On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 13:27:31 -0400, David Boyes wrote: >> We currently have 3390 mod 3 defined volumes. The customer requires a >> larger mini disk size than what will fit on a 3390 mod 3. We are >planning >> to create 3390 mod 9s for their larger mini disks. > >If it's a CMS user, use SFS. That's exactly what it's for, and all those >restrictions are pretty much moot. The semantics of SFS from a user >viewpoint -- with one exception -- are pretty much the same as >minidisks. The exception is what happens to open files if an application >is accidentally (or intentionally) interrupted -- on SFS, those files >get rolled back to their initial state unless you explicitly commit >interim changes. You can control this, but that's the default behavior. >IMHO, users depending on partial results should be corrected, but c'est >la vie. >
If this is for a Nomad database, DO NOT emphasis NOT put it on SFS. Nomad recovers very well from failures on mini-disk. SFS requires too many servers to recover quickly if there are failures or rollsbacks. Lloyd
