>Not to hijack the thread, but... I thought ServerPac already >automatically adds 20% (25?) free space, but I could be wrong. In any >case, how much free space should be allocated by ServerPac? I saw 50% >mentioned. Is that enough? Should it be the same for every data set, >or just the three you mention? Is it possible to get any kind of >consensus on this topic?
I am with Carmen on this one. Per company policy I apply ptfs twice a year. Every time at least 3 libraries die B37 or D37, and I just hate the wasted time to enlarge them. All of this after I already enlarged a lot of the original serverpac definitions - and definitely *all* linklist data sets - by 50%, including directory space. Yes, they're inactive, so easily renamed, but in addition I have to put up with incomplete SMS-Definitions, on reallocation SMS forces them to be SMS-managed, so I have to delete, reallocate with HLQ sys1, then copy, then rename the sys1 to what it was before. Or wait at least a day to get the SMS defs done correctly. Yes, I am running with compress. In my opinion every linklist data set should have 50% more primary (no secondary) space and 50% more directory space to begin with. Preferably *every* data set should have the 50% spare, especially given the wasted space for all the zFSs (think font libraries!) Or there should be a ++hold telling you to increase the size *before* you do the actual apply, especially for the obscure, seldom touched small libraries. Barbara ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
