On 10/15/2011 12:29 AM, Ravi Gaur wrote:
2 cents should have seperate storage group..it's going to easier life with the
issues/problem comes and also defining various options which not needed with
basic file system...
Look in DFSMS : Implementing System-Managed storage 7.9 - Defining SMS
Construct for HFS Data..
...
In an SMS shop those differences are easily handled via DATACLAS and
MGMTCLAS assignments by ACS routines. I would think whether you would
want to isolate HFS/ZFS to a separate STORGRP or STORCLAS would depend a
lot more on other factors unique to your shop.
If you have a significant number of developers using HFS/ZFS who think
DASD is infinite, that could be an issue in favor of a separate DASD
pool, but you can have exactly the same issues with standard MVS data
sets used for testing under either batch or TSO, so HFS/ZFS is hardly
unique in its potential for conflict with DASD space that might be
needed by production work loads.
With modern highly-cached DASD subsystems with PAV support, performance
conflicts really shouldn't be a motivation for a separate STORGRP either.
Different backup criteria for HFS/ZFS files can also be handled by
MGMTCLAS, unless you choose to use a full-volume backup strategy as one
user described, or some totally independent backup strategy that gets
down to the level of changed files within an HFS/ZFS file system.
If most of your DASD is still non-SMS and you have a non-trivial system,
you have other much more serious issues.
--
Joel C. Ewing, Bentonville, AR jcew...@acm.org
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
