As Kees has already mentioned; if you want to add chargeback for tape - that is easy. I know that both the CA MICS product and the MXG product both have interfaces to CA 1 and CA TLMS to gather information on how much data has been stored on tape (and how long that data has resided on tape). And with both CA 1 and CA TLMS we keep track (for Virtual Tape users) of both "how much data did the application write" and "how much cache was used" (basically, before and after compression). And it is more than just block-count times block-size like in the olden days.
Sounds like you simply need to have your chargeback system start to interface to your tape management system. Russell Witt CA 1 Development -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Benik, John E Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2019 2:31 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Tape Mount Management Thank you for all the feedback. Even though we are all virtual tape, I am under the impression that not all the data residing on tape should be. Yes it's virtual and therefore disk, but many of the JCL used today is old and since there is no chargeback for tape, users continue to write their data to tape. I am looking into this to help determine where the data should reside. The best will probably be looking at smaller tapes and having those go to disk instead. I'm thinking starting with 50 MB. John Benik | Optum Senior Systems Management Analyst – Mainframe Storage, Network Hosting Services Optum Technology 12125 Technology Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 O) 1-952-833-7765 C) 1-612-616-3984 -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Paul Gilmartin Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2019 1:36 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Tape Mount Mangement On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 17:30:34 +0100, R.S. wrote: > >My other impression is it's simpler to change gazillion (usually less) >of JCL jobs to explicitly point datasets to DASD than using TMM. > Might a JCLLIB member that SETs a few JCL symbols facilitate this? Reduce a gazillion to a handful? Nowadays JCL symbols can even be resolved in SYSIN. >Of course virtual tape reliefs many pains of tape, but keeping things >in old way is not good for the future. > IBM sometimes seems to have the opposite impression. "Compatibility". -- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN This e-mail, including attachments, may include confidential and/or proprietary information, and may be used only by the person or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this e-mail is not the intended recipient or his or her authorized agent, the reader is hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by replying to this message and delete this e-mail immediately. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
