Just to say one more word on IASPs - they make it possible to have separate environments with the same library names.
This is a use of IASPs that wasn't presented when I first went to a session on them at COMMON - the primary use of IASPs is for HA/DR in the minds of the designers, I believe I can say.
But the opportunity to have test environments and production on the same box is intriguing.
The main issue I see is, you have to allocate whole disk units to each IASP. This may not be an issue in practical terms, since a test IASP probably won't need to grow with flexibility the way the main system ASP does.
A menu with options of which environment is easily set up, as this example for JDE also does. The thing one does is SETACTGRP for the IASP you want - eezy-peezy!
Vern
----- Original Message -----
One solution to your concerns is using good library naming conventions for
libraries and using Library Lists. ;-)
For example, my client uses JDE World software running for dozens of
affiliates around the world.
I have a single user profile on the system.
JDE World allows for an unlimited number of JDE "environments" on the same
LPAR.
The JDE administrator maintains a list of JDE "environments" to which I am
authorized, which is stored in file F0093, which lives in a library common
to all environments.
When I sign on to JDE, I am presented with a "Library List Selection" screen
from which I select the affiliate JDE "environment" which I want to use.
The list of libraries for a given "environment" is stored in the F0094 file,
which is also in a library common to all environments.
Once I select the JDE "environment" from the Library List Selection screen,
the JDE startup program establishes my library list based on that list of
libraries associated with that particular JDE "environment" and creates a
jobd in QTEMP containg that same list of libraries for use when submitting
batch jobs.
-sjl
"Stone, Joel" wrote in message
news:mailman.7139.1378391998.9013.midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx...
OK maybe people have thin-skin this week because of the labor day holiday.
Or maybe antiquated is the wrong word. I will substitute that word for "a
major design element that all competitive OS's improved upon in the 1970's
except for OS400". (Maybe the 1960s)
Suggesting a low-level developer switch to UNIX or another OS is not
productive is it? Or even a CIO? Our bed was made, now we have to lie in
it good or bad.
People are throwing back at me that other databases are single-level.
The issue is NOT limited to databases. There are programs, commands,
software packages, files, screens, reports, a hundred other types of
entities spinning around on disk that are outside of the database.
Think of your PC. How many subdirectories and subfolders are on it? 1000?
10,000? And how many levels? 20? 100?
What if someone told you that you have to shrink it down to one parent-child
relation?
I think that we work with a single level of libraries and it is just the way
it is and we accept that. But it is very expensive to our organizations,
and leads to very complicated and messy systems IMHO.
Yes the IFS is multi-level. Is it really an option to close down our
library system and exclusively use the IFS? Probably not if there is any
vendor-supplied s/w on the system.
-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of TheBorg
Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2013 6:00 PM
To: midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: separate DEV, TEST, & PROD environments survey
Joel -
Hardly an attack...
/I/ did not write "I fail to see how having only 1 level of libraries
matter". That was Charles Wilt - try keeping up with the thread.
Perhaps /you/ are working on an "antiquated" iSeries or AS/400, but I work
on a brand-new modern IBM Power system which is running IBM i 7.1.
If you must have an operating system with a multi-level file system, I
suggest you consider the Unix, Linux, or the highly dependable Microsoft
Windows operating system.
;-)
I'm still not attacking you, by the way...
-sjl
"Stone, Joel" wrote in message
news:mailman.7101.1378331458.9013.midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx...
I am not slamming anything or anyone - just asking a question.
How can stating facts be taken as slamming?
You asked a question "I fail to see how having only 1 level of libraries
matter. "
And I tried to answer it.
If my response is incorrect, please state what is incorrect instead of
attacking me.
-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of TheBorg
Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2013 4:45 PM
To: midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: separate DEV, TEST, & PROD environments survey
Joel -
Perhaps you need to better understand how naming conventions work, instead
of slamming the best and most secure machine and operating system ever
created...
You are not going to make any friend or get much assistance here with your
attitude.
-sjl
"Stone, Joel" wrote in message
news:mailman.7098.1378330960.9013.midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx...
"I fail to see how having only 1 level of libraries matter. "
One level of hierarchy seems antiquated in that all other OS's allow many
levels.
For example, any other OS could have the following folders:
PROD env
-----
JDE 9.0 containing program lib + data lib + config lib etc
JDE 8.0 containing program lib + data lib + config lib etc
SAP 2.0 containing program lib + data lib + config lib etc
Lawson 3.0 containing program lib + data lib + config lib etc
TEST env
------
Ditto above
DEV env
-----
Ditto above
It doesn't seem possible to do this on iseries as a library cannot have a
hierarchal group above or below, only one level is allowed. So people use
multiple LPARs or boxes to get around this constraint that doesn't exist on
other OS's.
-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Charles Wilt
Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2013 4:05 PM
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
Subject: Re: separate DEV, TEST, & PROD environments survey
I've worked in all three types...just depends on the size of the company.
I fail to see how having only 1 level of libraries matter. For that
matter, every single RDBMS I'm familiar with only allows a single level of
schemas.
Once the shop gets big enough, separate LPARs or boxes is probably most
common.
Charles
On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 4:38 PM, Stone, Joel <Joel.Stone@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
What constitutes separate DEV, TEST, & PROD environments at your
organization?
Must they exist on separate LPARS? Separate boxes?
Or can they all exist on one LPAR with adequate border fences?
Would it be practical to exist on one LPAR and still comply with SOX and
GAAP and a typical big auditing company's security audit?
Or is that not possible in the Iseries world with the antiquated only one
level of libraries and such?
Thanks in advance!
______________________________________________________________________
This outbound email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs
Skyscan service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
______________________________________________________________________
--
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing
list
To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.
midrange.com
