Re: HFS vs. zFS?

2005-11-09 Thread Craddock, Chris
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.

Re: HFS vs. zFS?

2005-11-09 Thread Edward E. Jaffe
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 do

Re: HFS vs. zFS?

2005-11-10 Thread Charles Mills
on 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

Re: HFS vs. zFS?

2005-11-10 Thread McKown, John
> -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Craddock, Chris > Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 6:27 PM > To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU > Subject: Re: HFS vs. zFS? > > > Well its late in the day and I just co

Re: HFS vs. zFS?

2005-11-10 Thread David Andrews
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

Re: HFS vs. zFS?

2005-11-10 Thread Ted MacNEIL
>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

Re: HFS vs. zFS?

2005-11-10 Thread Steve Comstock
McKown, John wrote: -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Craddock, Chris Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 6:27 PM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: HFS vs. zFS? Well its late in the day and I just couldn't resist. S

Re: HFS vs. zFS?

2005-11-11 Thread Edward E. Jaffe
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. 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

Re: HFS vs. zFS?

2005-11-11 Thread R.S.
Edward E. Jaffe wrote: 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. How funny! Using this "reasoning", I should put all of my z/OS doc on Windows and all of my Windows doc on

Re: HFS vs. zFS?

2005-11-11 Thread Walter Marguccio
--- "Edward E. Jaffe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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-

Re: HFS vs. zFS?

2005-11-11 Thread McKown, John
> -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? > > Talk to me off list if you just want to show

Re: HFS vs. zFS?

2005-11-11 Thread Eric Bielefeld
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

Re: HFS vs. zFS?

2005-11-11 Thread Rob Wunderlich
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

Re: HFS vs. zFS?

2005-11-11 Thread Ed Finnell
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 lat

Re: HFS vs. zFS?

2005-11-11 Thread Howard Brazee
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 >

Re: HFS vs. zFS?

2005-11-11 Thread Edward E. Jaffe
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

Re: HFS Vs ZFs

2006-09-10 Thread Bruce Black
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 func

Re: HFS Vs ZFs

2006-09-10 Thread Tom Marchant
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, mayb

Re: HFS Vs ZFs

2006-09-11 Thread Mark Zelden
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

Re: HFS Vs ZFs

2006-09-11 Thread John Eells
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 state

Re: HFS Vs ZFs

2006-09-11 Thread Brian France
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 <[

Re: HFS Vs ZFs

2006-09-11 Thread Edward Jaffe
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 52

Re: HFS Vs ZFs

2006-09-11 Thread Ed Finnell
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-M

Re: HFS Vs ZFs

2006-09-11 Thread Edward Jaffe
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 fun

Re: HFS Vs ZFs

2006-09-12 Thread Brian France
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 man

Re: hfs VS zfs

2010-01-04 Thread Jerry Whitteridge
> -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 plannin

Re: hfs VS zfs

2010-01-04 Thread McKown, John
> -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- > &g

Re: hfs VS zfs

2010-01-04 Thread Schwarz, Barry A
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

Re: hfs VS zfs

2010-01-04 Thread Ted MacNEIL
>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

Re: hfs VS zfs

2010-01-04 Thread Richard Peurifoy
On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 12:07:22 -0800, Schwarz, Barry A 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

Re: hfs VS zfs

2010-01-04 Thread McKown, John
> -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, Sc

Re: hfs VS zfs

2010-01-04 Thread Richard Peurifoy
On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 15:30:36 -0600, McKown, John 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 >&

Re: hfs VS zfs

2010-01-04 Thread McKown, John
> -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 > >Is that needed even if I do > > >

Re: hfs VS zfs

2010-01-05 Thread Scott Chapman
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, m

Re: hfs VS zfs

2010-01-05 Thread Jim Marshall
>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

Re: HFS Vs ZFs

2007-11-24 Thread Mike Hill
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 e

Re: HFS Vs ZFs

2007-11-24 Thread Wayne Driscoll
lf 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 w

Platform Advocacy (was: Re: HFS vs. zFS?)

2005-11-12 Thread Paul Gilmartin
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. > > > >So