I agree - 400,000 SSCH/sec @ .7ms is fast. Curious as to the configuration of both the channel subsystem and the USP-V.
Tom Puddicombe Mainframe Performance & Capacity Planning CSC 71 Deerfield Rd, Meriden, CT 06450 ITIS | (860) 428-3252 | [email protected] | www.csc.com This is a PRIVATE message. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete without copying and kindly advise us by e-mail of the mistake in delivery. NOTE: Regardless of content, this e-mail shall not operate to bind CSC to any order or other contract unless pursuant to explicit written agreement or government initiative expressly permitting the use of e-mail for such purpose. From: Ron Hawkins <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Date: 08/03/2010 03:14 AM Subject: Re: share mainframe disk experience Brian, I'll agree with this to some extent if all you want to do is write a file, read and update it a few times, and then delete it. However when it comes to Business Continuance, Interoperability, Virtualization, and other not so traditional features I don't agree that one can just go out and by 'NO-NAME' generic mainframe DASD, plug it in and expect it to automatically meet all your needs. This where each vendor has strengths and weaknesses that may or may not be relevant to you companies not-so-traditional DASD requirements. Old Sharks are very fast? I have some difficulty with that one. A USP-V doing nearly 400,000 SSCH/sec with 0.7ms response time is what I call fast, and that's without zHPF. Ron > -----Original Message----- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Brian Westerman > Sent: Monday, August 02, 2010 11:23 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [IBM-MAIN] share mainframe disk experience > > I hate to admit it, but Ted is absolutely right. > > Most (I want to say all, but just can't commit to it:) vendors units are > very reliable, and even older RVAs, like IBM Shark are very reliable and now > are very reasonably priced. > > Mostly what you get now is increased speed and capacity with a smaller > footprint and less energy usage, but even the old Sharks are VERY fast. > > Unless you have some mission critical stuff, or applications that have > requirements that are far above what the older hardware can handle, you can > end up saving upwards of 90% of the cost of a comparable (and faster) new > unit. If you need the extra features, then by all means, buy it. If you > don't then why spend money you don't have to? > > Brian > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
