On Fri, 7 May 2004, Ann Smith wrote: > The performance on the mainframe dasd (STK raid 5, turbo) > was better than the SAN.
Interesting. Even encouraging (from the perspective of a long-time enthusiast of the mainframe I/O subsystem). But why? SAN is a network, so there could be network congestion. But since the introduction of ESCON, so is the IBM channel (a network). Also, the STK raid 5 turbo may outperform [whatever you used] SAN, but that is one comparison. How well would EMC, IBM, or others perform in the same comparison? And does it illustrate a difference between SAN and channel or between vendor and vendor? I'm also curious about ECKD emulation overhead as an advocate of fixed-block storage. -- R; ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
