On 9 Jul 2007 09:41:38 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote: >Thankyou...we are leaning in this direction... > >-----Original Message----- >From: Lizette Koehler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 9:37 AM >To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: 3390 Model 27 > >John, > > >Just from reading many posts and manuals on it, I would say that unless >you have a real need for a very large volume - the performance and >support could cramp your style. Look at previous archive entries for >this device type. The issues for recovery, backup, restore time frames >have me very leary of using them yet. > >I will be installing 1 3390-27 in the near future. Its only purpose >will be for our SMP/E Downloads for Service Pac. Other than that, I >feel that 3390-3 and 3390-9 are sufficient for us for now. > >Lizette > > >> >>We are expanding our storage by 1.5TB...we have an option to make some >of >>this 3390-27 volumes... >> >> >> >> We are looking for a best fit allocation for these volumes: >> JES2, public, storage, paging, ML1? >> >> Our concerns include duration of a full volume backup, device >>response time, contention. >> >> Our DBAs say they will not use for our IDMS databases... >> >> Suggestions? Experiences? Advice? >>
Just to put this in perspective, this month's Smart Computing featured a 1 terabyte drive for PCs from Hitachi for 399 US dollars. Most of the physical drives in your newer configurations are at least 54 gigabytes and more likely have hundreds of gigabytes. Maybe IBM needs to bite the bullet and start a migration to FBA. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
