On Thu, 8 May 2008 10:05:19 -0700, Ron Hawkins wrote: >Ted, > >For number 1, do logical backups and exclude the page datasets. > >For number 2, on current z/OS releases I believe this is in the >MVS myth category. It's only a potential problem if you go back >to early OS390 releases, or you do not use PAV. How would you >verify that the problem exists. > >For number 3, no comment. > >Ron > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >> Behalf Of Ted MacNEIL >> Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2008 9:43 AM >> >> >Your free to have your own opinion, but if your storage admin required >> demonstrable benefit of dedicated page volumes or you lose them, what >> would you show him? What problems are you avoiding and how is it >> cleaner for her/him? >> >> 1. Don't have to back anything up. >> 2. You don't have the potential problem of a burst of activity to the >> 'medium activity' files. >> 3. Because (8-{>}
Also, for number 2, you can still have contention at the physical drive level from data sets that are on different volumes. Consider this: if you have a RAID array of 8 146 GB volumes, the array contains about a terabyte of data. Heavy activity to enough of the nearly 40 model 27 drives on that array could cause contention. Fortunately, cache helps a lot. There was a time that the recommendation was to put paging data sets on dedicated volumes attached to dedicated control units. I've never seen anyone do that with ordinary DASD. -- Tom Marchant ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
