Re: good, bad, or ugly?

2007-11-15 Thread Robert Justice
t;Hal Merritt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main To: Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2007 5:08 PM Subject: ZFS: good, bad, or ugly? What's the groups' feel for ZFS? Why should we convert? Why shouldn't we convert? Any gotcha's? z/os.e 1.7. Tha

Re: good, bad, or ugly?

2007-11-15 Thread James Chappell
I still waiting to hear/experience a positive thing about zFS files... I find the coding of the options confusing and VERY error prone. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTE

ZFS: good, bad, or ugly?

2007-11-15 Thread Hal Merritt
What's the groups' feel for ZFS? Why should we convert? Why shouldn't we convert? Any gotcha's? z/os.e 1.7. Thanks!! The very best of the season to you, yours, and theirs. NOTICE: This electronic mail message and any files transmitted with it are intended exclusi

Re: good, bad, or ugly?

2007-11-15 Thread Robert Justice
our zfs filesystems are sms managed, and our cloning procedure had to change very little when switching to zFS - Original Message - From: "Lucymarie Ruth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main To: Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2007 6:48 PM Subject: ZF

ZFS: good, bad, or ugly?

2007-11-15 Thread Lucymarie Ruth
>>>Why shouldn't we convert? No good reason not to, but IBM is making us take a step backward by making zFS'es VSAM. That means we have to go back to having SMS-managed, non-esoterically cataloged filesystems. Not good for those folks who like to clone their filesystems just like any other d

Re: good, bad, or ugly?

2007-11-16 Thread Staller, Allan
My zfs file systems are *not* SMS managed and I have no issues. Lucymarie Ruth No good reason not to, but IBM is making us take a step backward by making zFS'es VSAM. That means we have to go back to having SMS-managed, non-esoterically cataloged filesystems. Not good for those folks who like

Re: good, bad, or ugly?

2007-11-16 Thread Lindy Mayfield
arie Ruth > Sent: 16. marraskuuta 2007 1:48 > To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU > Subject: ZFS: good, bad, or ugly? > > >>>>>>>Why shouldn't we convert? > > No good reason not to, but IBM is making us take a step backward by > making zFS'es VSAM. That me

Re: ZFS: good, bad, or ugly?

2007-11-15 Thread Edward Jaffe
Hal Merritt wrote: Why should we convert? Why shouldn't we convert? HFS is stabilized. All new enhancements appear in zFS only. It runs a 7734 of a lot faster too! -- Edward E Jaffe Phoenix Software International, Inc 5200 W Century Blvd, Suite 800 Los Angeles, CA 90045 310-338-0400 x318

Re: ZFS: good, bad, or ugly?

2007-11-15 Thread Brian Peterson
Huh? My root filesystem is a zFS and it is *not* SMS managed. Brian On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 16:48:08 -0700, Lucymarie Ruth wrote: Why shouldn't we convert? > >No good reason not to, but IBM is making us take a step backward by >making zFS'es VSAM. That means we have to go back to having >

Re: zFS (was Re: good, bad, or ugly?)

2007-11-16 Thread McKown, John
> -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Peterson > Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2007 5:00 PM > To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU > Subject: zFS (was Re: good, bad, or ugly?) > > > > When formatt