Tony,
Another item to throw into the mix is what size of virtual-volumes you define them as. With 3490's, you can define the virtual-volumes in Gigabytes of capacity. If you stack lots of very small files, you run into a problem with the Block-ID not being large enough. With them defined as 3590's, the block-id issue is non-existent because the Block-ID is a 4-byte field on the 3590's. So, if you like to define your virtual-volumes as large volumes; it might actually be better to define them as 3590's. Russell Witt [email protected] -----Original Message----- From: Tony Thigpen <[email protected]> To: IBM-MAIN <[email protected]> Sent: Fri, May 18, 2018 12:52 pm Subject: VTL as 3490 vs 3590 For a little fun on Friday afternoon. We will be replacing our current VTL. The new VTL can be configured to look like 3490s or 3590s. Our current VTL is defined to z/OS as 3490s. Some of the staff are saying: "All VTLs should be defined as 3490s because that is what everybody does." Others are saying: "Let's make them 3590s because then they match the few remaining physical 3590s and if we have an issue with the VTL we can just swap the fiber and continue running on real 3590s until the problem is fixed." It was suggested I ask here to see what others are doing. Thoughts? -- Tony Thigpen ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
