All of this assumes that you're not taking frequent incremental backups. When you have periodic full volume backups and frequent increwmental backups then recovering deleted production DASD datasets is no big deal. Of course, that requires that the retention period be adequate.
-- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 ________________________________________ From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of Joel C. Ewing [jce.ebe...@cox.net] Sent: Sunday, July 5, 2020 10:14 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Storage & tape question One of the major historical functional differences between tape-based and DASD-based data sets has to do with with ability to recover deleted data sets later found to be needed. You delete a data set on DASD, odds are very good something else overwrites that data or all knowledge of the location of the old data quickly in seconds, minutes or hours and destroys all possibility of recovery. You delete a data set on tape, the physical tape volume may not be re-used for days or weeks -- or if you realized there is an issue, the physical tape volume could be set aside and easily kept for archive indefinitely. In the old days, an application read a tape master file, did updates, wrote out a new tape master file with the same name, and operators put physical labels on the tape volumes and just knew how long to keep the old physical master volumes and not mount them as output tapes. That design evolved so that master files and other files that needed retention became GDG's with "reasonable" limits, with tape volumes protected or made eligible for re-use by a tape management system. In theory, such GDGs could just as easily be on DASD as tape. In practice one encountered applications systems where "temp" data sets that were originally on tape because of data set size probably should have been GDGs but were not; where applications that used to run once a month now ran more frequently or irregularly on user demand, and GDG limits and data set retention rules had not been increased as much as they should have been. These errors typically don't get detected until there is a problem requiring old data to recover. It is not always possible for application systems to anticipate all possible failures, particularly those caused by bad user input where the error might not be discovered until much later, or by an operational error or JCL design error where incorrect job re-starts could cause premature data-set deletion. Over the decades I saw a number of application systems that were able to recover from problems where the recovery was either made easier or possible by access to tape data sets that had logically scratched but were still physically available. Even virtual tape systems still allow for some leeway on the destruction of logically scratched tape volumes, but typically that retention with virtual tape was only a matter of days, unless the problem was recognized in time to mark the volume for retention in the tape management system. It is even possible to recover the data in the case of a deleted ML2 data set on tape: If the physical volume ML2 is still intact and you have backups of the HSM CDS data sets before the deletion, an independent test/recovery z/OS system can be used to recall the data set and save it in a way that can be ported back to the original system. So yes, in a perfect world you could just eliminate all tape and replace tape data sets with DASD data sets; but this really needs to be co-ordinated with a careful review of application systems to be sure that there is proper retention of all data sets potentially needed for recovery from data and/or design errors -- and best to err on the side of excess retention to guard against the unexpected. For some application systems it might even make sense to ask, what would it take to reprocess all data from any starting point in the last x months for some value of x. Joel C. Ewing On 7/5/20 7:12 AM, kekronbekron wrote: > Hello List, > > Just wondering ... assuming there's a primary storage product out there that > can store how-many-ever hoo-haa-bytes, and is a good product in general, it > should make sense to begin eliminating all tape (3490/3590) use right? > First, ML1 & ML2 in HSM, then HSM itself, then rebuild jobs to write to disk, > or do SMS/ACS updates to make it all disk reads/writes. > > Looking at the current storage solutions out there, this is possible, right? > What would be the drawbacks (assume that primary storage is super > cost-efficient, so there's no need to archive anything). > > - KB > > ... -- Joel C. Ewing ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
