.. On 01-Feb-2016 9:57 PM, "John Eells" <[email protected]> wrote:
> I hadn't really thought about (or researched) the display capabilities of > RACF. An RFE couldn't hurt if you find them lacking. > > Once one's TSO/E administrative routines have been converted to use the > TSO segment, though, I think another good use of UADS is for recovery, > including DR. It's the only way to log on when you have no security > database, at least when RACF is the absent DB in question. I'd want to have > "some number" of sysprog user IDs to be in UADS for recovery purposes. (And > an appropriate MPF exit, for RACF!) > > As SA restore is a serial activity and batch restore is not, minimizing > recovery time would seem to call for a small number of UADS-defined IDs to > speed overall restore time if your security DB happens not to share a > volume with some other data sets required to IPL and log on. But what do I > know? > > Skip Robinson wrote: > >> Ah, UADS. A prime example of archaic mechanism. Defensible technically? >> Probably not, although a security administrator who needs to know which >> account numbers or which proclibs a user is authorized to use might tell a >> different story. With UADS, a simple list command tells the story. With >> TSOE >> segment, it's a data mining operation. This difference alone has inhibited >> conversion in some shops. >> > <snip> > > -- > John Eells > IBM Poughkeepsie > [email protected] > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
