Ron,
I wonder if most shops really have volumes they can split into any size
they want. We have a Hitachi 9910 (I think). We could have paid an
extra $25K and gotten a feature that allows us to allocate any size DASD
we wanted, but 4 years ago when we leased our box, my boss didn't want
to pay the extra money. The same with the flash copy like product. We
had several applications that could have used that.
Eric Bielefeld
P&H Mining Equipment
Ron and Jenny Hawkins wrote:
Ted, et al,
As far as I recall this was not a performance recommendation, it was a
compromise. The intent was to save you from dedicating two volumes to the
PLPA and Common, by coming up with a least impact way of putting them on the
same pack. Note that there is a specific requirement to hand place the
datasets on the volume in a way that reduced seek, and PLPA was small enough
that the seldom ending channel programs to Common were not interrupted by
PLPA page-in.
In terms of performance finesse a separate volume for PLPA and Common is
better than a single volume. Now that all the latest and greatest storage
can have Custom Volume Sizes there is no longer a need waste large amounts
of space because PLPA and Common have dedicated volumes. Just slice out two
volumes at the required size and use one for PLPA and one for Common,
without the overflow method.
The recommendation is still the best way to configure this compromise, but
it remains a compromise. Your disk technology makes the single pack
PLPA/Common unnecessary nearly 10 years ago, so why continue to do it.
Ron
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
