SFM and planning for what your surviving system should always be done. And yes early on there was a failure of one of the two dark fiber connections and the sysplex timers were not connected properly to allow for a continued service.
Planning planning planning. On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 10:22 AM Mike Schwab <mike.a.sch...@gmail.com> wrote: > One company had data centers in Miami and New Orleans. Miami shut > down for a hurricane, and wasn't back up before Katrina hit New > Orleans. > > On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 6:44 AM, Timothy Sipples <sipp...@sg.ibm.com> > wrote: > > J.O.Skip Robinson wrote: > >>Losing XCF connection to a sysplex member would be a whole > >>nother level of impact that I've never been willing to sign > >>up for even though our network today is far more reliable > >>than it was 20 years ago. > > > > Isn't losing XCF connectivity something worth planning for? It's rare, > but > > I suppose it could happen no matter what the distance. > > > > Isn't it always best to weigh various risks, sometimes competing ones, > and > > try to get as much overall risk reduction as you can? You're in southern > > California, and there are earthquakes and fires there, I've noticed. > (Maybe > > plagues of locusts next? :-)) One would think there's some extra > California > > value in awarding an extra point or two to distance there. Japan's 2011 > > TÅhoku earthquake and tsunami triggered some business continuity > rethinking > > there, and it has altered some decisions about data center locations, > > distances, and deployment patterns. The risk profile can change. And, as > > you mentioned, networks have improved a lot in 20 years while the risks > > California faces seem to be somewhat different. It's always worth > > revisiting past risk calculations when there's some material change in > the > > parameters -- "marking to market." > > > > If losing XCF connectivity would be that devastating, why have XCF links > > (and a Parallel Sysplex) at all? It is technically possible to eliminate > > those links. You just might not like the alternative. :-) > > > > You're also allowed to do "some of both." You can stretch a Parallel > > Sysplex and run certain workloads across the stretch, while at the same > > time you can have a non-stretched Parallel Sysplex and run other > workloads > > non-stretched. That sort of deployment configuration is technically > > possible, and conceptually it's not a huge leap from the classic remote > > tape library deployments. > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Timothy Sipples > > IT Architect Executive, Industry Solutions, IBM Z and LinuxONE, > AP/GCG/MEA > > E-Mail: sipp...@sg.ibm.com > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > > > > -- > Mike A Schwab, Springfield IL USA > Where do Forest Rangers go to get away from it all? > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > -- Rob Schramm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
