On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 8:20 AM Pommier, Rex <rpomm...@sfgmembers.com> wrote:
> John, > > No spares in the array? Or did a fail-over fail as well? If no spares, > that sounds more like a bone-headed management move to try to save a couple > bucks. Not absolving the admin from responsibility but it sounds like a > bigger problem. > Many years ago. And I was not really involved. I just heard the story as a "cautionary tale" around the "water cooler". And yes, the company was penny wise and pound foolish. The CIO at the time told me that we would not upgrade to the latest CICS release, but stay on the current unsupported release because the new release cost more and asking for the increase in budget would decrease his yearly bonus. Yes, he actually said that. That's when I realized that upper management cared mainly about lining their pockets, legally, rather than doing things "properly". Again, many years ago at a company that basically no longer exists. > > Rex > > -----Original Message----- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU> On Behalf > Of John McKown > Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2019 8:06 AM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: [External] Re: Hybrid SMS Storage Group - Database > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 7:40 AM Mike Schwab <mike.a.sch...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > The problem with SSD storage is that the blocks in a matched set of > > device start to fail at the same rate. Run long enough and you get > > enough bad blocks in all devices and they all fail at roughly the same > > time loosing the entire raid group, you don't have enough time between > > failures to replace and recreate before the next drive goes. Close > > monitoring of the physical failure rate is important to start swapping > > and rebuilding raid. > > > > This can happen with HDs also. We (Windows LAN) had a catastrophic failure > years ago. On the weekend, the LAN backups failed. The storage admin > decided "no problem I'll fix it Monday". We had an HD in the array fail. > "No problem, RAID will keep us going." While the CE was on his way in to > replace the failed HD, a second drive in the array failed. No array. No > current backup. Result: New storage administrator. > > > > > > > https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12046524 > > > > > -- > This is clearly another case of too many mad scientists, and not enough > hunchbacks. > > > Maranatha! <>< > John McKown > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > > > The information contained in this message is confidential, protected from > disclosure and may be legally privileged. If the reader of this message is > not the intended recipient or an employee or agent responsible for > delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified > that any disclosure, distribution, copying, or any action taken or action > omitted in reliance on it, is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If > you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately > by replying to this message and destroy the material in its entirety, > whether in electronic or hard copy format. Thank you. > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > -- This is clearly another case of too many mad scientists, and not enough hunchbacks. Maranatha! <>< John McKown ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
