Ron and Jenny Hawkins wrote:
John,
[...]
If a VTS is not supposed to save money due to staffing and time, then
why get one?
You're asking the wrong person here. I am a confessed TMM bigot, and I fail
to see why Mainframe sites would go VTS when TMM is so much faster, simpler
and easier.
IMHO good question. Every sales person which heard about mainframe, said
the following mantra: "you need virtual tape solution! You have plenty
of tapes, high number of tape mounts during batch, vast majority of your
tapes contains single, relatively small (few hundreds of MBs) files.
Without VTS your tapes will be extremely underutilized! VTS is the best
because you don't have to do any changes in your JCL jobs"
1. I can do changes in my JCL jobs. It doesn't pain. I did it.
2. I don't use tapes directly. No IEBGENERs to/from tape. My jobs are
not 20+ years old. I don't remember times when DASD was for OS and
application code (maybe some db), and tape was for batch data.
Even if I had such jobs I would change it. Oh, I remembers some jobs
which I changed.
3. I use HSM, which fills up my tapes, provides duplexing (with some
limitations although).
4. Real (modern) tape drives are really fast, faster than VTS. I rather
notice bottleneck on DASD side during backups.
BTW: Ron, TMM is not simpler and easier. It's probably faster and
cheaper. VTS requires no administrator effort, only money. TMM requires
some work to be done.
--
Radoslaw Skorupka
Lodz, Poland
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
