I was going to go even further - why not just get rid of ML1 and add all of those volumes to your primary storage groups? I think you will need one or two ML1 volumes for VTOCs for backups, etc..., but I would get rid of the ML1 volumes to reduce cycles - and all migration would be straight to tape.
-----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Ron Hawkins Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2011 5:17 AM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: Re: HSM Compaction question(s) John, If you are cycle poor, why would you bother migrating something to ML1 when it will use the same amount of space, and cost the same to store? Ron > -----Original Message----- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of > Donnelly, John P > Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2011 7:59 AM > To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu > Subject: Re: [IBM-MAIN] HSM Compaction question(s) > > We are DASD rich and CYCLEs poor, therefore NOCOMPaction anything... > > John Donnelly > National Semiconductor Corporation > 2900 Semiconductor Drive > Santa Clara, CA 95051 > > 408-721-5640 > 408-470-8364 Cell > cjp...@nsc.com > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu 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 lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
