Re: ASPs

[barsa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Again, from my mainframe and NT bosses...

I am being asked as to whether the AS/400 supports (what they call)
"channels", which (based on a 20 minute conversation that I will avoid
here) I
have interpreted to mean what the AS/400 calls ASPs.  The idea is to keep
the
OS and LPPs and all other (if any) objects that do not change except on
installation and PTF installs in a single ASP all by itself and then all
user
libraries and perhaps (?) other system objects that are subject to change
are
kept in another ASP.

I have had only a brief exposure to ASPs at one client site several years
ago
and my only rememberence as a programmer was that it was a royal PITA and
could not understand the benefits of having 2 user ASPs.  FWIW, it was a JD
Edwards shop.

The basis for which my bosses are asking this question seem related to
being
able to backup the user libraries on a daily basis but only have to backup
the
OS & LPPs when they are upgraded/PTF'd/whatever.  Yes, I know, I know, this
is
a SAVSYS & SAVLIB *IBM stuff vs. SAVLIB *NONSYS stuff (as well as the
SAVDLO &
SAV commands), but I just wanted to have a clear(er) understanding from
those
on the list with ASP experience to see if there are other considerations I
am
not thinking of.  One that I'm guessing on is that recovery from a DASD
failure that requires a restore would be much less blood-letting if the
system
were set up using ASPs.  Yes/No?



Save options 21, 22, and 23 from the GO SAVE menu provide the right level
of segregation for the backup you are talking about.  Here is what they do:

     21 Entire system (QMNSAVE):              ENDSBS SBS(*ALL) OPTION
(*IMMED)
                                   CHGMSGQ MSGQ(QSYSOPR) DLVRY(*BREAK or
                              *NOTIFY)
                                   SAVSYS
                                   SAVLIB LIB(*NONSYS) ACCPTH(*YES)
                                   SAVDLO DLO(*ALL) SAVFLR(*ANY)
                                   SAV DEV('/QSYS.LIB/tape-device-nam
                              e.DEVD')
                                         OBJ(('/*') ('/QSYS.LIB' *OMIT)
                                         ('/QDLS' *OMIT))
                                         UPDHST(*YES)
                                   STRSBS SBSD(controlling-subsystem)

     22 System data only (QSRSAVI):                ENDSBS SBS(*ALL) OPTION
(*IMMED)
                                   CHGMSGQ MSGQ(QSYSOPR) DLVRY(*BREAK or
                              *NOTIFY)
                                   SAVSYS
                                   SAVLIB LIB(*IBM) ACCPTH(*YES)
                                   SAV DEV('/QSYS.LIB/tape-device-nam
                              e.DEVD')
                                         OBJ(('/QIBM/ProdData')
                                         ('/QOpenSys/QIBM/ProdData'))
                                         UPDHST(*YES)
                                   STRSBS SBSD(controlling-subsystem)

     23 All user data (QSRSAVU):                   ENDSBS SBS(*ALL) OPTION
(*IMMED)
                                   CHGMSGQ MSGQ(QSYSOPR) DLVRY(*BREAK or
                              *NOTIFY)
                                   SAVSECDTA
                                   SAVCFG
                                   SAVLIB LIB(*ALLUSR) ACCPTH(*YES)
                                   SAVDLO DLO(*ALL) FLR(*ANY)
                                   SAV DEV('/QSYS.LIB/tape-device-nam
                              e.DEVD')
                                         OBJ(('/*') ('/QSYS.LIB' *OMIT)
                                         ('/QDLS' *OMIT)
                                         ('/QIBM/ProdData' *OMIT)
                                         ('/QOpenSys/QIBM/ProdData' *OMIT))
                                         UPDHST(*YES)
STRSBS SBSD(controlling-subsystem)

On the topic of separate ASPs for system stuff versus your stuff, this
level of segregation is fine if you are interested in worse performance.
Almost all activity is subject to disk head contention.  The more heads,
the less contention.  As system stuff is used heavily at IPL, etc, you want
more heads available.  If during normal operations, your heads do not have
to go after system stuff, the better.

Segregating system stuff from user stuff at the ASP level is nuts.  This
may not be the case when IBM fulfills the SOD on independent ASPS for
libraries, but even in V5R1, there's no point to it.

AL


Al Barsa, Jr.
Barsa Consulting Group, LLC

400>390

914-251-1234
914-251-9406 fax

http://www.barsaconsulting.com
http://www.taatool.com




+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---