----------------------------------------------------------- Ok! Seeing that there is no agreement on one of the ways, I'd choose the one I think would be better for my installation, which is no-SMS.
Thank you very much! 2007/2/11, Shane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On Sat, 2007-02-10 at 20:28 -0600, Mark Zelden wrote: > >I couldn't find a place with a recommendation for HFS allocation. So I'd > >like to hear your opinions about it. Do you prefer SMS or non-SMS? Why? > > Non-SMS. Then you can treat it just like and other sysres data set > and indirectly catalog it - whether it's on the primary sysres volume > or a secondary (or tirtiary) volume. > > But I wouldn't want to SMS control any "sysres" data sets. This was > one of the driving factors for supporting non-SMS PDSE and HFS when > that support came out (OS/390 2.6 and above + PTFs and native in > OS/390 2.10 IIRC). Normally Mark and I are pretty much on the same wavelength. Here we diverge a little. PDSE targets on the res - no question. HFSs I allocate on an SMS pool - too many problems in the past with VSAM on the res, so I started with HFS on SMS, and left it there. Getting too damn big nowadays anyway. Each to their own. Shane ... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
