to share DASD R/W in MVS: 1. Reserve/Release 2. GRS ring 3. A parallel sysplex If all your MVS (z/OS) systems are guests of one z/VM system, then VM pro= vides 1. Virtual Reserve/Release 2. Virtual CTCs 3. Virtual Parallel Sysplex Real & Virtual Reserve/Release share the performance problem that loc= king is at the full pack level. A GRS ring performs better, and parallel sysplex performs even be= tter. You didn't say you wanted to share with a non-guest z/OS system. If you w= ant to do that: 1. You can have both real and virtual reserve/release 2. I don't know if a GRS ring can include guests with real z/OS systems o= r not. 3. A virtual sysplex CANNOT be extended to real z/OS system or to a real = parallel sysplex. I'd almost forgotten about GRS, as we have gone entirely to parallel sysp= lex. I don't know if it can support all those different releases of z/OS or not. I don't even know if= GRS is still supported at all. Alan Ackerman Alan (dot) Ackerman (at) Bank of America (dot) com
