Couldn't you define a very small 3390 volume for this purpose in the storage subsystem so that at least you're waste is less
Lionel B. Dyck, Consultant/Specialist From: David Boyes <dbo...@sinenomine.net> To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Date: 01/15/2009 08:22 AM Subject: Re: Sharing the RACF database in CSE Sent by: The IBM z/VM Operating System <IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU> On 1/15/09 11:11 AM, "Florian Bilek" <florian.bi...@gmail.com> wrote: > I am planning to setup RACF in a CSE environemnt. The CSE is on two > different processors. I have read in the Program Directory that in this c > ase > the RACF database mustn't be on a CSE formatted volume since it uses real > > reserve/release CCWs. Therefore I can put it only on a real volume and > dedicate it to RACFVM or make a fullpack minidisk out of it. That's how I always understood it. I tried to APAR it years ago, and didn't get very far, so I gave up. The answer I received was that it would make major changes in how the RACF database management logic works on z/OS, so they didn't want to change it. > Isn't that an overkill of dedicating two full 3390 addresses (5 GB) for 2 > x > 17 cylinder of data, the size of the database?? Yes. That's just the way RACF works, AFAIK. It's a waste, but c'est la vie. > Could I put the Primary and the Backup at least on the same volume? Kind of defeats the point if the physical volume chokes for some reason. You should have the Backup on a different physical volume.
