You could use a J3514A Dual 100BASE-T LAN Adapter to make the two machines
see each other.  So anything done on the 979 would be updated on the 969 in
theory.

Has anyone on the list done this?


********************************************
*Kelly Tomlinson                           *
*Epic Systems Corporation                  *
*Phone - (888)395-3742                     *
*Fax - (713)856-5252                       *
*E-mail - [log in to unmask]            *
*Visit Our Web-Site @ www.epicsyscorp.com  *
********************************************




-----Original Message-----
From: HP-3000 Systems Discussion [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On
Behalf Of Ted Johnson
Sent: Thursday, September 02, 1999 6:21 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Updating two 3000's


Thank you to all who replied to my earlier question.  I realized aftewards
that I probably hadn't been really telling the whole story but we got hit
with this at an 11:30 meeting and were told we were going to have a 1:00
meeting with our systems people to get everything decided on at that time
(the meeting was cancelled after I sent my first message).

We have two 3000's both on the same network, a 979 (production) and a 969
(test, but we don't really use it yet).  We use a Emc disk array for data
storage of non system files.  The plans are for a "fail over" proceedure in
case the 979 goes down (not that this has ever happened, a statement that
cannot be made by our NT boxes).  We have a process that will enable our
users to log into the 969 and continue working from actual production data
after this failover process runs.  The problem is that the two boxes need to
be totally "in synch" with each other in terms of accounts, groups, users
and catalogs.  Therefore the systems people are wanting to take all
capabilities in dealing with accounts, groups, users..etc away from all
programmers.  We are a pretty small HP shop with less than 10 programmers
and 2 systems people who work on the 3000.  We have gotten along so far with
the understanding that the programmers just do not alter or create any
groups or accounts.  However the company who has installed this fail over
proceedure will not certify it will work as long as the programmers have any
capabities to perform these functions.  The programmers do not want to be at
the mercy of the systems group for such things as moving programs into
production and upgrading our software.  None of the programmers have SM
capabilities in our user setups (we do have AM) but we do have a program we
can run that will give us SM capabilities after we log on.

If there was a way that if a group, account or user was changed or added on
the 979 by anyone (be it programmers or systems people) that the 969 could
be automatically updated at the same time, this would probably make everyone
happy, or at least take remove one arguement point.

TIA,

Ted
**********************************************************
Ted Johnson
Information Systems
Wake Forest University
336-758-4374
**********************************************************
I used to listen to the voices in my head, but people told
me they don't exist....so now I just ignore them.