In the interest of frugality, I asked my storage guys some time ago to allocate some tiny volumes for JES checkpoint and couple data sets. After a while, they complained that it was more trouble than it was worth because we mirror most volumes to the DR site. For every tiny source volume, they needed a corresponding tiny mirror volume. Periodic DASD refresh (aka upgrade) projects only added to the complexity. Pennies vs. pounds.
. . JO.Skip Robinson Southern California Edison Company Electric Dragon Team Paddler SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager 626-302-7535 Office 323-715-0595 Mobile [email protected] From: "Staller, Allan" <[email protected]> To: [email protected], Date: 02/22/2013 10:04 AM Subject: Re: Mod-9 vs. Mod-27 vs. mixed Sent by: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <[email protected]> Space wasted for "small volumes" e.g. XCF couple datasets. Just a talking point. With Hyper-PAV, etc. most of the other points are just "hot air". The convenience of not having to support multiple "geometries". <snip> A client with DS8000 DASD configured as a mix of 3390 Mod9 and Mod27s is considering a project to convert everything to Mod-27. Does anyone out there have some thoughts on the advantages or disadvantages of this? I'm not looking to start a religious discussion or other "dinotribe," so feel free to respond to me privately. I'm just interested in perspective and talking points, either way. </snip> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
