One or two people at the past SHARE voiced this very same opinion.
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that that's four so far. How do
others feel about this?
First, some background: As I recall, the current design of the ServerPac
dialog does not allow space to be reduced below the default shipped
values, which with a few exceptions include a fixed percentage of free
space. There are sound reasons, in my opinion, to NOT allow those
values to be reduced from what is shipped today.
Historically, those values have been minimized to help prevent the
allocation of additional disk volumes when orders for, say, z/OS and
other products included in z/OS orders don't happen to occupy space
that's comfortably far away from typical volume boundaries. Editing the
ALLOCDS job to reduce allocations and fit within a given number of
volumes is painful. Running out of space during service APPLY
processing is painful. Allocating additional volumes is painful.
On the other hand disk volumes are, by and large, probably rather larger
these days. But we've no direct view of what everyone does with volume
sizes "out there in the 'real world.'"
So...what should we do here?
a) We might blanket increase the free space for every data set. (In
this case, by how much should we increase it?) This one has the benefit
of being easier than the others, I suspect.
b) We might add a "recommended space" value and make it possible to
reduce space from "recommended" to "minimum." (What should
"recommended" be?)
c) We might make SMP/E recover from space abends when possible. (Enough
space on the *same volume* would likely be a requirement. A potential
for even more severe foot damage following careless use of SMP/E on a
running instance of software might well ensue.)
d) We might add a "Super Size Me!" option to the z/OSMF Software
Management software instance cloning function.
e) We might do something else...what?
Bear in mind that, as always, this is a zero-sum game. So if we give
you any of these things we will might well have to defer something else
in this same area.
Vote early and often...as usual, no promises, except that I'll at least
listen.
R.S. wrote:
W dniu 2014-04-28 20:47, Mark Pace pisze:
I don't understand why library sizes on a fresh install of z/OS never
seem
to account for doing maintenance. <snip>
100% agreed.
<snip>
--
John Eells
z/OS Technical Marketing
IBM Poughkeepsie
[email protected]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
