Pray tell. What was wrong with SFS at that time? Are you a very heavy SFS shop? Hundreds of file accesses a minute?
I'm trying to find out, in what environments, SFS reliability is a concern. In the past, I've had more problems with clobbered minidisk directories then I've ever had with SFS. In the last 8 years, here, I can't recall any SFS outages. But I have lost the CMS saved segment more than once <G>. So what kind of SFS shop are you in? Thanks Tom Duerbusch THD Consulting >>> Scott Rohling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 10/29/2008 1:23 PM >>> 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 >
