Hello Tom,
I agree with you that SFS is very reliable. 35
Nomad/UltraQuest users and UQBATCH , plus Systems guy that use SFS.
Allows for changes to the Nomad Schema's with ease.
And like Scott indicated, as long as the backup are taken at the
proper times, everything works well.
Ed Martin
Aultman Health Foundation
330-588-4723
ext 40441
-----Original Message-----
From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Wandschneider, Scott
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 1:55 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Reliability of SFS?
Tom
I can't agree with you stronger. I never have had a problem with SFS
that was not caused by dumb stuff, backups failing etc. And I have had
my share of CMS minidisk problems.
Thank You,
Scott R Wandschneider
Senior Systems Programmer || Infocrossing, a Wipro Company || 11707
Miracle Hills Drive, Omaha, NE 68154 || ': 402.963.8905 || ::
[EMAIL PROTECTED] **Think Green - Please print
responsibly**
> -----Original Message-----
> From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf
> Of Tom Duerbusch
> Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 12:33 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Reliability of SFS?
>
> I'm surprised by another discussion that seems to say that SFS is not
reliable
> or dependable.
>
> Is that true in your shop?
> How heavy of a use it it?
>
> Here, I'm the major "human" user. The other 6 users may or may not
use it on
> any given day.
> However, I count 34, CMS type servers, that I have running, that make
use of
> SFS as part of their normal functions. That includes PROP which logs
to a SFS
> directory 24X7. And FAQS/PCS serves system related jobs from SFS
directories
> to the VSE machines.
>
> I have 6 storage pools. Historically there were of a size that the
backup
> would fit on a single 3480 cart (compressed). Now, that isn't a
requirement.
>
> All my VSE machines (14 currently) have their A-disk on SFS. That
directory
> is also where all the "systems" related code is stored (IPL procs,
CICS stuff,
> Top Secret security stuff, DB2 stuff, and all vender related stuff).
No
> application related stuff to speak of. In the 15 years, here, I've
never had
> a problem of not being able to bring up VSE due to a SFS problem.
>
> And in the last 5 years, I've never had a problem bringing up Linux
images due
> to SFS availability.
>
> I have had problems of the loss off the CMS saved segment due to a bad
VM IPL.
> This was usually due to a duplicate CP-OWNED pack being brought up
instead of
> the original. Ahhh, for the days of being able to go to the IBM 3990
or IBM
> 3880 and disabling the address of the wrong volume......
>
> I've had SFS problems where the SFS backup cancelled due to tape I/O
error and
> the backup wasn't restarted (which would unlock the storage pool that
was
> locked), which caused users that want to access that pool to be
denied.
>
> But I was surprised at the people claiming that SFS wasn't reliable,
when all
> you need it for, was to serve the PROFILE EXEC to bring up the Linux
image. I
> guess it is "once burnt, twice shy", and I guess I haven't been
"burnt" yet.
>
> In my world, I don't do CMS minidisks, if I have a SFS option
available.
>
> I think SFS is reliable. Or am I just kidding my self?
>
> Tom Duerbusch
> THD Consulting
