On Wednesday, 10/29/2008 at 02:25 EDT, Scott Rohling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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. They can both be used, if you have availability problems. The 191 can have a simple profile that accesses an SFS directory, copies some files to the 191, then runs said files. In the event SFS isn't available, it just runs whatever's already on the disk. You get the Plan A convenience of "update once - use everywhere" with the Plan B peace of mind provided by minidisks while you get your SFS management mechanisms in order. Even we come into work some days and find a disabled SFS storage group because a backup didn't complete. No fuss, no muss. The sysadmins know what to look for when the problem is reported. Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott
