Re: hfs VS zfs
A couple of releases ago, I measured an increase in CPU time for some benchmark-type tasks that used ZFS vs. HFS when both were caching equally. That pattern was later confirmed with one or two real workloads. According to IBM this is not really unexpected because ZFS does more (journaling, more sophisticated caching), but I still was surprised--it was something on the order of 10% and for workloads that were doing a *lot* of HFS/ZFS cache friendly reads it did result in measurably longer run times. Nonetheless, we're slowly moving towards ZFS because it does a better job caching than HFS. In fact, HFS caching is flat broken for us at times and IBM is not particularly interested in fixing it because they want everybody to go to ZFS. (E.G. I still have an ETR open with them that's been open for something like 18+ months, waiting for L3 to have time to work on finding the problem.) So despite the increased CPU time for similarly cached workloads, workloads that are not being cached well in HFS may be cached better in ZFS and may have a significant performance improvement. The cache reporting and controls in ZFS are also much better. So it's not all bad, I just wish there wasn't such a significant CPU hit for things that are already well-cached. And we did move the root to ZFS. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: hfs VS zfs
Hello all, we are planning to migrate from z/os 1.7 to 1.11. In our planning we are trying to decide if we want to go to zfs instead of the hfs. Is there anyone out there that can think of any good reasons not to go to zfs when we do our upgrade? The suggestion about waiting until you get to 1.11 is stellar and decrease the complexity by some factor. In general I attended SHARE a few years ago when going to zFS was the Hot Topic. We had converted totally over to zFS. Seems to me IBM said the future was zFS and HFS was being phased out. Kinda stopped looking for the drop- dead date after that. Maybe the direction has changed to keep both around. In general at the time, the hot topic was having many, many, many, many, etc, objects in one zFS directory and the lookup to find the member ATE your CPU alive in a Parallel Sysplex. IBM promised they were looking into improving that performance. Until it was redesigned it was Don'ta do it or if it hurts to touch it, do not touch it. Hopefully that problem has been addressed. jim -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
hfs VS zfs
Hello all, we are planning to migrate from z/os 1.7 to 1.11. In our planning we are trying to decide if we want to go to zfs instead of the hfs. Is there anyone out there that can think of any good reasons not to go to zfs when we do our upgrade? == This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: hfs VS zfs
-Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Ward, Mike S Sent: Monday, January 04, 2010 8:41 AM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: hfs VS zfs Hello all, we are planning to migrate from z/os 1.7 to 1.11. In our planning we are trying to decide if we want to go to zfs instead of the hfs. Is there anyone out there that can think of any good reasons not to go to zfs when we do our upgrade? Most noticeable issue will be if you use indirect cataloging of the systems HFS files (for example locating them on the system res packs set). This is not available for zFS at this time. Due to this we have a mix of zFS and HFS files. SMPE owned and maintained files are HFS and roll with the system res vols. User and Application files are zFS Email Firewall made the following annotations. -- Warning: All e-mail sent to this address will be received by the corporate e-mail system, and is subject to archival and review by someone other than the recipient. This e-mail may contain proprietary information and is intended only for the use of the intended recipient(s). If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient(s), you are notified that you have received this message in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately. == -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: hfs VS zfs
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Jerry Whitteridge
Sent: Monday, January 04, 2010 12:21 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: hfs VS zfs
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Ward, Mike S
Sent: Monday, January 04, 2010 8:41 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: hfs VS zfs
Hello all, we are planning to migrate from z/os 1.7 to 1.11.
In our planning we are trying to decide if we want to go to
zfs instead of the hfs. Is there anyone out there that can
think of any good reasons not to go to zfs when we do our upgrade?
Most noticeable issue will be if you use indirect cataloging
of the systems HFS files (for example locating them on the
system res packs set). This is not available for zFS at this
time. Due to this we have a mix of zFS and HFS files. SMPE
owned and maintained files are HFS and roll with the system
res vols. User and Application files are zFS
I cheat. I never do a DASD copy of my DASD. I do a logical DSN copy from DASD
to DASD, and I change some of the names as they are copies. What I do it make
my system UNIX files have the system name and res volume in the DSN.
OMVS.SYSNAME..SYSR1..ROOT
for example. That way, I don't need indirect cataloging. in BPXPRMnn
ROOT FILESYSTEM('OMVS.SYSNAME..SYSR1..ROOT')
TYPE(ZFS) MODE(RDWR)
The same with some PARMLIBs, which I put as the __first__ PARMLIB in the
concatenation. Like: SYS1.SYSNAME..PARMLIB. Ditto for special LPALIBs and
LINKLIBs. Which, again, I put __first__ so that modules in them override the
IBM modules of the same name. Things like ICEAMn.
--
John McKown
Systems Engineer IV
IT
Administrative Services Group
HealthMarkets(r)
9151 Boulevard 26 * N. Richland Hills * TX 76010
(817) 255-3225 phone * (817)-961-6183 cell
john.mck...@healthmarkets.com * www.HealthMarkets.com
Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message may contain confidential or
proprietary information. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact
the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
HealthMarkets(r) is the brand name for products underwritten and issued by the
insurance subsidiaries of HealthMarkets, Inc. -The Chesapeake Life Insurance
Company(r), Mid-West National Life Insurance Company of TennesseeSM and The
MEGA Life and Health Insurance Company.SM
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: hfs VS zfs
On a z9 BC running z/OS 1.8, there is a noticeable (~2 minutes) pause in the IPL sequence while zFS initializes, accompanied by a non-scrollable message on the log that eventually does clear. We don't IPL that often so it is not a big deal for us. Since zFS is VSAM, we had to adjust our pack cloning procedures but once we worked out the kinks it became a non-issue. -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Ward, Mike S Sent: Monday, January 04, 2010 8:41 AM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: hfs VS zfs Hello all, we are planning to migrate from z/os 1.7 to 1.11. In our planning we are trying to decide if we want to go to zfs instead of the hfs. Is there anyone out there that can think of any good reasons not to go to zfs when we do our upgrade? -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: hfs VS zfs
Is there anyone out there that can think of any good reasons not to go to zfs when we do our upgrade? I would do z/FS as a separate project, either before or after. Moving from an unsupported release level to a bigger jump than supported by IBM will be complex enough. - Too busy driving to stop for gas! -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: hfs VS zfs
On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 12:07:22 -0800, Schwarz, Barry A barry.a.schw...@boeing.com wrote: On a z9 BC running z/OS 1.8, there is a noticeable (~2 minutes) pause in the IPL sequence while zFS initializes, accompanied by a non-scrollable message on the log that eventually does clear. We don't IPL that often so it is not a big deal for us. This is probably cause becaue the file system hadn't been properly shutdown. This causes the file system to be verified when starting. If you issue F OMVS,STOPPFS=ZFS before you finish shutting the system down, I think it will come up faster. -- Richard -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: hfs VS zfs
-Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Richard Peurifoy Sent: Monday, January 04, 2010 3:27 PM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: Re: hfs VS zfs On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 12:07:22 -0800, Schwarz, Barry A barry.a.schw...@boeing.com wrote: snip This is probably cause becaue the file system hadn't been properly shutdown. This causes the file system to be verified when starting. If you issue F OMVS,STOPPFS=ZFS before you finish shutting the system down, I think it will come up faster. -- Richard Is that needed even if I do F OMVS,SHUTDOWN ?? -- John McKown Systems Engineer IV IT Administrative Services Group HealthMarkets(r) 9151 Boulevard 26 * N. Richland Hills * TX 76010 (817) 255-3225 phone * (817)-961-6183 cell john.mck...@healthmarkets.com * www.HealthMarkets.com Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message may contain confidential or proprietary information. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. HealthMarkets(r) is the brand name for products underwritten and issued by the insurance subsidiaries of HealthMarkets, Inc. -The Chesapeake Life Insurance Company(r), Mid-West National Life Insurance Company of TennesseeSM and The MEGA Life and Health Insurance Company.SM -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: hfs VS zfs
On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 15:30:36 -0600, McKown, John john.mck...@healthmarkets.com wrote: -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Richard Peurifoy Sent: Monday, January 04, 2010 3:27 PM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: Re: hfs VS zfs On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 12:07:22 -0800, Schwarz, Barry A barry.a.schw...@boeing.com wrote: snip This is probably cause becaue the file system hadn't been properly shutdown. This causes the file system to be verified when starting. If you issue F OMVS,STOPPFS=ZFS before you finish shutting the system down, I think it will come up faster. -- Richard Is that needed even if I do F OMVS,SHUTDOWN I think so, but am not positive. We haven't been runnuing ZFS very long, and I have not experimented a great deal. If the file system has not been properly shutdown, you get the following sequence of messages for each file that was open: IOEZ00397I recovery statistics for ETC: IOEZ00391I Elapsed time was 14 ms IOEZ00392I 1 log pages recovered consisting of 2 records IOEZ00393I Modified 1 data blocks IOEZ00394I 1 redo-data records, 0 redo-fill records IOEZ00395I 0 undo-data records, 0 undo-fill records IOEZ00396I 0 not written blocks IOEZ00400I 0 blocks zeroed -- Richard -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: hfs VS zfs
-Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Richard Peurifoy Sent: Monday, January 04, 2010 3:53 PM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: Re: hfs VS zfs snip Is that needed even if I do F OMVS,SHUTDOWN I think so, but am not positive. We haven't been runnuing ZFS very long, and I have not experimented a great deal. If the file system has not been properly shutdown, you get the following sequence of messages for each file that was open: IOEZ00397I recovery statistics for ETC: IOEZ00391I Elapsed time was 14 ms IOEZ00392I 1 log pages recovered consisting of 2 records IOEZ00393I Modified 1 data blocks IOEZ00394I 1 redo-data records, 0 redo-fill records IOEZ00395I 0 undo-data records, 0 undo-fill records IOEZ00396I 0 not written blocks IOEZ00400I 0 blocks zeroed -- Richard Thanks for the info. I've never seen those messages. -- John McKown Systems Engineer IV IT Administrative Services Group HealthMarkets(r) 9151 Boulevard 26 * N. Richland Hills * TX 76010 (817) 255-3225 phone * (817)-961-6183 cell john.mck...@healthmarkets.com * www.HealthMarkets.com Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message may contain confidential or proprietary information. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. HealthMarkets(r) is the brand name for products underwritten and issued by the insurance subsidiaries of HealthMarkets, Inc. -The Chesapeake Life Insurance Company(r), Mid-West National Life Insurance Company of TennesseeSM and The MEGA Life and Health Insurance Company.SM -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: HFS Vs ZFs
Could someone please explain what has been going on with zFS recommendations etc. I have also seen recommendations that we should all move from HFS to zFS file systems. Now, we are told that we should not use zFS Milti-File Mode (MFM) aggregates in shared systems. If I was running a non-shared environment, I would avoid migrating to zFS Multi-File Mode aggregates in case I may later move to a shared environment in the future. That seems a reasonable stand to take and would mean that zFS MFM Aggregates would be little used. If we are all therefore to use compatibility mode aggregates, do we still get the documented benefits of zFS? Namely, read only clones, performance benefits and increase integrity when using Compatibility Mode aggregates? The recommendation telling us not to use zFS MFM aggregates in a shared HFS environment were not there in the first announcements of zFS, so what happened to cause such a drastic U-turn? -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: HFS Vs ZFs
Mike, The compatibility mode of zFS is soon to be the only mode of zFS. The multi-file mode aggregates are being phased out in all environments, not just in a SYSPLEX. The costs associated with maintaining multiple file systems in a single zFS container were found to outweigh the benefits in all environments, even more so in a SYSPLEX. However, even in single file mode (compatibility was a bad name choice in my opinion), you do get all the performance and other benefits of zFS over HFS. Note that HFS has been functionally stabilized so no new enhancements will be made to it, and zFS is the replacement, so migrating from HFS to zFS should a project in the pipeline. Wayne Driscoll Product Developer JME Software LLC NOTE: All opinions are strictly my own. -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Hill Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2007 1:44 PM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: HFS Vs ZFs Could someone please explain what has been going on with zFS recommendations etc. I have also seen recommendations that we should all move from HFS to zFS file systems. Now, we are told that we should not use zFS Milti-File Mode (MFM) aggregates in shared systems. If I was running a non-shared environment, I would avoid migrating to zFS Multi-File Mode aggregates in case I may later move to a shared environment in the future. That seems a reasonable stand to take and would mean that zFS MFM Aggregates would be little used. If we are all therefore to use compatibility mode aggregates, do we still get the documented benefits of zFS? Namely, read only clones, performance benefits and increase integrity when using Compatibility Mode aggregates? The recommendation telling us not to use zFS MFM aggregates in a shared HFS environment were not there in the first announcements of zFS, so what happened to cause such a drastic U-turn? -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: HFS Vs ZFs
Functionally stabilized usually leads to dismissal. So, I ass/u/me/d it was. I actually don't remember anyone saying it was going away. Seems that at some point it would be wise to make the move. At 11:03 PM 9/11/2006, you wrote: Brian France wrote: Okay, I know (hope) I'll see this in the manual, but would like to ask ahead of time. IF HFS is indeed going away and zFS is the way to go, does that mean there is a shared zFS ala HFS? Who said HFS was going away? -- Edward E Jaffe Phoenix Software International, Inc 5200 W Century Blvd, Suite 800 Los Angeles, CA 90045 310-338-0400 x318 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.phoenixsoftware.com/ -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html Brian W. France Systems Administrator (Mainframe) Pennsylvania State University Administrative Information Services - Infrastructure/Sysarc Rm 25 Shields Bldg., University Park, Pa. 16802 814-863-4739 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
FW: HFS Vs ZFs
Multi file system zfses are not going to be supported in a future release of z/OS. Don't go there. Jon Jon L. Veilleux [EMAIL PROTECTED] (860) 636-2683 -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom Marchant Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2006 12:37 PM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: HFS Vs ZFs On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 10:40:18 -0400, Bruce Black [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: HFS datasets hold a single USS file system, while zFS can hold multiple file systems. Didn't I see a recommendation from IBM a year or two ago not to put multiple file systems into a zFS? A statement of direction, maybe? Tom Marchant -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html - This e-mail may contain confidential or privileged information. If you think you have received this e-mail in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail and then delete this e-mail immediately. Thank you. Aetna -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: HFS Vs ZFs
On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 11:37:01 -0500, Tom Marchant [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 10:40:18 -0400, Bruce Black [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: HFS datasets hold a single USS file system, while zFS can hold multiple file systems. Didn't I see a recommendation from IBM a year or two ago not to put multiple file systems into a zFS? A statement of direction, maybe? Yes, since support is going away for them. You already can't share them across a sysplex in the most current release (z/OS 1.8). http://www-03.ibm.com/servers/eserver/zseries/zos/zos_sods.html z/OS V1.7 is planned to be the last release to allow mounting zFS file systems contained in multi-file system aggregates that are to be shared across systems in a sysplex. IBM has previously recommended that these multi-file system aggregates not be shared in a sysplex environment. Once this support has been removed, attempts to mount zFS file systems contained in multi-file system aggregates will fail in a z/OS UNIX shared file system environment. Mounting zFS compatibility mode aggregates, which have a single file system per data set, will continue to be supported in all environments. AND In a future release, IBM plans to withdraw support for zFS multi-file system aggregates. When this support is withdrawn, only zFS compatibility mode aggregates will be supported. (A zFS compatibility mode aggregate has a single file system per data set.) Regards, Mark -- Mark Zelden Sr. Software and Systems Architect - z/OS Team Lead Zurich North America / Farmers Insurance Group mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] z/OS and OS390 expert at http://searchDataCenter.com/ateExperts/ Mark's MVS Utilities: http://home.flash.net/~mzelden/mvsutil.html -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: HFS Vs ZFs
Tom Marchant wrote: On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 10:40:18 -0400, Bruce Black [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: HFS datasets hold a single USS file system, while zFS can hold multiple file systems. Didn't I see a recommendation from IBM a year or two ago not to put multiple file systems into a zFS? A statement of direction, maybe? Give that man a cigar! z/OS V1.7 is planned to be the last release to allow mounting zFS file systems contained in multi-file system aggregates that are to be shared across systems in a sysplex. IBM has previously recommended that these multi-file system aggregates not be shared in a sysplex environment. Once this support has been removed, attempts to mount zFS file systems contained in multi-file system aggregates will fail in a z/OS UNIX shared file system environment. Mounting zFS compatibility mode aggregates, which have a single file system per data set, will continue to be supported in all environments. And: In a future release, IBM plans to withdraw support for zFS multi-file system aggregates. When this support is withdrawn, only zFS compatibility mode aggregates will be supported. (A zFS compatibility mode aggregate has a single file system per data set.) See: http://www-03.ibm.com/servers/eserver/zseries/zos/zos_sods.html for all the statements of direction. -- John Eells z/OS Technical Marketing IBM Poughkeepsie [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: HFS Vs ZFs
Okay, I know (hope) I'll see this in the manual, but would like to ask ahead of time. IF HFS is indeed going away and zFS is the way to go, does that mean there is a shared zFS ala HFS? At 11:47 AM 9/11/2006, you wrote: Tom Marchant wrote: On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 10:40:18 -0400, Bruce Black [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: HFS datasets hold a single USS file system, while zFS can hold multiple file systems. Didn't I see a recommendation from IBM a year or two ago not to put multiple file systems into a zFS? A statement of direction, maybe? Give that man a cigar! z/OS V1.7 is planned to be the last release to allow mounting zFS file systems contained in multi-file system aggregates that are to be shared across systems in a sysplex. IBM has previously recommended that these multi-file system aggregates not be shared in a sysplex environment. Once this support has been removed, attempts to mount zFS file systems contained in multi-file system aggregates will fail in a z/OS UNIX shared file system environment. Mounting zFS compatibility mode aggregates, which have a single file system per data set, will continue to be supported in all environments. And: In a future release, IBM plans to withdraw support for zFS multi-file system aggregates. When this support is withdrawn, only zFS compatibility mode aggregates will be supported. (A zFS compatibility mode aggregate has a single file system per data set.) See: http://www-03.ibm.com/servers/eserver/zseries/zos/zos_sods.html for all the statements of direction. -- John Eells z/OS Technical Marketing IBM Poughkeepsie [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html Brian W. France Systems Administrator (Mainframe) Pennsylvania State University Administrative Information Services - Infrastructure/Sysarc Rm 25 Shields Bldg., University Park, Pa. 16802 814-863-4739 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: HFS Vs ZFs
Brian France wrote: Okay, I know (hope) I'll see this in the manual, but would like to ask ahead of time. IF HFS is indeed going away and zFS is the way to go, does that mean there is a shared zFS ala HFS? Who said HFS was going away? -- Edward E Jaffe Phoenix Software International, Inc 5200 W Century Blvd, Suite 800 Los Angeles, CA 90045 310-338-0400 x318 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.phoenixsoftware.com/ -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: HFS Vs ZFs
In a message dated 9/11/2006 10:04:12 P.M. Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Who said HFS was going away? You did! Not true. zFS is the replacement for HFS, which has been stabilized. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: HFS Vs ZFs
Ed Finnell wrote: In a message dated 9/11/2006 10:04:12 P.M. Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Who said HFS was going away? You did! Not true. zFS is the replacement for HFS, which has been stabilized. I might very well have accurately stated that HFS has been functionally stabilized. I'm sure I *never* erroneously stated that HFS was going away. -- Edward E Jaffe Phoenix Software International, Inc 5200 W Century Blvd, Suite 800 Los Angeles, CA 90045 310-338-0400 x318 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.phoenixsoftware.com/ -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: HFS Vs ZFs
What's different between HFS ZFs, I am migrating a z/OS from 1.4 to 1.7.anyone comment or have experience on using ZFs...is it a good time to change from HFS or ZFsor stay at HFS I am sure that others will give you more details but here is a brief answer: They are similar in function: they hold files for use with USS (Unix System Services) on z/OS. HFS was the original implemention, zFS is newer and IBM now recommends zFS over HFS (which suggests HFS may go away someday). HFS datasets hold a single USS file system, while zFS can hold multiple file systems. I think most of the initial bugs in zFS have been fixed by now, so I think I would recommend zFS -- Bruce Black Senior Software Developer Innovation Data Processing -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: HFS Vs ZFs
On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 10:40:18 -0400, Bruce Black [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: HFS datasets hold a single USS file system, while zFS can hold multiple file systems. Didn't I see a recommendation from IBM a year or two ago not to put multiple file systems into a zFS? A statement of direction, maybe? Tom Marchant -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
HFS Vs ZFs
Hi, What's different between HFS ZFs, I am migrating a z/OS from 1.4 to 1.7.anyone comment or have experience on using ZFs...is it a good time to change from HFS or ZFsor stay at HFS Tommy -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Platform Advocacy (was: Re: HFS vs. zFS?)
In a recent note, Rob Wunderlich said: Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 10:02:04 -0600 On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 09:41:54 -0500, David Andrews [log in to unmask] wrote: z/OS is an awesome platform, but we really need as a group to get over this silly anti-Windows thing. Sorry, but um, no. We need to accommodate our Windows customers, sure -- they've been taken in and there's little we can do about THAT. But we don't have to further OUR OWN use of an unstable, inferior and insecure platform. I think the strongest shops are those that embrace both platforms. There are strengths in both, and applications for both. The decision to host an application on a particular platform is an it depends business decision that varies from shop to shop. I celebrate diversity. But what's dismaying here is the strict dyadic character of the language. It should be not both, but all; there are more than two platforms available. -- gil -- StorageTek INFORMATION made POWERFUL -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: HFS vs. zFS?
-Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Comstock Sent: Friday, November 11, 2005 1:38 AM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: HFS vs. zFS? snip Talk to me off list if you just want to show them a PDF file served from a mainframe. I'm sure I can arrange a demo of serving a PDF from our zPad (z/OS running on a ThinkPad). snip Kind regards, -Steve Comstock The Trainer's Friend, Inc. Thanks, but I already have a few PDFs on my z/OS HTTPD server. It works fine. Although, for some reason I cannot get it to work correctly with Firefox. Serving them to I.E. 6.0 works fine. Given the majority opinion here, I guess it just isn't worth the bother. I appreciate all the thoughts and ideas. -- John McKown Senior Systems Programmer UICI Insurance Center Information Technology This message (including any attachments) contains confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose, and its' content is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this message and are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this transmission, or taking any action based on it, is strictly prohibited. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: HFS vs. zFS?
Its funny that no one mentioned the most obvious place to keep documentation - printed in a 3 ring binder. Most of the procedures we need in operating our mainframe fit in one 2 binder. Certainly, any procedure that needs to be referenced when the system is down (IPL, SADump, Stand Alone Restore) should be available printed at the main operator station. I like Ed's thoughts quoted below. Keep the documentation on the platform it belongs to. I know our programming department required all of their doc to be in Word. We keep all of our systems doc in PDSs in Script. I just realized I haven't posted for quite a while. It seems like traffic in general on IBM-Main has been a lot less in the last few months, although yesterday had more posts than usual as of late. Eric Bielefeld PH Mining Equipment On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 00:37:58 -0800, Edward E. Jaffe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How funny! Using this reasoning, I should put all of my z/OS doc on Windows and all of my Windows doc on z/OS. That way if either is down I can use the other to read the doc (and hopefully get it back up). Do you /really/ put your Windows doc on z/OS?? My Linux doc resides on Linux. My Windows doc resides on Windows. My Mac OSX doc resides on Mac OSX. My OS/2 doc resides on OS/2. And -- believe it or not -- my z/OS doc resides on z/OS. I consider the practice of putting doc on an alternate platform to be inconvenient. And, in the case of z/OS, I want to retain the option of reading the doc directly from a TSO/E session. What do I do when my Windows desktop fails and I need to read the doc to (for example) remember how to reboot into Safe Mode? I simply read the doc from my laptop, also running Windows. And what do I do when (God forbid) one of my z/OS images fails and I need to read the doc to (for example) interpret a wait-state code or take a stand-alone dump? I simply access the doc, either directly or through the Library Server for z/OS web interface, via one of my *other* z/OS images in the same parallel sysplex. After all, I'm allowed to have more than one. Unplanned outages are precisely why we have concepts like sysplex-enabled VIPA fail-over in the first place! Sheesh! .-. | Edward E. Jaffe|| | Mgr, Research Development| [EMAIL PROTECTED]| | Phoenix Software International | Tel: (310) 338-0400 x318 | | 5200 W Century Blvd, Suite 800 | Fax: (310) 338-0801| | Los Angeles, CA 90045 | http://www.phoenixsoftware.com | '-' -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: HFS vs. zFS?
On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 09:41:54 -0500, David Andrews [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: z/OS is an awesome platform, but we really need as a group to get over this silly anti-Windows thing. Sorry, but um, no. We need to accommodate our Windows customers, sure -- they've been taken in and there's little we can do about THAT. But we don't have to further OUR OWN use of an unstable, inferior and insecure platform. I think the strongest shops are those that embrace both platforms. There are strengths in both, and applications for both. The decision to host an application on a particular platform is an it depends business decision that varies from shop to shop. You can be a sysprog for both z/os AND Windows. Much of the instability of the Windows platform is related to the maint practices of it's administrators, not the platform itself. Those practices are relatively immature, compared to 40+ years of MVS experience. How many unscheduled IPLs did you have 30 years ago? You can do a lot to improve the stability of Windows in your shop by sharing some of the reliability practices used in the administration of z/os. -Rob -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: HFS vs. zFS?
In a message dated 11/11/2005 8:59:18 A.M. Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I just realized I haven't posted for quite a while. It seems like traffic in general on IBM-Main has been a lot less in the last few months, although yesterday had more posts than usual as of late. I was hoping the transpolybuffoonery index(tpbi) was semi-self correcting. Alas, alack...There's no reason to have one copy of the DOCs! All vendors now have DOCS on CDs. Makes sense to have them globbed in with all the DOCS of the other platforms on the LAN. If you're paranoid, can have copies on individual PCs and if you're behind a firewall can share the silly things with anybody(except MAC). Hardcopy is nice and have the operator Commands, Messages and Codes and a few biggies bound to shelf. For D/R no DOC is provided so a copy of current vendor CDs is packed in each turtle shell. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: HFS vs. zFS?
On 11 Nov 2005 08:02:12 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob Wunderlich) wrote: I think the strongest shops are those that embrace both platforms. There are strengths in both, and applications for both. The decision to host an application on a particular platform is an it depends business decision that varies from shop to shop. I agree - there are cost benefit advantages for various tools doing various tasks. You can be a sysprog for both z/os AND Windows. Much of the instability of the Windows platform is related to the maint practices of it's administrators, not the platform itself. Those practices are relatively immature, compared to 40+ years of MVS experience. How many unscheduled IPLs did you have 30 years ago? You can do a lot to improve the stability of Windows in your shop by sharing some of the reliability practices used in the administration of z/os. Why should a business care for the reasons for the strengths or weaknesses of a particular tool?The reasons don't matter, only how effective that tool is right now. And that tool includes the administrators. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: HFS vs. zFS?
R.S. wrote: Demagoguery. Er, pardon?? I can put my Winodows doc (I could if I had any) on *another PC*. I have bunch of PCs in my shop, and even at home. I don't have too many mainframe CPCs, do you ? I remember pain in the **s, when, after POR, all the systems were un-IPLable. Co-worker updated IEASYS on each LPAR, and forgot the comma. I had documentation on PC near the console. That saved us. In case of PC failure (I had several), I simply take another PC. [...] We were discussing best practices for accessing doc under normal conditions, not about planning for the worst case scenario. My plans for such a disaster include having the z/OS 1.7 DVD (SK3T-4271-15) in my office drawer. Even if we lose power completely, I can read it on my laptop! FWIW, I keep certain key books on my laptop's hard disk as well. And, in the case of z/OS, I want to retain the option of reading the doc directly from a TSO/E session. Well, your choice. I prefer GUI navigation, but what's most important, I often need doco, when I'm in trouble: Logged on, and don't know what to do next. I simply choose another window on my PC, it's better than navigate on TSO to browse manual. Yes, I know I can have many screen in ISPF. I still want my Windows Bookreader. This just doesn't make sense. Nobody ever suggested prohibiting you from keeping a copy of any doc you want to have on your PC. My comments are directed toward managing a consolidated documentation repository in a robust a corporate infrastructure. z/OS does a fantastic job of providing this functionality across the Enterprise. That's not demagoguery. It's fact. -- - | Edward E. Jaffe|| | Mgr, Research Development| [EMAIL PROTECTED]| | Phoenix Software International | Tel: (310) 338-0400 x318 | | 5200 W Century Blvd, Suite 800 | Fax: (310) 338-0801| | Los Angeles, CA 90045 | http://www.phoenixsoftware.com | - -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: HFS vs. zFS?
What is the relative cost/gigabyte of storage Wintel vs. z/OS? Could you justify this increased cost if asked to? Now if it's ATM transactions in DB2, perhaps you can argue that improved RAS justifies that cost differential - but for a static database already backed up on CD/DVD? Why not load it onto three Windows servers in three different buildings - that should give you reliability approaching that of z/OS (and yes, it's an option that would not be suitable for ATM transactions). Chris raises a great point. You really should keep your z/OS doc on Windows - you're never going to need it more than when z/OS is down. z/OS is an awesome platform, but we really need as a group to get over this silly anti-Windows thing. Windows has its place, and serving up static documentation is a wonderful example. Charles -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Craddock, Chris Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 7:27 PM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: HFS vs. zFS? Well its late in the day and I just couldn't resist. So I'm a bad person. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that I want to keep all the z/OS documentation that I currently have on a Windows share on z/OS itself. I plan to put it all in z/OS UNIX files and serve it up via the HTTPD server. This avoids any dependance on the Windows server for our documentation. Was there any compelling reason to move them? Seems to me if your z/OS box is face down in the dirt for whatever reason, and you need doc in a hurry to get it upright again, that having the doc somewhere other than on the system that was down, or in trouble, was probably a good idea. Was there ever a time when you needed to access the doc (on windows) and couldn't? I'm not pushing the idea of putting it on windows, but if it's already there anyway why move it? Worst case I suppose you could just access it directly from the IBM pubs site and never need to update your own copy. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: HFS vs. zFS?
On Thu, 2005-11-10 at 08:22 -0500, Charles Mills wrote: Chris raises a great point. You really should keep your z/OS doc on Windows - you're never going to need it more than when z/OS is down. No need -- there's always the CD collection sitting on the bookshelf, or the online collection at ibm.com. z/OS is an awesome platform, but we really need as a group to get over this silly anti-Windows thing. Sorry, but um, no. We need to accommodate our Windows customers, sure -- they've been taken in and there's little we can do about THAT. But we don't have to further OUR OWN use of an unstable, inferior and insecure platform. We know better. -- David Andrews A. Duda and Sons, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: HFS vs. zFS?
Chris raises a great point. You really should keep your z/OS doc on Windows - you're never going to need it more than when z/OS is down. ... Back in the early 1980's, our operations manager had this really 'great' idea. He got us to consolidate all the notes, procedures, white-board info into one PDS on the mainframe and told us this was our 'bible'. From then on, nothing external was to be trusted. This worked fine until the first IPL (off the wrong SYSRES, of course). We printed the doc, his secretary was tasked with keeping it up to date (and printing updates), all while we broke in our new operations manual. -teD Me? A skeptic? I trust you have proof! -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
HFS vs. zFS?
Suppose, for the sake of argument, that I want to keep all the z/OS documentation that I currently have on a Windows share on z/OS itself. I plan to put it all in z/OS UNIX files and serve it up via the HTTPD server. This avoids any dependance on the Windows server for our documentation. The problem is that we only have 3390-3 sized volumes and don't want any other size. This means a single volume contains only about 2.8 Gb. The entire subdirectory that I would like to duplicate contain almost 6 Gb of data. This basically means two complete 3390-3 volumes to contain it. Should something this large be zFS? Or is HFS OK? Is there any documentation on the pros/cons of zFS vs. HFS? I have zFS implemented on my sandbox z/OS 1.6 system. But not on my production z/OS 1.4 system. Thanks for your thoughts. -- John McKown Senior Systems Programmer UICI Insurance Center Information Technology This message (including any attachments) contains confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose, and its' content is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this message and are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this transmission, or taking any action based on it, is strictly prohibited. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: HFS vs. zFS?
Well its late in the day and I just couldn't resist. So I'm a bad person. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that I want to keep all the z/OS documentation that I currently have on a Windows share on z/OS itself. I plan to put it all in z/OS UNIX files and serve it up via the HTTPD server. This avoids any dependance on the Windows server for our documentation. Was there any compelling reason to move them? Seems to me if your z/OS box is face down in the dirt for whatever reason, and you need doc in a hurry to get it upright again, that having the doc somewhere other than on the system that was down, or in trouble, was probably a good idea. Was there ever a time when you needed to access the doc (on windows) and couldn't? I'm not pushing the idea of putting it on windows, but if it's already there anyway why move it? Worst case I suppose you could just access it directly from the IBM pubs site and never need to update your own copy. The problem is that we only have 3390-3 sized volumes and don't want any other size. This means a single volume contains only about 2.8 Gb. You DO realize that's just slightly over 1% (a rounding error) of the 250GB disk inside the PC I am writing this on? And while I'm at it, who cares how big those volumes are? They're all emulated anyway. Seriously folks, we have to get over this space thing on z/OS. We look ridiculous. The entire subdirectory that I would like to duplicate contain almost 6 Gb of data. This basically means two complete 3390-3 volumes to contain it. So you wanna waste a whole 6 gigs of disk for doc! What a resource hog you are. I bet your storage administrator has to jiggle things left and right to accommodate your rampant storage profligacy. Sorry, I got carried away. Should something this large be zFS? Or is HFS OK? Something that large? snort, giggle, wipe tears Um sure, why not? Is there any documentation on the pros/cons of zFS vs. HFS? I have zFS implemented on my sandbox z/OS 1.6 system. But not on my production z/OS 1.4 system. zFS is the way to go because aside from the functional benefits of zFS, HFS has been functionally stabilized. You can do what you are suggesting easily enough. I just wonder whether it's worth the cost and aggravation. CC -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: HFS vs. zFS?
McKown, John wrote: Suppose, for the sake of argument, that I want to keep all the z/OS documentation that I currently have on a Windows share on z/OS itself. I plan to put it all in z/OS UNIX files and serve it up via the HTTPD server. This avoids any dependance on the Windows server for our documentation. We do exactly the same thing. Everyone is quite happy with it. We use the z/OS DFS/SMB server to make it all accessible to Windows users. We also use Library Server for z/OS so that our Windows, Linux, Mac OSX, and remote PDA users can access the information via browser interface. The problem is that we only have 3390-3 sized volumes and don't want any other size. This means a single volume contains only about 2.8 Gb. The entire subdirectory that I would like to duplicate contain almost 6 Gb of data. This basically means two complete 3390-3 volumes to contain it. I would work to eventually change that. Mod3s have their place (i.e., for paging), but not for this kind of storage. For real data we use a mixture of mod9s and so-called large volumes (61+ kcyls). We maintain several, very large multivolume zFS data sets. Should something this large be zFS? Or is HFS OK? Is there any documentation on the pros/cons of zFS vs. HFS? I have zFS implemented on my sandbox z/OS 1.6 system. But not on my production z/OS 1.4 system. Both zFS and HFS can span volumes. We use zFS for our DFS/SMB shares because it provides better performance. The kicker is that you can't quiesce/backup your zFS from another system in the sysplex on z/OS 1.6 or lower. I remember reading that this unfortunate restriction has been (or will be) lifted. Whether the fix is in z/OS 1.7 or the follow-on release, I'm not sure. In any case, HFS does not have this restriction. -- - | Edward E. Jaffe|| | Mgr, Research Development| [EMAIL PROTECTED]| | Phoenix Software International | Tel: (310) 338-0400 x318 | | 5200 W Century Blvd, Suite 800 | Fax: (310) 338-0801| | Los Angeles, CA 90045 | http://www.phoenixsoftware.com | - -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
