While Mod-54 is probably fine for the vast majority of data, there are still some admonitions for 'stand-alone or nearly so volumes'. For example: JES2 primary checkpoint, sysplex couple data sets, HSC for those with STK tape. Throwing an entire Mod-54 at a function that works best with only a (few) hundred cylinders seems like overkill. But I've also heard my storage guys say that it's hard to allocate small volumes given that they need to be mirrored and then flashed for DR. Some degree of right-sizing might be in order.
. . JO.Skip Robinson SCE Infrastructure Technology Services Electric Dragon Team Paddler SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager 626-302-7535 Office 323-715-0595 Mobile jo.skip.robin...@sce.com From: "Pew, Curtis G" <curtis....@austin.utexas.edu> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Date: 10/10/2012 07:45 AM Subject: Re: 3390 Mod54 for sys volumes Sent by: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU> On Oct 10, 2012, at 8:12 AM, CAPRON Romain <capron.rom...@matmut.fr> wrote: > We want to minimize the number different geometry for our dasd. We're asking if it's reasonable to only use mod54 dasd. > More and more people say that with modern dasd storage, it's no more usefull to work with 3390-9 and 3390-27... > All of your dasd are pprc"ed" That's what I've done; all z/OS volumes are 3390-54. (I still have a few z/VM volumes that are 3390-9.) This does mean that some volumes are mostly empty, but I'm getting ready to implement dynamic provisioning on our storage system so even that won't be a concern. -- Curtis Pew (c....@its.utexas.edu) ITS Systems Core The University of Texas at Austin ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
