Ted MacNEIL eamacn...@yahoo.ca wrote in message
news:325749814-1271266055-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-2135
6707...@bda026.bisx.prod.on.blackberry...
PSLC is pretty simple. Your qualifying sysplex (biggest one) has
to
be 50%
or more of the used capacity on each box.
80% is
Don't forget ULC.
PSCL plus ULC is still the most advantageous option for us.
I've forgotten what ULC is (if I ever knew).
There are so many pricing options around, and if you have knowledgable
negotiators, you can get a deal so many different ways.
It's almost as if each shop has its own
On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 17:39:53 -0500, Arthur Gutowski aguto...@ford.com wrote:
In keeping with the consolidated response (if I'm not losing too much context):
Mark,
Yes, I recall the striping issue you had. I think we can avoid that.
Yes, the allocate/delete job is what I referred to. Glad to
Thanks for all the replies, I think I have a better idea of the problem
here. It seems that Logger may inadvertently be the weak link when dasd is
separated within a sysplex. I think the offloads happening on any
connection was designed to increase availability if one system lost
connections to
Barbara Nitz nitz-...@gmx.net wrote in message
news:listserv%201004140039341764.0...@bama.ua.edu...
Answering all of last nights post in one:
Big snip ...
That 'foreign' subplex will be decommisioned soon. At this time we are
again
prone to paying more money if we keep TEST separate from
Are you sure you *have* to pay more if you don't merge Test and Prod?
Having repeatedly asked my managers about just that (and my feelings about
this idea are certainly known here - I have made enemies in the past because
of it), I have to *believe* what they tell me. I am not privy to the
...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of
Barbara Nitz
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 3:24 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: Non-SMS-managed LOGR offload data sets
Are you sure you *have* to pay more if you don't merge Test and Prod?
Having repeatedly asked my managers about just that (and my feelings about
On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 00:39:34 -0500, Barbara Nitz nitz-...@gmx.net wrote:
Answering all of last nights post in one:
Mark,
Anyway, I am commenting on it because the reason I had to use group name
was due to 2 different DB2 subsystems on different systems in the same
sysplex that had the same name.
On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 02:24:21 -0500, Barbara Nitz nitz-...@gmx.net wrote:
Are you sure you *have* to pay more if you don't merge Test and Prod?
Having repeatedly asked my managers about just that (and my feelings about
this idea are certainly known here - I have made enemies in the past because
Mark Zelden mzel...@flash.net wrote in message
news:listserv%201004140856187730.0...@bama.ua.edu...
On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 02:24:21 -0500, Barbara Nitz nitz-...@gmx.net
wrote:
Are you sure you *have* to pay more if you don't merge Test and
Prod?
Having repeatedly asked my managers about just
I went through all this in a previous employer. Due to acquisitions, we merged
4 plexes into one site, into one shamplex. Only one small system was able to
be combined with another, wound up with 3 MAS'es, 3 RACFDB's, 3
SMSplexes, etc. Chose to send LOGREC data to LOGR for the contractual
W dniu 2010-04-14 15:59, Vernooij, CP - SPLXM pisze:
[...]
PSLC is pretty simple. Your qualifying sysplex (biggest one) has to
be 50%
or more of the used capacity on each box.
80% is the value I heard.
HEARD? Is it documented anyhwhere? I have SEEN IBM documents describing
Terms and
On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 19:06:07 +0200, R.S. r.skoru...@bremultibank.com.pl wrote:
W dniu 2010-04-14 15:59, Vernooij, CP - SPLXM pisze:
[...]
PSLC is pretty simple. Your qualifying sysplex (biggest one) has to
be 50%
or more of the used capacity on each box.
80% is the value I heard.
HEARD? Is
PSLC is pretty simple. Your qualifying sysplex (biggest one) has to
be 50%
or more of the used capacity on each box.
80% is the value I heard.
HEARD? Is it documented anyhwhere?
It was in 1998.
We got PSLC by running SYSLOGR and Batch on the CEC.
I don't know if it's more complex now.
The
In keeping with the consolidated response (if I'm not losing too much context):
Mark,
Yes, I recall the striping issue you had. I think we can avoid that.
Yes, the
On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 23:56:56 -0500, Barbara Nitz nitz-...@gmx.net wrote:
Yes. Mark, look at group name in RRS to separate logging groups - I think this
was intended to separate test and prod, and then look at the RRS panels
where you can freely choose the group name; the rest is simple
On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 08:08:22 -0500, Mark Zelden mzel...@flash.net
wrote:
BTW, I'm not sure if I mentioned this last year, but they way we shared
these pools between SMSplexes usually was by having the SMS status
in the owning SMSplex as ENABLE and then the volumes owned by
the other SMSplex in
On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 10:14:24 -0500, Arthur Gutowski aguto...@ford.com wrote:
On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 08:08:22 -0500, Mark Zelden mzel...@flash.net
wrote:
BTW, I'm not sure if I mentioned this last year, but they way we shared
these pools between SMSplexes usually was by having the SMS status
in the
On Apr 13, 12:57 am, nitz-...@gmx.net (Barbara Nitz) wrote:
Nick,
from your email I figured you're somewhere in LOGR development :-) And I am
absolutely glad someone finally 'gets' my paranoia. I have a hard time getting
the problem across to my colleagues, too! Mostly because they don't
Hi Barbara,
we have a similar setupbut because we merged two production Parallel
Sysplexes.
history: 2 separate datacenters in same city. 2nd prod system had been
CLONED from first and modified slightlythen had 10 years growth.
We also had each datacenter being the DR site of the
Answering all of last nights post in one:
Mark,
Anyway, I am commenting on it because the reason I had to use group name
was due to 2 different DB2 subsystems on different systems in the same
sysplex that had the same name. This particular system shares DASD, SMS,
etc. but the applications
Nick,
My only advice, if such a thing works, is that you should consider
separate HLQ or EHLQ values for each log stream that has the same name
in both sysplexes. That would avoid thrashing when allocating offload
data sets, where the sysplexes would be competing for the same data
set names.
I
Barbara Nitz nitz-...@gmx.net wrote in message
news:listserv%201004120111313731.0...@bama.ua.edu...
Nick,
My only advice, if such a thing works, is that you should consider
separate HLQ or EHLQ values for each log stream that has the same
name
in both sysplexes. That would avoid thrashing
On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 01:11:31 -0500, Barbara Nitz nitz-...@gmx.net wrote:
The only alternative supported is non-
SMS, and to make it go to certain volumes (and not generally storage mounted
volsers) is the IEFDB401 exit as described in 'setting up a sysplex' - that
apparently nobody uses.
Maybe you misunderstood what I was saying: I am talking genuine parallel
sysplex, that for no technical but purely pricing reasons (IBM pricing) has
been
artificially separated into two subplexes. These two subplexes share of course
ISGLOCK and everything that is truly, non-reconfigurably sysplex
Nick,
from your email I figured you're somewhere in LOGR development :-) And I am
absolutely glad someone finally 'gets' my paranoia. I have a hard time getting
the problem across to my colleagues, too! Mostly because they don't really
understand how offload works.
Ahh now I understand your
On Wed, 7 Apr 2
What I need to have accessible from all systems in the sysplex (share) is a
number of volumes that can contain LOGR offload data sets from two
subplexes that otherwise know nothing about it each other (in theory). I am
also told that it is 'too much work' to make it one SMS config
On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 04:27:41 -0500, Barbara Nitz nitz-...@gmx.net wrote:
What I need to have accessible from all systems in the sysplex (share) is a
number of volumes that can contain LOGR offload data sets from two
subplexes that otherwise know nothing about it each other (in theory). I am
also
On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 03:48:32 -0500, Barbara Nitz nitz-...@gmx.net
wrote:
Unscientific survey:
How many of you use truly non-SMS-managed LOGR datasets? As in: Using
the two model data sets and an IEFDB401 exit that specifies the DALLIKE text
unit?
All SMS-managed, AFAIK. No IEFDB401 exit.
How
Unscientific survey:
How many of you use truly non-SMS-managed LOGR datasets? As in: Using
the two model data sets and an IEFDB401 exit that specifies the DALLIKE text
unit?
How many of you 'share' a pool of DASD (for LOGR data sets) in two SMSs?
(Don't ask me why I am asking.)
Regards,
Barbara Nitz pisze:
Unscientific survey:
How many of you use truly non-SMS-managed LOGR datasets? As in: Using
the two model data sets and an IEFDB401 exit that specifies the DALLIKE text
unit?
My LOGR datasets are always SMS-managed. In fact I don't see any reason
to get rid of SMS.
--
1. No.
2. No. What configuration do you have in mind here? You can't have SMS
dasd in 2 SMS's, non-SMS dasd is in no SMS at all. What is being
'shared' then? We now have truly split our sysplexes, but we had issues
with LOGR datasets when our 2 sysplexes shared the same Dasd with 1 SMS
2. No. What configuration do you have in mind here? You can't have SMS
dasd in 2 SMS's, non-SMS dasd is in no SMS at all. What is being
'shared' then? We now have truly split our sysplexes, but we had issues
with LOGR datasets when our 2 sysplexes shared the same Dasd with 1 SMS
configuration.
Barbara Nitz nitz-...@gmx.net wrote in message
news:listserv%201004070427419325.0...@bama.ua.edu...
2. No. What configuration do you have in mind here? You can't have
SMS
dasd in 2 SMS's, non-SMS dasd is in no SMS at all. What is being
'shared' then? We now have truly split our sysplexes, but
On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 03:48:32 -0500, Barbara Nitz nitz-...@gmx.net wrote:
Unscientific survey:
How many of you use truly non-SMS-managed LOGR datasets?
We still have some. I discovered them in one of our sysplexes a
couple of years ago after a space problem (they go to storage volumes).
Most
35 matches
Mail list logo
