Not all catalogs are good candidates to VLF.
You should revise some high-modified ucats (like ucats of Control-D,
Spazio, ...) that must be out from ISC and VLF.
We've also MCAT in ISC.
Bye
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe /
As part of a drive to increase catalog performance, I am thinking of moving a
couple of our catalogs from ISC to VLF caching. A limited test I have done
seems to show that it would help, but I am interested in hearing whether you
folks out there (or as we say around here, y'all) use VLF or ISC
vs ISC for catalogs
As part of a drive to increase catalog performance, I am thinking of
moving a couple of our catalogs from ISC to VLF caching. A limited test
I have done seems to show that it would help, but I am interested in
hearing whether you folks out there (or as we say around here, y'all
Subject: Re: VLF vs ISC for catalogs
ISC limits the amount of cache used for each catalog, and ISC is a
dumb cache when compared to VLF.
When a catalog using ISC is shared with multiple systems and the Catalog
Address Space (CAS) detects an update from another system, CAS will
invalidate all the records
you folks out there (or as we say around here, y'all) use VLF or ISC for
your hard-hit catalogs.
I put all the TSO catalogues, and our Production Catalogue (everything started
with the same HLQ) into VLF, years ago.
And, the last thing I did in that former life was enlarge the allocated
A little off the subject..
I don't see where it's off the subject -- it's still regarding VLF.
if you are not sharing catalogs is it still a
good idea to put the catalogs in VLF?
Yes, if the catalogues are very active.
ISC still has a fixed amount of memory.
-
Too busy driving to stop for
6 matches
Mail list logo
