t; Sent: 25 May, 2018 16:29
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: VTL as 3490 vs 3590
>
> On Wed, 23 May 2018 13:02:24 +0800, Timothy Sipples
> wrote:
>
> >Please keep on trucking!
>
> It's Friday: I'm not sure where Timothy picked this up, I think
On Wed, 23 May 2018 13:02:24 +0800, Timothy Sipples wrote:
>Please keep on trucking!
It's Friday: I'm not sure where Timothy picked this up, I think he is too young
to remember this popular expression.
Eddie Kendricks, RIP.
Regards,
Mike Baldwin
Cartagena Software Limited
Markham, Ontario, Can
Rex Pommier wrote:
>Can I force, for example, a set of system backups to get
>sent immediately to the passthru tapes as well as the
>virtual tapes on the TS7720 itself so I can send a set
>of physicals offsite like I do today?
First, a disclaimer: please check with a true storage specialist to con
What, z/VM doesn't have 1052-7 support? GD&R
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of
R.S.
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2018 4:03 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@listserv.ua.edu
Subject: Re: VTL a
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of R.S.
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2018 12:13 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: VTL as 3490 vs 3590
W dniu 2018-05-23 o 17:39, Mike Baldwin pisze:
[...]
> Thanks for reading this far! Did I kill the thread?
N
W dniu 2018-05-23 o 17:39, Mike Baldwin pisze:
[...]
> Thanks for reading this far! Did I kill the thread?
No! Not at all.
> A couple of the largest VTL vendors only support 3490
Well, can we enumerate the VTL vendors? IMHO all of them would be happy
to see its name on the list, while it's still
Yes, that was a typo. We allow 3490 or 3590, but as I said, most define as
3490 and we have only had 1 customer do 3590. The 3590 customer is
international and he does stack data sets on each tape. We are backing up
over 1000 tapes per night at that site.
Ken
Kenneth A. Bloom
CEO
Avenir T
Hi Tony,
Wow, long Friday thread!
Tony, our observation is that customers who choose a VTL that supports 3590
logical device type usually choose to exploit 3590.
A couple of the largest VTL vendors only support 3490, so they have a choice of
one, and it does not seem to be a priority to add 3590
7720 or is this still z/OS TMS? What handles recycling of these
tapes?
Thanks,
Rex
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of R.S.
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2018 3:01 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: [External] Re: V
W dniu 2018-05-23 o 08:19, Brian Westerman pisze:
Except that now you can merely transmit the data to any other server to have it
offsite. Having gone through all of the various gyrations over the years of
trying to come up with ways to get the tapes off site, from paying a company to
cart th
W dniu 2018-05-23 o 11:19, Parwez Hamid pisze:
3215 support is a FUNCTION of CHPID = OSC and has been around since 2008. It
requires the OSA-1000BASE-T feature and main users are z/TPF customers.
Regular ICC also require 1000Base-T (copper) card.
However ICC configuration also require some HMC
And safer, especially in areas where there are regulators that get very
cranky if a tape goes missing during transit.
On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 2:19 PM, Brian Westerman <
brian_wester...@syzygyinc.com> wrote:
> Except that now you can merely transmit the data to any other server to
> have it offsit
3215 support is a FUNCTION of CHPID = OSC and has been around since 2008. It
requires the OSA-1000BASE-T feature and main users are z/TPF customers.
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to
"...and my car has 4 beautiful wheels including spare one"
(sales pitch in tire workshop)
--
Radoslaw Skorupka
Lodz, Poland
==
--
Treść tej wiadomości może zawierać informacje prawnie chronione Banku
przeznaczone wy
Except that now you can merely transmit the data to any other server to have it
offsite. Having gone through all of the various gyrations over the years of
trying to come up with ways to get the tapes off site, from paying a company to
cart them away to the caves to transmitting tape-to-tape at
Folks, IBM is shipping and continues to ship lots of physical tape
libraries and tape drives for z/OS (and z/VM, z/TPF, and z/VSE), and it's a
big IBM investment area to keep pushing forward on densities, performance,
and reliability. There is absolutely no limitation on continuing to use
physical
> More: YOU HAVE TO KEEP YOUR VALUABLE ARCHIVE DATA ON NEW MEDIA!
Not really. The auditors are ok with old tapes that most likely will
never need to be read. If we try to copy it to new media, and it fails,
then we will know for sure that the tapes are bad and have no option but
report such to
W dniu 2018-05-22 o 19:41, Seymour J Metz pisze:
3210 and 3215 are local non-SNA devices; there is no telnet equivalent.
3215?
Is it the $#$@% mode which is widely present in z/VM?
I hate set conmode or how it was...
BTW: 3215 support is optional feature of OSA-ICC. Quite new feature...
It see
W dniu 2018-05-22 o 08:04, Timothy Sipples pisze:
Radoslaw Skorupka wrote:
It is really nice sales pitch, but *technically* IBM it is no longer
possible to write directly to a tape volume from z/OS.
First of all, it's not a sales pitch. I don't do sales pitches very well.
Second, it's also no
While I still miss native tapes, I see your example as partially invalid.
You can have 20 years old data on ne media, including virtual tapes.
More: YOU HAVE TO KEEP YOUR VALUABLE ARCHIVE DATA ON NEW MEDIA!
Old data, but fresh media.
Reasons:
1. Old tape can be become defective. Of course second c
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2018 1:45 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@listserv.ua.edu
Subject: Re: VTL as 3490 vs 3590
On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 12:42 PM Seymour J Metz wrote:
> 3210 and 3215 are local non-SNA devices; there is no telnet equivalent.
>
Hum, how about an LU1 console? I guess I could use c3270 to
On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 12:42 PM Seymour J Metz wrote:
> 3210 and 3215 are local non-SNA devices; there is no telnet equivalent.
>
Hum, how about an LU1 console? I guess I could use c3270 to script an SMCS
console. But, that's more work {frown}. Guess I'm stuck with CA-OPS/MVS,
which is really
May 22, 2018 1:25 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@listserv.ua.edu
Subject: Re: VTL as 3490 vs 3590
On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 11:30 AM Seymour J Metz wrote:
> I have a warped mind: I keep thinking of an RFE for z/OS support of
> perforated paper (well, mylar) tape. GD&R.
>
On a similar note: I want
On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 11:30 AM Seymour J Metz wrote:
> I have a warped mind: I keep thinking of an RFE for z/OS support of
> perforated paper (well, mylar) tape. GD&R.
>
On a similar note: I want my 3215 console back!
Why? Because I want to be able to have a "line mode" telnet environment
wh
bject: Re: VTL as 3490 vs 3590
> On May 22, 2018, at 1:04 AM, Timothy Sipples wrote:
>
> Radoslaw Skorupka wrote:
>> It is really nice sales pitch, but *technically* IBM it is no longer
>> possible to write directly to a tape volume from z/OS.
>
> First of all, it'
May 22, 2018 6:34 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@listserv.ua.edu
Subject: Re: VTL as 3490 vs 3590
Timothy,
The biggest problem is that physical tape, unlike dasd, has been the
primary method of data archive and data transport since it was created.
(And that includes paper tape.) While tape virtualization is great
- Also, I could always point to the tape rack and tell the auditors: "You
want the data from 20 years ago? There it is."
But less chance that they could actually read the data.
On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 6:34 PM, Tony Thigpen wrote:
> Timothy,
>
> The biggest problem is that physical tape, unlik
Timothy,
The biggest problem is that physical tape, unlike dasd, has been the
primary method of data archive and data transport since it was created.
(And that includes paper tape.) While tape virtualization is great for
internal tapes, off-site archival now requires an expensive duplicate of
> On May 22, 2018, at 1:04 AM, Timothy Sipples wrote:
>
> Radoslaw Skorupka wrote:
>> It is really nice sales pitch, but *technically* IBM it is no longer
>> possible to write directly to a tape volume from z/OS.
>
> First of all, it's not a sales pitch. I don't do sales pitches very well.
>
>
Radoslaw Skorupka wrote:
>It is really nice sales pitch, but *technically* IBM it is no longer
>possible to write directly to a tape volume from z/OS.
First of all, it's not a sales pitch. I don't do sales pitches very well.
Second, it's also no longer possible to "write directly" to disk drives.
W dniu 2018-05-21 o 11:19, Timothy Sipples pisze:
Radoslaw Skorupka wrote:
BTW2: It's big pity IBM stopped providing real tape drives for z/OS.
That would be a pity if it were true. Fortunately, it's not true. Tape
libraries, tape drives, and tape cartridges for z/OS (and for z/VSE, z/VM,
and z
Radoslaw Skorupka wrote:
>BTW2: It's big pity IBM stopped providing real tape drives for z/OS.
That would be a pity if it were true. Fortunately, it's not true. Tape
libraries, tape drives, and tape cartridges for z/OS (and for z/VSE, z/VM,
and z/TPF) are all available and popular.
IBM has stoppe
Smaller volumes increase the chance that a volume will become totally
empty, rather than just drop below the recycle threshold.
Therefore eliminating the need to move data during recycle.
On Sun, May 20, 2018 at 4:48 PM, Brian Westerman <
brian_wester...@syzygyinc.com> wrote:
> Actually I think y
gt;>>>> Another item to throw into the mix is what size of virtual-volumes you
>>>>> define them as. With 3490's, you can define the virtual-volumes in
>>>>> Gigabytes of capacity. If you stack lots of very small files, you run
>>>>> into a probl
se the Block-ID is a 4-byte field on the 3590's. So,
if you like to define your virtual-volumes as large volumes; it might actually
be better to define them as 3590's.
Russell Witt
res09...@verizon.net
-Original Message-
From: Tony Thigpen
To: IBM-MAIN
Sent: Fri, May 18,
MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: VTL as 3490 vs 3590
>
> OK, but what about program tending to fill the volume up?
> It's not matter of few hundreds terabytes, because it can be many terabytes
> - we talk about TS1140 (~12TB after compression) or T1D
> (21 TB) per cart
Actually I think you have that reversed, the smaller volumes will tend to
increase the amount of recycling because less data has to be freed up to make a
larger percentage of the volume and you have a LOT more of them. Although I
have heard that some sites the use small volumes only free them a
te:
>>>>>
>>>>> Tony,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Another item to throw into the mix is what size of virtual-volumes you
>>>>> define them as. With 3490's, you can define the virtual-volumes in
>>>>> Gigabyte
al-volumes as large volumes; it might actually
be better to define them as 3590's.
Russell Witt
res09...@verizon.net
-Original Message-
From: Tony Thigpen
To: IBM-MAIN
Sent: Fri, May 18, 2018 12:52 pm
Subject: VTL as 3490 vs 3590
For a little fun on Friday afternoon.
We will be
stack lots of very small files, you run into
>>> a problem with the Block-ID not being large enough. With them defined as
>>> 3590's, the block-id issue is non-existent because the Block-ID is a 4-byte
>>> field on the 3590's. So, if you like to define your virt
tually
be better to define them as 3590's.
Russell Witt
res09...@verizon.net
-Original Message-
From: Tony Thigpen
To: IBM-MAIN
Sent: Fri, May 18, 2018 12:52 pm
Subject: VTL as 3490 vs 3590
For a little fun on Friday afternoon.
We will be replacing our current VTL.
The new VTL
Behalf Of Brian Westerman
Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2018 2:52 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: VTL as 3490 vs 3590
3590's are "easier" to deal with if you use HSM at all, 3490's have to be set up
as a percentage of the 3490 capacity, (otherwise you get something like
800
stacking off
> and defined x1-9 in my tape pools when we moved away from cartridges.
> Never looked back
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On
>> Behalf Of Brian Westerman
>> Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2018 2:52 AM
>> To: IB
Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2018 2:52 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: VTL as 3490 vs 3590
>
> 3590's are "easier" to deal with if you use HSM at all, 3490's have to be set
> up
> as a percentage of the 3490 capacity, (otherwise you get something
3590's are "easier" to deal with if you use HSM at all, 3490's have to be set
up as a percentage of the 3490 capacity, (otherwise you get something like
800MB tapes (to HSM). While the VTS could care less, it is a pain to have HSM
writing 600 tapes a day.
Several sites (about 1/3) we support
On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 12:52 PM Tony Thigpen wrote:
> For a little fun on Friday afternoon.
>
> We will be replacing our current VTL.
>
> The new VTL can be configured to look like 3490s or 3590s. Our current
> VTL is defined to z/OS as 3490s.
>
> Some of the staff are saying: "All VTLs should b
gt; Russell Witt
> res09...@verizon.net
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-----
> From: Tony Thigpen
> To: IBM-MAIN
> Sent: Fri, May 18, 2018 12:52 pm
> Subject: VTL as 3490 vs 3590
>
> For a little fun on Friday afternoon.
>
> We will be replacing our curren
sage-
From: Tony Thigpen
To: IBM-MAIN
Sent: Fri, May 18, 2018 12:52 pm
Subject: VTL as 3490 vs 3590
For a little fun on Friday afternoon.
We will be replacing our current VTL.
The new VTL can be configured to look like 3490s or 3590s. Our current
VTL is defined to z/OS as 3490s.
Some of the st
Hi Tony
Most of the time we define the drives on the Visara 5990A/L as 3490 and only
define them as 3590 if the customer has a "desire" to define 3490.
Bottom line is that it will not make a difference.
Regards
Ken
Kenneth A. Bloom
CEO
Avenir Technologies Inc
/d/b/a Visara International
203
For a little fun on Friday afternoon.
We will be replacing our current VTL.
The new VTL can be configured to look like 3490s or 3590s. Our current
VTL is defined to z/OS as 3490s.
Some of the staff are saying: "All VTLs should be defined as 3490s
because that is what everybody does."
Other
50 matches
Mail list logo
