The application is going to combine several NOMAD databases into 1 NOMAD database. We are only going to setup mod 9s for this purpose. We will continue to use mod 3s for the rest of our data and applications.
I greatly appreciate your help. Thank you. Cecelia Dusha IT Specialist (Operating Systems) Administrator, Executive, & Financial Domain Division WHS/ITMD/AEFDD 703-697-2305 Rate Our Service -----Original Message----- From: David Boyes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2006 11:19 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: 3390 Mod 3 verses 3390 Mod 9s > Presently the application is split onto several disks. The data is to be > combined onto one disk. The data is a NOMAD database. Ah. That would argue against SFS, then. Nomad does its own balancing act internally. > I thought PAV was not an option for VM. Does z/VM 5.2 support PAV? Well, sort of. CMS doesn't know much about it. It's mostly for guest use AFAICT. If you're going to replace the mod 3's one for one with mod 9s, then it shouldn't get any worse than it is. As someone mentioned, just don't put *other* stuff on the disks that may change the access patterns.
