I have to disagree with you here. You DO need to compare these features - because the vendors do things so much differently. I won't use names, but we just installed an array from one of the big vendors. We bought it with 40 GB cache, which was billed to us as usable cache. Only after the array was installed and we started having performance problems did the vendor come back to us with a "well, half of your cache is being taken up with array control information (LUN configuration and the like) so you actually only have 20 GB of cache available for your data. The other products we had looked at had separate cache memories for array use so that what we would have purchased for cache would have actually been used by us.
Rex -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ted MacNEIL Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2010 6:16 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: share mainframe disk experience <much snippage...> Gone are the days of when a techno-geek counted cache size, algorithms, and the like. All that matters is space, performance and such features as PAV, HIPERPAV, MIDAW, and so on. And, rarely are implementation details significant -- and rarely are they so incompatible that they make one vendor impossible to use -- that would not be in that vendor's interest. People still can read and learn. >Even cache memory is hard to compare. No need to compare. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
