| Author |
Message
|
| RatherBeGolfing |
 Posted: Fri Oct 31, 2003 12:59 pm Post subject: Should I make my z/OS QMgr a FULL respository or Partial? |
 |
|
Centurion
Joined: 12 Nov 2002
Posts: 118
Location: Syracuse, NY, USA
|
I have an established 8 box cluster with Windows 2000 servers all running V5.3 with CSD4. I have just migrated to V5.3 on z/OS and want to include my mainframe QMgr into the cluster.
I had problems with clustering under V2.1 on OS/390, but have heard/read that it is much better under V5.3.
I already have 2 Full repositories on the Windows 2000 side.
Is there any advantage to making the z/OS QMgr a Full repository also?
Thanks in advance,
Larry LaChanse
The MONY Group |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| dsim |
| Posted: Fri Oct 31, 2003 9:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Acolyte
Joined: 11 Aug 2003
Posts: 67
Location: Toronto
|
I believe the answer is yes.
As I recall. the recommendations were to define the (full) repositories on the machines that are the most reliable, stable
Dan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Michael Dag |
| Posted: Sat Nov 01, 2003 1:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 13 Jun 2002
Posts: 2607
Location: The Netherlands (Amsterdam)
|
as I understood it, clustering works best with 2 Full repositories.
Although more then 2 is supported you need to add additional cluster channels manually to make all additional full repositories aware of each other.
A repository should be put on the most reliable platform.
So in your case I would first let the z/OS Queuemanager join the cluster that exists, see how that works out for you and then move one of the full repositories from the Windows platform to the z/OS queuemanager. Joining and moving repositories is all described in detail in the clustering manual.
Michael |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jefflowrey |
| Posted: Sat Nov 01, 2003 6:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Poobah
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 19981
|
There is no advantage for having more than 2 full repositories.
There are many advantages for having both full repositories be really available.
How available a particular OS/390 is depends quite a lot on site specific procedures and the particular hardware configuration, so you'll have to evaluate that yourself.
Having a full repository on a machine that gets IPL'd every evening may not be the best choice.
_________________
I am *not* the model of the modern major general. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| RatherBeGolfing |
| Posted: Mon Nov 03, 2003 7:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
Centurion
Joined: 12 Nov 2002
Posts: 118
Location: Syracuse, NY, USA
|
Thanks for the advice everyone. Our mainframe is IPLed every weekend for a "maintenance window" whereas the W2K servers are running all the time. So, they will actually be more stable than my mainframe QMgr.
I think I'll have my z/OS QMgr join the cluster as a partial repository.
Thanks again,
Larry |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| PeterPotkay |
| Posted: Mon Nov 03, 2003 5:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 15 May 2001
Posts: 7722
|
I would do one of each.
When the mainframe is IPL'ed, the Windows server is up and doing the full repository tasks.
When the next Windows virus strikes rendering your Windows servers useless, the mainframe is is up and doing the full repository tasks.
I am not being sarcastic about the virus comment.  Not a question of if, but when will the next virus strike, and will it be bad enough to render your servers unfunctional for a period of time.
_________________
Peter Potkay
Keep Calm and MQ On |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
