I agree 100 % with Mark. I've been using zFS for my root file system (and slowly converting all other file systems) ever since z/OS 1.7, when IBM announced zFS as strategic and made it possible to use zFS for any file system purpose. (Prior to z/OS 1.7, zFS wasn't appropriate for the root filesystem).
zFS is built upon a robust infrastructure which IBM continues to invest development time in. HFS is in "caretaker" mode at this point, in my opinion. At some point, it will likely make sense for IBM to pull the plug on HFS, simply due to the ongoing maintenance cost - though an exact date for such an action has not been announced thus far. What HAS been "announced" (in the z/OS Migration book) is that IBM intends to require migration from HFS to zFS at some point in the future. See topic "Migrate from HFS file systems to zFS file systems" in the z/OS Migration book for details. I for one would prefer IBM to invest in useful development activities in z/OS, rather than spend any time to delay the inevitable retirement of HFS. My opinion. Brian On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 10:09:43 -0500, Mark Zelden wrote: >Isn't better performance alone enough? :-) > >There have been RAS improvements made on release boundaries and >in the service stream. The recovery is better by design to begin with. >There are many more displays and options for monitoring and managing >zFS files. I'm not a developer, but perhaps the APIs are better too. > >The point here is that everything new is for zFS and IBM has been >nudging you to migrate for some time now and removed the last >technical barrier with NEWROOT support (I don't consider lack of >indirect cataloging barrier). > >Mark ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
