many siblings or internal paths there are.
Bill Fairchild
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of
Ron Hawkins
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2012 9:17 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: Going from mod-3 to mod9
Bill,
You said &qu
Gil,
I'm not sure I understand why there would be increased seek lengths on the
3390-9 SLED..
The avg seek of a 3390 as almost the same as a 3390-9, but intra-dataset
seek time was reduced by up to two thirds because the same size dataset used
one third of the platter radius.
Ron
> >
> With SL
-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] On
Behalf Of
> Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)
> Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 10:19 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
> Subject: Re: [IBM-MAIN] Going from mod-3 to mod9
>
> In <45e5f2f45d7878458ee5ca679697335502e25...@
ell know
where you stand.
Ron
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] On
Behalf Of
> Dennis McCarthy
> Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 5:28 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
> Subject: Re: [IBM-MAIN] Going from mod-3 to mod9
>
: [IBM-MAIN] Going from mod-3 to mod9
>
> *Yes*. Hardware improvements have reduced the impact, but the issue still
> exists. Think lots of itty-bitty datasets on a mod 9.
>
> You previously had 3 "logical" actuators to access 3 units of data .
> With mod 9 you have 1 &
AIN@bama.ua.edu
> Subject: Re: [IBM-MAIN] Going from mod-3 to mod9
>
> Iosq? Really? This is raid dasd, isn't "slow" 3390-9's a thing of
> the past?
>
> _
> Dave Jousma
> Assistant
essage-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] On
Behalf Of
> Bill Fairchild
> Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 11:21 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
> Subject: Re: [IBM-MAIN] Going from mod-3 to mod9
>
> In <45e5f2f45d7878458ee5ca679697335502e25.
RMFPP does a good job of this, if you're so inclined!
In a message dated 1/25/2012 9:13:33 A.M. Central Standard Time,
bfairch...@rocketsoftware.com writes:
We also need to see the I/O rate for your various volumes in your
spreadsheet sample.
---
Dennis,
We also need to see the I/O rate for your various volumes in your spreadsheet
sample.
Bill Fairchild
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message
where the fire is.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf
> Of Jousma, David
> Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 9:18 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
> Subject: Re: Going from mod-3 to mod9
>
> Iosq? Really
-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of
Jousma, David
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 9:18 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: Going from mod-3 to mod9
Iosq? Really? This is raid dasd, isn't "slow" 3390-9's a thing of
the past?
On 01/24/2012 07:28 AM, Dennis McCarthy wrote:
Hi Joel,
We do NOT have any PAV's. We are a pretty small shop. One production LPAR and
one test (sandbox for me). The VSAM file in question is open to a single CICS
region. Give that additional information, can I expect a negative impact on
respo
Hi Joel,
We do NOT have any PAV's. We are a pretty small shop. One production LPAR and
one test (sandbox for me). The VSAM file in question is open to a single CICS
region. Give that additional information, can I expect a negative impact on
response time going to the MOD-9's?
Dennis
-
On 01/23/2012 01:21 PM, Bill Fairchild wrote:
In<45e5f2f45d7878458ee5ca679697335502e25...@usdaexch01.kbm1.loc>, on
01/23/2012
at 09:08 AM, "Staller, Allan" said:
From the viewpoint of the Operating System, you now
have 3 times as much data behind the actuator on Mod-9's as Mod-3's.
If the
some large datasets, and a lot of
datasets that have low usage patterns moved to mod 9. We have been fine.
YMMV,
Linda
- Original Message -
From: "Dennis McCarthy"
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2012 12:03:21 PM
Subject: Going from mod-3 to mod9
In <45e5f2f45d7878458ee5ca679697335502e25...@usdaexch01.kbm1.loc>, on
01/23/2012
at 09:08 AM, "Staller, Allan" said:
>From the viewpoint of the Operating System, you now
>have 3 times as much data behind the actuator on Mod-9's as Mod-3's.
>If the Operating system *thinks* the device is busy,
In <45e5f2f45d7878458ee5ca679697335502e25...@usdaexch01.kbm1.loc>, on
01/23/2012
at 09:08 AM, "Staller, Allan" said:
>Beware of IOSQ! From the viewpoint of the Operating System, you now
>have 3 times as much data behind the actuator on Mod-9's as Mod-3's.
>If the Operating system *thinks* the
On 01/23/2012 10:09 AM, Staller, Allan wrote:
Generally speaking...Yes
IOW, the response time is more likely to increase than to decrease,
and increased response time is a Bad Thing
PAV, Cache, and RAID all have impacts that mitigate the 1:3 (or worse)
actuator to data ratio on mod 9 vs. 3 m
Generally speaking...Yes
IOW, the response time is more likely to increase than to decrease,
and increased response time is a Bad Thing
PAV, Cache, and RAID all have impacts that mitigate the 1:3 (or worse)
actuator to data ratio on mod 9 vs. 3 mod 3.
These impacts may not be part of the inte
On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 09:52:27 -0600, Staller, Allan wrote:
>*Yes*. Hardware improvements have reduced the impact, but the issue
>still exists. Think lots of itty-bitty datasets on a mod 9.
>
>You previously had 3 "logical" actuators to access 3 units of data .
>With mod 9 you have 1 "logical" actua
Is z/OS unaware of the underlying RAID and designed not to dispatch
concurrent operations to what it sees as a single device?
Correct! With the exception of PAV (which was invented to address the
IOSQ issue!)
We could get into a long discussion here, but "large" datasets that take
up most of a m
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] On
Behalf Of Jousma, David
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 9:18 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: Going from mod-3 to mod9
Iosq? Really? This is raid dasd, isn't "slow" 3390-9's a thing of
the pa
On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 10:18:09 -0500, Jousma, David wrote:
>Iosq? Really? This is raid dasd, isn't "slow" 3390-9's a thing of
>the past?
>
Is z/OS unaware of the underlying RAID and designed not to dispatch
concurrent operations to what it sees as a single device?
>-Original Message-
>
616.653.2717
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] On
> Behalf Of Staller, Allan
> Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 10:09 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
> Subject: Re: Going from mod-3 to mod9
>
>
> 1. We jus
B2H
p 616.653.8429
f 616.653.2717
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] On
Behalf Of Staller, Allan
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 10:09 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: Going from mod-3 to mod9
1. We just had 3390-9's configured i
1. We just had 3390-9's configured into our EMC box. This box also
contains 3390-3's. Given that the hardware is the same throughout and
all other things being equal, is there any decrease in response time on
the mod-9's?
Beware of IOSQ! From the viewpoint of the Operating System, you now have
3
A couple of questions:
1. We just had 3390-9's configured into our EMC box. This box also contains
3390-3's. Given that the hardware is the same throughout and all other things
being equal, is there any decrease in response time on the mod-9's?
2. I have a VSAM file (with extended addressabilit
27 matches
Mail list logo
