paths there are.
Bill Fairchild
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of
Ron Hawkins
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2012 9:17 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: Going from mod-3 to mod9
Bill,
You said If the shared control unit
Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] On
Behalf Of
Bill Fairchild
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 11:21 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: [IBM-MAIN] Going from mod-3 to mod9
In 45e5f2f45d7878458ee5ca679697335502e25...@usdaexch01.kbm1.loc, on
01/23/2012
at 09:08 AM, Staller
] Going from mod-3 to mod9
Iosq? Really? This is raid dasd, isn't slow 3390-9's a thing of
the past?
_
Dave Jousma
Assistant Vice President, Mainframe Services david.jou...@53.com
1830 East Paris, Grand Rapids, MI 49546 MD
mod-3 to mod9
*Yes*. Hardware improvements have reduced the impact, but the issue still
exists. Think lots of itty-bitty datasets on a mod 9.
You previously had 3 logical actuators to access 3 units of data .
With mod 9 you have 1 logical actuator to access the same amount of
data
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] On
Behalf Of
Dennis McCarthy
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 5:28 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: [IBM-MAIN] Going from mod-3 to mod9
Hi Joel,
We do NOT have any PAV's. We are a pretty
Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] On
Behalf Of
Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 10:19 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: [IBM-MAIN] Going from mod-3 to mod9
In 45e5f2f45d7878458ee5ca679697335502e25...@usdaexch01.kbm1.loc, on
01/23/2012
at 09:08
Gil,
I'm not sure I understand why there would be increased seek lengths on the
3390-9 SLED..
The avg seek of a 3390 as almost the same as a 3390-9, but intra-dataset
seek time was reduced by up to two thirds because the same size dataset used
one third of the platter radius.
Ron
With
Dennis,
We also need to see the I/O rate for your various volumes in your spreadsheet
sample.
Bill Fairchild
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the
RMFPP does a good job of this, if you're so inclined!
In a message dated 1/25/2012 9:13:33 A.M. Central Standard Time,
bfairch...@rocketsoftware.com writes:
We also need to see the I/O rate for your various volumes in your
spreadsheet sample.
Hi Joel,
We do NOT have any PAV's. We are a pretty small shop. One production LPAR and
one test (sandbox for me). The VSAM file in question is open to a single CICS
region. Give that additional information, can I expect a negative impact on
response time going to the MOD-9's?
Dennis
On 01/24/2012 07:28 AM, Dennis McCarthy wrote:
Hi Joel,
We do NOT have any PAV's. We are a pretty small shop. One production LPAR and
one test (sandbox for me). The VSAM file in question is open to a single CICS
region. Give that additional information, can I expect a negative impact on
@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of
Jousma, David
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 9:18 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: Going from mod-3 to mod9
Iosq? Really? This is raid dasd, isn't slow 3390-9's a thing of
the past?
_
Dave Jousma
where the fire is.
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf
Of Jousma, David
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 9:18 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: Going from mod-3 to mod9
Iosq? Really? This is raid dasd, isn't slow
snip
1. We just had 3390-9's configured into our EMC box. This box also
contains 3390-3's. Given that the hardware is the same throughout and
all other things being equal, is there any decrease in response time on
the mod-9's?
/snip
Beware of IOSQ! From the viewpoint of the Operating System, you
616.653.2717
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] On
Behalf Of Staller, Allan
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 10:09 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: Going from mod-3 to mod9
snip
1. We just had 3390-9's configured into our EMC box. This box
616.653.8429
f 616.653.2717
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] On
Behalf Of Staller, Allan
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 10:09 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: Going from mod-3 to mod9
snip
1. We just had 3390-9's
On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 10:18:09 -0500, Jousma, David wrote:
Iosq? Really? This is raid dasd, isn't slow 3390-9's a thing of
the past?
Is z/OS unaware of the underlying RAID and designed not to dispatch
concurrent operations to what it sees as a single device?
-Original Message-
From:
Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] On
Behalf Of Jousma, David
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 9:18 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: Going from mod-3 to mod9
Iosq? Really? This is raid dasd, isn't slow 3390-9's a thing of
the past?
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN
snip
Is z/OS unaware of the underlying RAID and designed not to dispatch
concurrent operations to what it sees as a single device?
/snip
Correct! With the exception of PAV (which was invented to address the
IOSQ issue!)
We could get into a long discussion here, but large datasets that take
up
On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 09:52:27 -0600, Staller, Allan wrote:
*Yes*. Hardware improvements have reduced the impact, but the issue
still exists. Think lots of itty-bitty datasets on a mod 9.
You previously had 3 logical actuators to access 3 units of data .
With mod 9 you have 1 logical actuator to
Generally speaking...Yes
snip
IOW, the response time is more likely to increase than to decrease,
and increased response time is a Bad Thing
/snip
PAV, Cache, and RAID all have impacts that mitigate the 1:3 (or worse)
actuator to data ratio on mod 9 vs. 3 mod 3.
These impacts may not be part
On 01/23/2012 10:09 AM, Staller, Allan wrote:
Generally speaking...Yes
snip
IOW, the response time is more likely to increase than to decrease,
and increased response time is a Bad Thing
/snip
PAV, Cache, and RAID all have impacts that mitigate the 1:3 (or worse)
actuator to data ratio on mod
In 45e5f2f45d7878458ee5ca679697335502e25...@usdaexch01.kbm1.loc, on
01/23/2012
at 09:08 AM, Staller, Allan allan.stal...@kbmg.com said:
Beware of IOSQ! From the viewpoint of the Operating System, you now
have 3 times as much data behind the actuator on Mod-9's as Mod-3's.
If the Operating
In 45e5f2f45d7878458ee5ca679697335502e25...@usdaexch01.kbm1.loc, on
01/23/2012
at 09:08 AM, Staller, Allan allan.stal...@kbmg.com said:
From the viewpoint of the Operating System, you now
have 3 times as much data behind the actuator on Mod-9's as Mod-3's.
If the Operating system *thinks* the
from mod-3 to mod9
A couple of questions:
1. We just had 3390-9's configured into our EMC box. This box also contains
3390-3's. Given that the hardware is the same throughout and all other things
being equal, is there any decrease in response time on the mod-9's?
2. I have a VSAM file
On 01/23/2012 01:21 PM, Bill Fairchild wrote:
In45e5f2f45d7878458ee5ca679697335502e25...@usdaexch01.kbm1.loc, on
01/23/2012
at 09:08 AM, Staller, Allanallan.stal...@kbmg.com said:
From the viewpoint of the Operating System, you now
have 3 times as much data behind the actuator on Mod-9's
A couple of questions:
1. We just had 3390-9's configured into our EMC box. This box also contains
3390-3's. Given that the hardware is the same throughout and all other things
being equal, is there any decrease in response time on the mod-9's?
2. I have a VSAM file (with extended
27 matches
Mail list logo