On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 12:13:57 -0400, Richards.Bob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Timeout! > >Before this gets into a "my way is the best way" thread, let's agree that >Matthew would not actually convert to SMS that way. I thought he was >merely mentioning a logical one for one concept. :-) I think Tommy was asking how to tell which allocations would have gone to a STORAGE volume pre-SMS, so that he could assign a corresponding storage group. Matthew suggested that he create a "STORWRK" storage group. If that's how he would do it, that's fine (it's not my dog), but it doesn't answer the question of how to determine that a data set should be assigned to that storage group. > >What *is* important in what Matthew wrote is that Tommy needs to do >some more reading. It does seem that he needs more reading. I was merely offering "My preference" for him to consider. I figured others might have other opinions to contribute. When I first implemented SMS, I found the discussions here of different people's preferences to be very valuable. > >Pooling by size can be nice. Pooling by DASD type used to have >applicability, pooling by prod vs. test vs. databases is still done and >we can all agree (I hope) that there are a variety of ways to skin the >cat. Most are shop dependent. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
