Using One Global CSI

John Reid

Using One Global CSI
Hi list,

I have a questions from our DB2 Systems Programmer. We are on DB2 OS390 v5.1, :

It follows:

Our shop is considering using one global csi for DB2, CICS, and MVS. The idea
is to bring new releases of these products in at the same time to be on the same
maintenance level. We would then have cross system dependencies in one csi for
maintenance. I have some concerns about doing this thinking it might make
putting on maintenance more complicated. I was wondering if anyone else is using
one global csi for all these systems and what the pros and cons are of doing
this?

thanks

john



Piontkowski Michael ML

Re: Using One Global CSI
(in response to John Reid)
I assume you're interested in IBM software.
I've worked in environments with one Global CSI and separate
Global CSIs. I prefer one Global CSI. It's a shared resource
among the Sys Progs so it must be managed accordingly,
backups, recoveries etc... Each product still has its own
target & dlib zones.

As the IBM products become more integrated, the shared
Global CSI is the way to go.

I don't like putting non-IBM software in the IBM Global zone.


Mike Piontkowski
Voice/Fax: 302.886.4612
mailto:[login to unmask email]

> ----------
> From: John Reid[SMTP:[login to unmask email]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2000 10:54 AM
> To: [login to unmask email]
> Subject: [DB2-L] Using One Global CSI
>
> Hi list,
>
> I have a questions from our DB2 Systems Programmer. We are on DB2 OS390
> v5.1, :
>
> It follows:
>
> Our shop is considering using one global csi for DB2, CICS, and MVS. The
> idea
> is to bring new releases of these products in at the same time to be on
> the same
> maintenance level. We would then have cross system dependencies in one
> csi for
> maintenance. I have some concerns about doing this thinking it might make
> putting on maintenance more complicated. I was wondering if anyone else is
> using
> one global csi for all these systems and what the pros and cons are of
> doing
> this?
>
> thanks
>
> john
>
>
>
>
>
>



[login to unmask email]

Re: Using One Global CSI
(in response to Piontkowski Michael ML)
john,

you may have problems with products/modules that are common to other (non db2)
products. for example, if you have ims, the db2 irlm may 'clobber' the ims irlm
which would be a problem if they need to be at different releases.

maybe you would also have probs with the cics attach stuff (since 4.1 cics is
shipped with its own db2 attach modules).

good luck,

steve






John Reid <[login to unmask email]> on 01/04/2000 10:54:13 AM

Please respond to DB2 Data Base Discussion List <[login to unmask email]>

To: [login to unmask email]
cc:
Subject: Using One Global CSI


Hi list,

I have a questions from our DB2 Systems Programmer. We are on DB2 OS390 v5.1, :

It follows:

Our shop is considering using one global csi for DB2, CICS, and MVS. The idea
is to bring new releases of these products in at the same time to be on the same
maintenance level. We would then have cross system dependencies in one csi for
maintenance. I have some concerns about doing this thinking it might make
putting on maintenance more complicated. I was wondering if anyone else is using
one global csi for all these systems and what the pros and cons are of doing
this?

thanks

john








Piontkowski Michael ML

Re: Using One Global CSI
(in response to evans036@MC.DUKE.EDU)
The DB2 attach modules that shipped with CICS V4.1 and up
are named (DSN2*) differently than the modules (DSNC*) shipped
with DB2. It should not be a problem.

I'm not sure about the potential IRLM conflict.


Mike Piontkowski
Voice/Fax: 302.886.4612
mailto:[login to unmask email]

> ----------
> From: [login to unmask email]:[login to unmask email]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2000 4:41 PM
> To: [login to unmask email]
> Subject: Re: [DB2-L] Using One Global CSI
>
> john,
>
> you may have problems with products/modules that are common to other (non
> db2)
> products. for example, if you have ims, the db2 irlm may 'clobber' the ims
> irlm
> which would be a problem if they need to be at different releases.
>
> maybe you would also have probs with the cics attach stuff (since 4.1 cics
> is
> shipped with its own db2 attach modules).
>
> good luck,
>
> steve
>
>
>
>
>
>
> John Reid <[login to unmask email]> on 01/04/2000 10:54:13 AM
>
> Please respond to DB2 Data Base Discussion List <[login to unmask email]>
>
> To: [login to unmask email]
> cc:
> Subject: Using One Global CSI
>
>
> Hi list,
>
> I have a questions from our DB2 Systems Programmer. We are on DB2 OS390
> v5.1, :
>
> It follows:
>
> Our shop is considering using one global csi for DB2, CICS, and MVS. The
> idea
> is to bring new releases of these products in at the same time to be on
> the same
> maintenance level. We would then have cross system dependencies in one
> csi for
> maintenance. I have some concerns about doing this thinking it might make
> putting on maintenance more complicated. I was wondering if anyone else is
> using
> one global csi for all these systems and what the pros and cons are of
> doing
> this?
>
> thanks
>
> john
>
>
>
> the
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>



Steven Camitta

Re: Using One Global CSI
(in response to Piontkowski Michael ML)
The IRLM conflict that I have seen when sharing a common global zone between
IMS and DB2 is that when ACCEPT processing is done by either, the PTF is
deleted from the global zone and PTS. When the other guy does APPLY, the
PTF is mysteriously missing. This can be addressed by setting the CLEANUP
option of the OPTIONS entry to PURGE(NO) which will disable the purge on
ACCEPT. You can run the REJECT PURGE manually for this FMID specifying both
IMS and DB2 DLIB zones to be checked.

But...that's exactly why I prefer to be in a different GLOBAL zone when
running both IMS & DB2.

Regards,
Steve

-----Original Message-----
From: Piontkowski Michael ML
[mailto:[login to unmask email]
Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2000 4:26 PM
To: [login to unmask email]
Subject: Re: Using One Global CSI


The DB2 attach modules that shipped with CICS V4.1 and up
are named (DSN2*) differently than the modules (DSNC*) shipped
with DB2. It should not be a problem.

I'm not sure about the potential IRLM conflict.


Mike Piontkowski
Voice/Fax: 302.886.4612
mailto:[login to unmask email]

> ----------
> From: [login to unmask email]:[login to unmask email]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2000 4:41 PM
> To: [login to unmask email]
> Subject: Re: [DB2-L] Using One Global CSI
>
> john,
>
> you may have problems with products/modules that are common to other (non
> db2)
> products. for example, if you have ims, the db2 irlm may 'clobber' the ims
> irlm
> which would be a problem if they need to be at different releases.
>
> maybe you would also have probs with the cics attach stuff (since 4.1 cics
> is
> shipped with its own db2 attach modules).
>
> good luck,
>
> steve
>
>
>
>
>
>
> John Reid <[login to unmask email]> on 01/04/2000 10:54:13 AM
>
> Please respond to DB2 Data Base Discussion List <[login to unmask email]>
>
> To: [login to unmask email]
> cc:
> Subject: Using One Global CSI
>
>
> Hi list,
>
> I have a questions from our DB2 Systems Programmer. We are on DB2 OS390
> v5.1, :
>
> It follows:
>
> Our shop is considering using one global csi for DB2, CICS, and MVS. The
> idea
> is to bring new releases of these products in at the same time to be on
> the same
> maintenance level. We would then have cross system dependencies in one
> csi for
> maintenance. I have some concerns about doing this thinking it might make
> putting on maintenance more complicated. I was wondering if anyone else is
> using
> one global csi for all these systems and what the pros and cons are of
> doing
> this?
>
> thanks
>
> john
>
>
>
> the
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>








Viswanathan N

Re: Using One Global CSI
(in response to Steven Camitta)
hi !!

Using one global CSI file will only complicate the situations for you.
If you have to seperate out the problems which the patches give normally,
then it will be a real tedious work tracking them. Basically your
maintenance of your CSI file will increase. !! .We have all the 3 CSI files
seperate, and comfortably maintaining the same service levels for them.
regards
Vishy



[login to unmask email]

Re: Using One Global CSI
(in response to Viswanathan N)
Hi,

IBM ships IMS together with DB2 in the same 'DBDS' SREL (CBIPO)
so I don't see how this could be a problem. There were four SRELs
(three now I believe) each with their own global zone - DBDS (IMS
and DB2), CICS, MVS and network (VTAM, etc.). It really depends
on your SMP/E methodology. If you follow the IBM CBIPO path then
you should probably have separate global zones for each of the
SRELs. If you just do product installs/upgrades then you can get
away with a single global zone for all of the IBM products. However,
You should not mix OEM SMP/E supported products in the same GZONE
as IBM products. We maintain separate global zones.

Regards,

Michael Levine
Premier Data Services, Inc.


>john,
>
>you may have problems with products/modules that are common to other (non db2)
>products. for example, if you have ims, the db2 irlm may 'clobber' the ims irlm
>which would be a problem if they need to be at different releases.
>
>maybe you would also have probs with the cics attach stuff (since 4.1 cics is
>shipped with its own db2 attach modules).
>
>good luck,
>
>steve
>
>
>
>
>
>
>John Reid <[login to unmask email]> on 01/04/2000 10:54:13 AM
>
>Please respond to DB2 Data Base Discussion List <[login to unmask email]>
>
>To: [login to unmask email]
>cc:
>Subject: Using One Global CSI
>
>
>Hi list,
>
>I have a questions from our DB2 Systems Programmer. We are on DB2 OS390 v5.1, :
>
>It follows:
>
>Our shop is considering using one global csi for DB2, CICS, and MVS. The idea
>is to bring new releases of these products in at the same time to be on the
same
>maintenance level. We would then have cross system dependencies in one csi for
>maintenance. I have some concerns about doing this thinking it might make
>putting on maintenance more complicated. I was wondering if anyone else is
using
>one global csi for all these systems and what the pros and cons are of doing
>this?
>
>thanks
>
>john
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


>
>



Judith Powers

Re: Using One Global CSI
(in response to Mike_Levine@TEKHELP.NET)
We had a global csi at a previous shop and I certainly miss it, I felt the
central point
excellent....and only one group did the receives and tape headaches (how nice
not to have to deal with getting your tape over to the tape room let alone
mounted!). Maintenance is more centralized and coordinated, for example so when
PUT9812 was in house, you knew across the board those PTFs were
available(received). Of course the separate groups were responsible for
tailoring and reading HOLD data(each product, DB2, CICS etc had its own Target
and Distribution zones with FMIDs assigned to them making maintenance really no
different than you have now with separate CSIs...
During installs it is a breeze to verify other product plus if maintenance was
need it usually was already in house!



Hilton Tina

Re: Using One Global CSI
(in response to Bob Jeandron)
How did you handle new releases of DB2? Did you set up new target and dlib
zones for them? I create a whole new global for each release of DB2 since I
need to keep the old one available until I have the last system installed.
Also, at our shop when we go to a new release of MVS (or OS/390 when we get
to it), then it's an entirely new system. Do you do something like this
too? It seems like it would be messy to get all the sysmods, holds, and
target and distribution zones added to the new global zone. Or are we in
the minority in doing it this way? I've always thought a centralized global
zone would be nice, but I couldn't ever figure out how to make it work well
with new releases. If anyone can explain how they handle new releases, I'd
be grateful.

Tina

-----Original Message-----
From: Judi Powers [mailto:[login to unmask email]
Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2000 3:13 PM
To: [login to unmask email]
Subject: Re: Using One Global CSI


We had a global csi at a previous shop and I certainly miss it, I felt the
central point
excellent....and only one group did the receives and tape headaches (how
nice
not to have to deal with getting your tape over to the tape room let alone
mounted!). Maintenance is more centralized and coordinated, for example so
when
PUT9812 was in house, you knew across the board those PTFs were
available(received). Of course the separate groups were responsible for
tailoring and reading HOLD data(each product, DB2, CICS etc had its own
Target
and Distribution zones with FMIDs assigned to them making maintenance really
no
different than you have now with separate CSIs...
During installs it is a breeze to verify other product plus if maintenance
was
need it usually was already in house!








Bob Jeandron

Re: Using One Global CSI
(in response to Judith Powers)
I use a Global CSI for each product (DB2, QMF, DB2PM, CSP). This may be a
waste but I like to keep it that way for isolation purposes in the event
something should go wrong with SMP processing. I admit I am not an expert in
SMP and I don't want to or have time to be.
Also, The DB2 sysadmin before me had all of the DB2 products in one CSI along
with other products belonging to other groups. One of the other groups
decided to delete the CSI. Later, I needed to update one of those products
because of Y2K. All backups were expired and we had to upgrade to another
version of the product.
Now, I keep these guys separate for my on sanity/safety reasons and, more
importantly, the total control of these datasets is in my group.

The opinions/experiences here are my own and do not reflect against my
employer.

>>> [login to unmask email]@inter2 01/04/00 09:52AM >>>
Hi list,

I have a questions from our DB2 Systems Programmer. We are on DB2 OS390 v5.1,
:

It follows:

Our shop is considering using one global csi for DB2, CICS, and MVS. The idea
is to bring new releases of these products in at the same time to be on the
same
maintenance level. We would then have cross system dependencies in one csi
for
maintenance. I have some concerns about doing this thinking it might make
putting on maintenance more complicated. I was wondering if anyone else is
using
one global csi for all these systems and what the pros and cons are of doing
this?

thanks

john








Ann Marie Byars

Re: Using One Global CSI
(in response to RICK (SWBT) DAVIS)
I have been using SMPE for about 15 years or so. I would discourage putting
so many products into one CSI. I agree with Bob - ONE CSI per product is
much more feasible.

We currently have IMS and DB2 in one CSI because the person who setup DB2
also setup IMS and was supporting both products. Now we have one person
supporting IMS and one supporting DB2 and we run into conflicts with data
set accesses when we are both trying to put on maintenance at the same time
- we have to be sure to coordinate with each other. We have MVS in a
separate CSI - actually more than one due to multiple systems - and other
various products that have their own CSIs.

The SMPE DOC always gives you dependencies on various product maintenance
with MVS - it is just a matter of ensuring that these are coordinated. In
the last three years, I have had to coordinate the installation of MVS
maintenance ONE TIME. This is no more difficult than researching the DOC,
ACTION, etc., changes that you are concerned with.

Also, we have found that we much prefer to put in one major product at a
time for better troubleshooting capabilities.

Ann Marie Byars
Eastman Chemical Company
Data Services, Bldg. 284
Phone: 423-229-6295 Fax: 423-229-1188
Email: [login to unmask email]


> -----Original Message-----
> From: BOB JEANDRON [SMTP:[login to unmask email]
> Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2000 9:26 AM
> To: [login to unmask email]
> Subject: Re: Using One Global CSI
> Sensitivity: Personal
>
> I use a Global CSI for each product (DB2, QMF, DB2PM, CSP). This may be a
> waste but I like to keep it that way for isolation purposes in the event
> something should go wrong with SMP processing. I admit I am not an expert
> in
> SMP and I don't want to or have time to be.
> Also, The DB2 sysadmin before me had all of the DB2 products in one CSI
> along
> with other products belonging to other groups. One of the other groups
> decided to delete the CSI. Later, I needed to update one of those
> products
> because of Y2K. All backups were expired and we had to upgrade to another
> version of the product.
> Now, I keep these guys separate for my on sanity/safety reasons and, more
> importantly, the total control of these datasets is in my group.
>
> The opinions/experiences here are my own and do not reflect against my
> employer.
>
> >>> [login to unmask email]@inter2 01/04/00 09:52AM >>>
> Hi list,
>
> I have a questions from our DB2 Systems Programmer. We are on DB2 OS390
> v5.1,
> :
>
> It follows:
>
> Our shop is considering using one global csi for DB2, CICS, and MVS. The
> idea
> is to bring new releases of these products in at the same time to be on
> the
> same
> maintenance level. We would then have cross system dependencies in one
> csi
> for
> maintenance. I have some concerns about doing this thinking it might make
> putting on maintenance more complicated. I was wondering if anyone else is
> using
> one global csi for all these systems and what the pros and cons are of
> doing
> this?
>
> thanks
>
> john
>
>
>
> the
>
>
>
>
>
>
>



RICK (SWBT) DAVIS

Re: Using One Global CSI
(in response to Hilton Tina)
Bob,
ON THE NOSE -- Nobody will take better care of DB2 than the DB2
folks, if you have the SMPE skills!!!!!!

Regards,
Rick Davis
"This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are the property of SBC,
are confidential, and are intended solely for the use of the individual
or entity to whom this e-mail is addressed. If you are not one of the
named recipient(s) or otherwise have reason to believe that you have
received this message in error, please notify the sender at 314-235-6854
and delete this message immediately from your computer. Any other use,
retention, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this
e-mail is strictly prohibited."



-----Original Message-----
From: BOB JEANDRON [mailto:[login to unmask email]
Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2000 8:26 AM
To: [login to unmask email]
Subject: Re: Using One Global CSI
Sensitivity: Personal


I use a Global CSI for each product (DB2, QMF, DB2PM, CSP). This may be a
waste but I like to keep it that way for isolation purposes in the event
something should go wrong with SMP processing. I admit I am not an expert
in
SMP and I don't want to or have time to be.
Also, The DB2 sysadmin before me had all of the DB2 products in one CSI
along
with other products belonging to other groups. One of the other groups
decided to delete the CSI. Later, I needed to update one of those products
because of Y2K. All backups were expired and we had to upgrade to another
version of the product.
Now, I keep these guys separate for my on sanity/safety reasons and, more
importantly, the total control of these datasets is in my group.

The opinions/experiences here are my own and do not reflect against my
employer.

>>> [login to unmask email]@inter2 01/04/00 09:52AM >>>
Hi list,

I have a questions from our DB2 Systems Programmer. We are on DB2 OS390
v5.1,
:

It follows:

Our shop is considering using one global csi for DB2, CICS, and MVS. The
idea
is to bring new releases of these products in at the same time to be on the
same
maintenance level. We would then have cross system dependencies in one csi
for
maintenance. I have some concerns about doing this thinking it might make
putting on maintenance more complicated. I was wondering if anyone else is
using
one global csi for all these systems and what the pros and cons are of doing
this?

thanks

john













Sue Janowitz

Re: Using One Global CSI
(in response to Ann Marie Byars)
For what it's worth, we keep each product in its own CSI. And for each new
release of DB2 (or QMF, TMON for DB2, etc.), I create a new global zone.
(Like Tina, we need to keep the old one available until all subsystems have
been upgraded to the newest release.) Then, after the new release has been
upgraded across the board, I archive the old CSI for a while, then delete
it. We use extra DASD space temporarily, but it works well. And since
different products are installed by different people, there are no conflicts
on usage.

Sue Janowitz
New England Financial Information Services
501 Boylston Street
Boston, MA 02116
email: [login to unmask email]
Phone: 617-578-2053


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hilton Tina [SMTP:[login to unmask email]
> Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2000 7:56 AM
> To: [login to unmask email]
> Subject: Re: Using One Global CSI
>
> How did you handle new releases of DB2? Did you set up new target and
> dlib
> zones for them? I create a whole new global for each release of DB2 since
> I
> need to keep the old one available until I have the last system installed.
> Also, at our shop when we go to a new release of MVS (or OS/390 when we
> get
> to it), then it's an entirely new system. Do you do something like this
> too? It seems like it would be messy to get all the sysmods, holds, and
> target and distribution zones added to the new global zone. Or are we in
> the minority in doing it this way? I've always thought a centralized
> global
> zone would be nice, but I couldn't ever figure out how to make it work
> well
> with new releases. If anyone can explain how they handle new releases,
> I'd
> be grateful.
>
> Tina
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Judi Powers [mailto:[login to unmask email]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2000 3:13 PM
> To: [login to unmask email]
> Subject: Re: Using One Global CSI
>
>
> We had a global csi at a previous shop and I certainly miss it, I felt
> the
> central point
> excellent....and only one group did the receives and tape headaches (how
> nice
> not to have to deal with getting your tape over to the tape room let alone
> mounted!). Maintenance is more centralized and coordinated, for example
> so
> when
> PUT9812 was in house, you knew across the board those PTFs were
> available(received). Of course the separate groups were responsible for
> tailoring and reading HOLD data(each product, DB2, CICS etc had its own
> Target
> and Distribution zones with FMIDs assigned to them making maintenance
> really
> no
> different than you have now with separate CSIs...
> During installs it is a breeze to verify other product plus if maintenance
> was
> need it usually was already in house!
>
>
>
> the
>
>
>
>
>
>
>