× The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.



Evan,

I can't speak to your experiences but I have done dozens of recovery tests and I've only run into trouble with QUSRSYS or QGPL on very limited cases, and not affecting TCP.

*SYNCLIB is a beast in that you have to get all the libraries in the list to checkpoint at the same time. Important for some folks but if you do not have user database objects (meaning non-IBM) in either QUSRSYS or QGPL, I would not include them in the synch point. Saving QUSRSYS and QGPL with a synch point of *LIB has always been successful in the tests I have run. Again there may be some anomalies but as a general rule the save works quite well.

A better reason to test your recovery I can't come up with. If you have not tested your recovery, you don't have a reliable back up, regardless of what the system says it put on tape, virtual or physical.

Jim Oberholtzer
Chief Technical Architect
Agile Technology Architects


On 1/22/2013 12:24 PM, Evan Harris wrote:
Hi JIm

I recall being unable to save QUSRSYS using SWA on V5R4 while TCP was
active. More accurately I seem to remember that some items just would
not restore correctly even though the save seemed to complete OK.
These items seemed to be associated with TCP jobs. The SWA was a case
of quiescing user applications until the checkpoint (*SYNCLIB) was
reached, except for downing TCP. To get around it I modified the save
regime to save QUSRSYS weekly or monthly when TCP was down.


On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 10:09 AM, Jim Oberholtzer
<midrangel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Jeff answered most of your questions, I'll deal with the QUSRSYS and
> recoverability.
>
> Yes the system is completely recoverable with the SWA on QUSRSYS, in
> fact I have performed many recovery tests using BRMS, and in many ways
> it works better than the manual recovery. Were you using BRMS for the
> SWA processing? If not I suspect that the checkpoint processing my not
> have been done quite right leaving some objects out of synchronization.
>
> It is also true that a slowdown in normal activity will make the SWA
> work much better as well. The best situation is to be able to quiesce
> the the system for a short time (about 5 minutes in my experience) while
> the checkpoints are taken, particularly with *SYNCLIB or *SYSDFN check
> points.
>
> Jim Oberholtzer
> Chief Technical Architect
> Agile Technology Architects
>

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...

Follow-Ups:
Replies:

Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.