We are finally getting around to replacing our old EMC DASD with the latest and greatest.
When our service provider presented us with their solution a while back, they recommended we stick with 73GB drives because the 146 (supposedly) didn't perform. I have been told, lately, that with higher RPM and a few other tweaks, that this is no longer the case. I have not been able to find any evidence to support this position, anecdotal or not. So, does anybody have any knowledge/experience to support/refute the claim? PS: Yes, I know "it depends"! Sizing information: Approx 3700 MIPS, across two footprints and 5 LPARs in a single PLEX. Online processing uses 55%+ of the box, at peak. Mostly CICS, with some DB2 and a chunk of DDF (10%). Buffered I/O, but we still do 18-20,000/s at peak. Needless to say, the processors are maxed out at peak. So are the (ESCON) channels. 10TB on two frames going to 12 (to start) on one frame. Max capacity of the frame 40TB with 73GB drives. Expected life of the frame: 3 years. Expected growth: around 20%/annum -- we pay through the nose for DASD to our service provider, so we keep costs under tight control (draconian migration policies -- especially in test). With replication under the covers we will be using just under half the frames full capacity with 73GB drives. Yes, we are going to FICON with McData Switches. Thanks, in advance, for any help, hints, or documentation pointers! . -teD Marching to the beat of a different flute ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
