One problem w/ SFS is that we don't run it on our second LPAR at all. Anything that we want to be able to run on both systems has to reside on a minidisk. SFS isn't a choice.
If IBM would allow the vmsys: pool to be shared between systems, we'd be more likely to use it. -- Robert P. Nix Mayo Foundation .~. RO-OE-5-55 200 First Street SW /V\ 507-284-0844 Rochester, MN 55905 /( )\ ----- ^^-^^ "In theory, theory and practice are the same, but in practice, theory and practice are different." On 10/28/08 2:13 PM, "Tom Duerbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > True about another point of failure. > > However, how many times a year is your SFS server(s) down? > I find an occasional crash (usually due to me) about once every year or two. > It's really a pain, as my CMS type servers, don't auto reconnect. So I have > to manually force off the servers and let the be brought up by AUDITOR. > (easiest way to do this) > > But, for a guest, such as Linux, when you (x)autolog them, they connect to > SFS, access the PROFILE EXEC and disconnect (via IPL) in a matter of a second > or two. > > However, your point, is good, especially in a near 24X7 Linux shop. A shared > 191 minidisk is better. Until you have two users, access the shared disk in > R/W mode, to update it. No protection. SFS will always protect you. Manual > procedures can minimized the R/W problem, but can't eliminate it. Just like > SFS problems can be minimized but not eliminated. > > But thinking of this... > There is one SFS combination of problems, which would be a major concern. > Backing up SFS via the VM supplied utilities and the backup (or VM) crashes. > SFS will come up, but that storage pool is locked. It is easy to unlock it, > when you know to do that. > During this time, if a guest tries to access their SFS directory that is on a > SFS pool that is locked (would be a much more frequent occurrence if there was > a VM crash), it could lead to a lot of heart burn. > > A 191 minidisk can be much better. And of course, not to IPL CMS, but to IPL > 190, just in case the CMS saved segment is lost <G>. > > Tom Duerbusch > THD Consulting > >>>> Scott Rohling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 10/28/2008 1:56 PM >>> > Just curious why you think SFS is better than a 1 cylinder shared minidisk? > To me - it's a point of failure as an SFS pool server must be running just > to get to the PROFILE EXEC... > > Scott Rohling > > On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 11:32 AM, Tom Duerbusch > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > >> 1. As has been said, you don't need a R/W disk to IPL. R/O is good. SFS >> directory is even better. >> 2. Once you IPL Linux, you are not in CMS anymore. You won't be doing >> anything with your a-disk anymore. So make it easy on your self, when you >> need to make changes to the profile exec. Put it in a SFS directory. >> >> Tom Duerbusch >> THD Consulting >> >> >>
