On Mon, 2006-04-10 at 16:39 +0200, Max Scarpa wrote: > I searched in the list some hint to see if having shared DASDs as we have > is causing an overhead in our production jobs and in general. A paper of > year 2005 says to avoid shared DASDs like plague. > > Someone else says there's no problem having shared DASD (as from DB2-L > search) . Any experience/number about this topic ?
Max, DB2 is an absolute madhouse from the perspective of dataset allocation. See Scotts post from a few days ago re GRS. *IF* (big IF) you can guarantee that the volumes containing your catalogs are *never* going to be varied online to another system, consider genning them as non-SHARED as Bruce suggests. Think about the share options as well if you decide to go this path. Personally, I consider the potential data corruption too high a risk. The cost of the (non-propogated) RESERVE is not that high IMHO. Shane ... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
