In my case, now that I have a DS6800 with lots of disk space... My test Linux images are (2) 3390-9 volumes. One for Linux and application code and the other for data (Oracle, DB2, Samba, etc). And vdisk for paging.
I only did it this way so I can easily manage dasd without much thought. Two volumes to flash copy. Two volumes to DDR to tape. Wipe them out and start over when necessary. For the Oracle and DB2 workloads, I have no idea of the I/O workload and what I will see in production. So, if we do have I/O problems, I'm still trying to figure out our best option (other than get Velocity's software, which I'm still pushing for). We didn't pay for PAV support, so the options are using Linux LVM to combine many smaller disks into a large pool, or let the database manage many smaller disks to spread I/O out that-a-way. Tom Duerbusch THD Consulting >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 5/1/2006 10:05 AM >>> Rob, I think we initially went with 3390-3 at the beginning because we still have our production system running VSE and the volumes were all 3390-3 when we converted. When IBM initially configured the dasd they just made the two arrays the same. The Linux images that I will be using will be database servers so I don't see putting more than one Linux server on the same 3390-9. Do you think there will be any major performance issues with using the 3390-9 as compared to the 3390-3, or is it neglegable since I will be using several 3390-9 for the servers? Ryan Stewart Indian River Community College ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
