ADSM-L

What, if anything, is wrong with this scenario....

2001-06-01 08:50:15
Subject: What, if anything, is wrong with this scenario....
From: Zoltan Forray/AC/VCU <zforray AT VCU DOT EDU>
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 08:39:58 -0400
I need to move our OS/390 ADSM to TSM 4.1 (especially since we called IBM
support for help with a client problem and they pretty much told us to come
back when we are running on a supported release of TSM, and not before
!!!).

I have tested running an UPGRADEDB on a small test ADSM. As before, it only
took a few seconds (never has taken very long ????).

Now I need to run it on my production, 14GB DB.

Management wants to know how long it will take. Since I can't answer that,
they want me to test it by replicating my ADSM DB in a test environment and
then doing the UPGRADEDB against the copy of the production DB.

This is what I am attempting to do. Can someone tell me if this will/won't
work, why, and how to get around the issues, if possible ?

The objective is to take the current TEST ADSM and rebuild it's
configuration to use a copy of the production DB and then run a UPGRADEDB
on it.
Note, the TEST ADSM is running on a TEST LPAR.

I have created and formatted 7-new DB volume/data sets.
I have performed a BACKUP DEVCONFIG and edited the TEST OPTIONS file to
include a DEVCONFIG statement pointing to this file.
I have update the DISKLOG file to include the names of the 7-new DB
volumes/data sets (and removed the TEST DB it was using !).
** I am going to perform a RESTORE DB pointing to the TEST DISKLOG and
OPTIONS and point to a current backup of the production DB, using the
following JCL snippet:
//RESTORDB  EXEC PGM=DSMSERV,DYNAMNBR=300,
//          PARM='/RESTORE DB DEV=DBBACKUP VOL=FILE:DD:TAPES'

Anything wrong with this approach ?

My biggest concern is that it will attempt to access the production ADSM
files (this is a sysplex) and hurt them !

===========================
Zoltan Forray
Virginia Commonwealth University
University Computing Center
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>