If your storage subsystem is a DS6000 or DS8000 series it allocates in extents which are a Mod3 in size. So you waste space for any volume that is not a multiple of a Mod3.
On a Shark, you can define odd sizes without wasting space. Brian Nielsen On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 08:25:40 -0800, Lionel B. Dyck <[email protected]> wrote: >Couldn't you define a very small 3390 volume for this purpose in the >storage subsystem so that at least you're waste is less > >Lionel B. Dyck, Consultant/Specialist > > > > >From: >David Boyes <[email protected]> >To: >[email protected] >Date: >01/15/2009 08:22 AM >Subject: >Re: Sharing the RACF database in CSE >Sent by: >The IBM z/VM Operating System <[email protected]> > > > >On 1/15/09 11:11 AM, "Florian Bilek" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I am planning to setup RACF in a CSE environemnt. The CSE is on two >> different processors. I have read in the Program Directory that in thi s >c >> ase >> the RACF database mustn't be on a CSE formatted volume since it uses >real >> >> reserve/release CCWs. Therefore I can put it only on a real volume and >> dedicate it to RACFVM or make a fullpack minidisk out of it. > >That's how I always understood it. I tried to APAR it years ago, and >didn't >get very far, so I gave up. The answer I received was that it would make >major changes in how the RACF database management logic works on z/OS, s o >they didn't want to change it. > >> Isn't that an overkill of dedicating two full 3390 addresses (5 GB) fo r >2 >> x >> 17 cylinder of data, the size of the database?? > >Yes. That's just the way RACF works, AFAIK. It's a waste, but c'est la >vie. > >> Could I put the Primary and the Backup at least on the same volume? > >Kind of defeats the point if the physical volume chokes for some reason. >You >should have the Backup on a different physical volume. > >
