On Jul 25, 2005, at 6:23 PM, Ron and Jenny Hawkins wrote:
Ted, et al,
As far as I recall this was not a performance recommendation, it was a
compromise. The intent was to save you from dedicating two volumes to
the
PLPA and Common, by coming up with a least impact way of putting them
on the
same pack. Note that there is a specific requirement to hand place the
datasets on the volume in a way that reduced seek, and PLPA was small
enough
that the seldom ending channel programs to Common were not interrupted
by
PLPA page-in.
In terms of performance finesse a separate volume for PLPA and Common
is
better than a single volume. Now that all the latest and greatest
storage
can have Custom Volume Sizes there is no longer a need waste large
amounts
of space because PLPA and Common have dedicated volumes. Just slice
out two
volumes at the required size and use one for PLPA and one for Common,
without the overflow method.
The recommendation is still the best way to configure this compromise,
but
it remains a compromise. Your disk technology makes the single pack
PLPA/Common unnecessary nearly 10 years ago, so why continue to do it.
Ron
ROn,
Well said. I agree with you. Sometimes I even forget about the leap.
Ed
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
