MIDRANGE dot COM Mailing List Archive



Home » MIDRANGE-L » June 2014

Re: Why do companies partition their Power Servers?



fixed


I myself would love to have a completely isolated test
partition where I can use library lists that are exactly the same as
production library lists, user profiles secured the exact same way as
production user profiles, and so on.


I agree that partitions are a viable solution for that. Just save data and
configurations on one partition and restore them to the other. But I don't
think that partitions are the best solution.

We never hard code library names in program code, except for temporary
overrides to QTEMP - or such. We always manage Library Lists through
configuration files and occasionally via traditional *JOBD objects. Library
names are always soft-coded and easily maintainable so that authorized
users might point "applications" to libraries that they are authorized to.

We recently configured 180 new IBM i subsystems, 60 new HTTP server
instances, 60 new instances of our Web portal, and 60 new sets of
Libraries, for 60 separate state agencies, to enable each to run "isolated"
environments on a single IBM i partition. Each agency manages their own
users, user groups, user authorities in configuration files in separate
libraries and IFS directories.

I believe it will be much easier to to manage 60 such soft-coded
environments than 60 LPARS.

Nathan





Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2014 by MIDRANGE dot 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 here. If you have questions about this, please contact