Hi,
In gm130103 (system managed CF structure duplexing) it recommends that you
do not duplex CF structure data between CF located in different sites.
Because CF structure data is not preserved in a failover situation.
But I was under the impression a multi-site GDPS/PPRC environment is suppose
...
But I was under the impression a multi-site GDPS/PPRC environment is suppose
to offer continous availability, how does it do it if both CF are at one
site and the site destroyed.
...
GDPS is evolving.
It hasn't reached that ideal state you are looking for.
So far, if I recall correctly, only
-- snip --
But I was under the impression a multi-site GDPS/PPRC environment is
suppose
to offer continous availability, how does it do it if both CF are at one
site and the site destroyed. If you're using dedicated standalone CF (not
ICF), why whould it matter if the CF were local or physically re
-- snip --
GDPS is evolving.
It hasn't reached that ideal state you are looking for.
So far, if I recall correctly, only the SYSPLEX timers and the DASD are
truly in synch.
And, DASD is not bi-directional (yet) for the same volume.
-- snip --
Ted, I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "not bi-di
...
Ted, I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "not bi-directional".
...
It means I can only update at one site and back up to another.
-teD
In God we Trust!
All others bring data!
-- W. Edwards Deming
--
For IBM-MAIN subscrib
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 09:01:31 +0200, John Ticic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
INFORMATIK.DE> wrote:
>A prerequisite is that the PPRC feature is available on both subsystems.
>
>Discalaimer : My basis is IBM ESS. Ron - you could give us the HDS view.
>
>John.
>
John,
The HDS Point of view is the same as IBM
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 00:00:00 GMT, Ted MacNEIL
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>...
>Ted, I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "not bi-directional".
>...
>It means I can only update at one site and back up to another.
>
>-teD
>
>In God we Trust!
>All others bring data!
> -- W. Edwards Deming
>
Ted,
...
If I understand your response correctly, you mean that I can't have two
boxes connected doing Remote Copy in both directions at the same time?
...
No, I meant at the volume level.
-teD
In God we Trust!
All others bring data!
-- W. Edwards Deming
---
-- snip --
...
If I understand your response correctly, you mean that I can't have two
boxes connected doing Remote Copy in both directions at the same time?
...
No, I meant at the volume level.
-- snip --
Ted,
if I understand you correctly, Volume A in Site 1 is mirror to Site 2 as
A'. In Site
...
If this is what you mean, then I can't see any sense in doing it. Could you
clarify with an example?
...
One direction:
One site has IMS sharing with another site.
A transaction comes into site 1, and is shipped to site 2 (primary DASD),
I/O is done at site 2, backed up at site one (synchronou
half Of Ted MacNEIL
> Sent: Tuesday, 26 July 2005 8:00 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: GDPS CF duplexing
>
> ...
> If this is what you mean, then I can't see any sense in doing it. Could
> you
> clarify with an example?
> ...
> One direction:
>
>
Hi,
With regards to CF, if the failure where not a DASD failure but rather a
CF failure. Given CF are at each site, and we're recommended not to
duplex. How or under what conditions are we suppose to do CF duplexing ?
Looks like high availability parallel sysplex CF duplexing is broken
when we go g
-- snip --
After the short discussion which followed with regards to mirroring I
now have a new question
Asynchronous Cascading PPRC
------ --- ---
| PPRC pri| PPRC SYNC | PPRC sec| PPRC-XD | XD sec | |FlashCopy|
| |--->
13 matches
Mail list logo
