First I want to thank all of you that responded.
The gist of the responses tells me that I may be giving z/OS allocation
logic too much credit. Not what I hoped for of course but this is why we
do testing - right?
The cigar goes to John Kington who suggested allocating my eight data
sets in a si
Raymond,
Are all of the SMS managed volumes in ENABLE status? Maybe one of the
volumes
is in QUIESCE status or even DISABLE or DISABLE, NEW.
Regards,
John
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send em
Raymond's point is excellent. It is also possible that there was not
adequate space or there was some other constraint at the time SMS made the
decisions. It would be interesting to see if you got the exact same
results at different periods, repeating the same experiment.
I think I'm in trouble
You may want to look at the DFSMSdfp Storage Administration Reference topic
6.6, SMS Volume Selection for Data Set Allocation. This discusses in
detail the criteria used by DFSMS for volume selection.
Have a nice day,
Dave Betten
DFSORT Development, Performance Lead
IBM Corporation
email: [EMAIL
sday, June 15, 2006 12:41 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: z/OS DASD Allocation using Esoterics
You may want to look at the DFSMSdfp Storage Administration Reference topic
6.6, SMS Volume Selection for Data Set Allocation. This discusses in
detail the criteria used by DFSMS for volume
Raymond,
Follow up question: what is the reason that you want the datasets spread
over the volumes, load balancing / contention?
There is intelligent software that can handle this: Dynamic PAV
management. You mentioned you are running WLM Goal mode. If you have PAV
capable storage, you can have WL
6 matches
Mail list logo
