I certainly wasn't trying to say SFS wasn't reliable. It's just a 'point of failure'. And I say that it's a point of failure as opposed to a LINK of a minidisk, which doesn't require a properly defined filepool be available (think DR). Of course, minidisks also have to have proper security defs (in some cases) to be linked... but same same in SFS.
As far as functionality -- no question SFS is more flexible, etc .. but for a super important disk like the Linux guest startup -- I'd use a minidisk. Maybe in the end, the best thing to do is IPL the 200 (100, wherever your boot disk is) in the directory entry for reliability sake. But then you miss the flexibility of a well-crafted PROFILE EXEC that does things like call SWAPGEN, etc.. Anyway - while I have found SFS extremely reliable when it's running - I have just run into many situations where it was not up or not running properly and we were stuck - until the SFS pool was fixed, restored, whatever. Scott Rohling On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 11:32 AM, Tom Duerbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > 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 >
