Re: Disaster Recovery test scenario -- MIDRANGE-L

Subject: Re: Disaster Recovery test scenario
From: rob@xxxxxxxxx
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 16:03:26 -0500
List-archive: <http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l>
List-help: <mailto:midrange-l-request@midrange.com?subject=help>
List-id: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion <midrange-l.midrange.com>
List-post: <mailto:midrange-l@midrange.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l>, <mailto:midrange-l-request@midrange.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l>, <mailto:midrange-l-request@midrange.com?subject=unsubscribe>

True, but eventually someone will do something nasty, or you'll have a 
Join LF that spans PF's in two libraries.

I just found that running the second RSTLIB *NONSYS  *NEW runs pretty fast 
and takes all the stress out of the situation.

I used to write api's to check for spanners and now, as I've said, this 
other method is pretty stress free.

Rob Berendt

Follow-Ups:

Re: Disaster Recovery test scenario , rob

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2026 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.