Tom
I can't agree with you stronger. I never have had a problem with SFS
that was not caused by dumb stuff, backups failing etc. And I have had
my share of CMS minidisk problems.
Thank You,
Scott R Wandschneider
Senior Systems Programmer || Infocrossing, a Wipro Company || 11707
Miracle Hills Drive, Omaha, NE 68154 || ': 402.963.8905 || ::
[EMAIL PROTECTED] **Think Green - Please print
responsibly**
> -----Original Message-----
> From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf
> Of Tom Duerbusch
> Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 12:33 PM
> To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
> Subject: Reliability of SFS?
>
> I'm surprised by another discussion that seems to say that SFS is not
reliable
> or dependable.
>
> Is that true in your shop?
> How heavy of a use it it?
>
> Here, I'm the major "human" user. The other 6 users may or may not
use it on
> any given day.
> However, I count 34, CMS type servers, that I have running, that make
use of
> SFS as part of their normal functions. That includes PROP which logs
to a SFS
> directory 24X7. And FAQS/PCS serves system related jobs from SFS
directories
> to the VSE machines.
>
> I have 6 storage pools. Historically there were of a size that the
backup
> would fit on a single 3480 cart (compressed). Now, that isn't a
requirement.
>
> All my VSE machines (14 currently) have their A-disk on SFS. That
directory
> is also where all the "systems" related code is stored (IPL procs,
CICS stuff,
> Top Secret security stuff, DB2 stuff, and all vender related stuff).
No
> application related stuff to speak of. In the 15 years, here, I've
never had
> a problem of not being able to bring up VSE due to a SFS problem.
>
> And in the last 5 years, I've never had a problem bringing up Linux
images due
> to SFS availability.
>
> I have had problems of the loss off the CMS saved segment due to a bad
VM IPL.
> This was usually due to a duplicate CP-OWNED pack being brought up
instead of
> the original. Ahhh, for the days of being able to go to the IBM 3990
or IBM
> 3880 and disabling the address of the wrong volume......
>
> I've had SFS problems where the SFS backup cancelled due to tape I/O
error and
> the backup wasn't restarted (which would unlock the storage pool that
was
> locked), which caused users that want to access that pool to be
denied.
>
> But I was surprised at the people claiming that SFS wasn't reliable,
when all
> you need it for, was to serve the PROFILE EXEC to bring up the Linux
image. I
> guess it is "once burnt, twice shy", and I guess I haven't been
"burnt" yet.
>
> In my world, I don't do CMS minidisks, if I have a SFS option
available.
>
> I think SFS is reliable. Or am I just kidding my self?
>
> Tom Duerbusch
> THD Consulting
