Bob,
I know of at least one shop that is fairly large ( 3+ 6 way
sysplexes) and has a minimal SMS configuration (and some must have OS
allowances for PDSe's and HFS's(ZFS) etc) but there are staunchly
anti SMS (they have purchased another SMS look alike product). I
honestly don't think their Backup up product doesn't really support
these "other" SMS products either. They are mostly reliant on DASD
mirroring for most of their volumes.
Ed
On Sep 9, 2013, at 12:19 PM, Bob Shannon wrote:
This essentially makes in mandatory to be SMS on any volume and
that means a lot of rule changes in the SMS constructs and in
addition forcing SMS on just about any type of load module PDSE's.
IN addition it seems to make in necessary for the whole SMS
infrastructure to be in place day 1 of the new new COBOL.
I am all for SMS but in a graduated fashion. Load modules PDSe's
are a PITA in a lot of ways. My thinking is that there will be a
lot of people NOT upgrading to the new COBOL just because of this.
I am not a fan of PDSEs, but have seen no more problems with PDSE
load libraries than with non-load libraries. Although I find it a
bit hard to believe that after 20 years people still resist using
SMS, PDSEs can be allocated on non-SMS managed volumes. It's not
something I recommend, but it can be done.
z/OS is intended for customers willing to spend money; that's the
only way IBM can stay in business. If paying more for a compiler
is a budget-buster, frankly the only solution is to start using
Linux and move to entirely open source products.
Bob Shannon
Rocket Software
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
