Topic
5 replies Latest Post - ‏2013-04-22T14:05:10Z by nukite8d
nukite8d
nukite8d
98 Posts
ACCEPTED ANSWER

Pinned topic chrg vs. rgreq

‏2012-06-11T12:58:59Z |
Hi all,
do you use chrg to online or offline a resourcegroup,
or do you handle requests by rgreq?

We came from TSAfZOS, so we are used to request a resource offline and cancel the request for startup.
This supports nested groups and comments on every request.

I would like to start this discussion, as the last, good HOWTO lists chrg:
http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/tivoli/library/tv-tivoli-system-automation/index.html
Updated on 2012-06-20T13:26:21Z at 2012-06-20T13:26:21Z by thomas.quadflieg
  • nukite8d
    nukite8d
    98 Posts
    ACCEPTED ANSWER

    Re: chrg vs. rgreq

    ‏2012-06-11T13:00:47Z  in response to nukite8d
    As I learned, is chrg the default way on AIX with HACMP. Here there is no concept with requests.
    • ThomasLumpp
      ThomasLumpp
      1 Post
      ACCEPTED ANSWER

      Re: chrg vs. rgreq

      ‏2012-06-14T10:14:00Z  in response to nukite8d
      our recommendation would be to use rgreq (chrg is the old way to do it).
      Especially, when you use the adapter rgrequ needs to be used to avoid side effects that you do not want.
      • thomas.quadflieg
        thomas.quadflieg
        27 Posts
        ACCEPTED ANSWER

        Re: chrg vs. rgreq

        ‏2012-06-20T13:26:21Z  in response to ThomasLumpp
        I 100% agree to Thomas. We use chrg exclusively for configuration. Operation is done with rgreq. Unfortunately, there are still some docs which use the old way chrg (e.g. db2 hadr).
  • Gareth Holl
    Gareth Holl
    2 Posts
    ACCEPTED ANSWER

    Re: chrg vs. rgreq

    ‏2013-04-19T14:47:16Z  in response to nukite8d

    There are many customers that don't understand the concept of requests. Sure if you've come from a SA z/OS background, you are more likely to be request oriented. But that population seems small from the perspective of the customers I work with on a daily basis.

    I found so many more problems (PMRs) because of customers trying to use requests incorrectly. Whether they are queuing multiple requests without knowing, using different priorities for each request, or the worst is the case where they use requests on individual resources instead of keeping it simple and limiting requests to the group level ... and they wonder why those individual requests don't change when they alter the group goal/request.

    In my opinion, using Nominal state to set the automation "goal' is more natural given that TSAMP is a goal driven tool. I don't consider use of chrg the old way of doing it. In fact it is the most common practice, by far. Granted, those customers using TSAAM in conjunction with TSAMP would be more likely to exploit requests, but use of TSAAM with TSAMP is small in comparison to stand-alone TSAMP environments.

    In the end, the difference depends on the environment and the user, but clearly chrg is still a valid option and the most common option. TSAMP Support will continue to push use of chrg because its easier for the novice user to comprehend and therefore will limit the number of PMRs generated.

    Maybe we have DB2 HADR to blame for this ... but its the current reality in my world :-)

    • nukite8d
      nukite8d
      98 Posts
      ACCEPTED ANSWER

      Re: chrg vs. rgreq

      ‏2013-04-22T14:05:10Z  in response to Gareth Holl

      Hi Gareth,
      thank you for the good summary.

      So it really depends on the environment, you are automating.
      And instead of calling chrg the "old way", we may call it the "beginner way" :)

      I would say, the more you are using TSAMP (even without TSAAM) the more requests become reasonable.
      Should there be a Documentation for "Extending use of TSAMP" or somelike, for interested users to explain the concepts of requests?

      Regards,
      Manfred