Re: [Bulk] Re: [IBM-MAIN] [Bulk] Re: [IBM-MAIN] General question on moving DFHSM work from mix TAPE/DASD to More DASD

Hi Clark, the current max size is 1 TB. We've been steadily increasing the size to keep up with our largest customers who are pushing the limits for the amount of online data that they manage. Glenn -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe /

Re: [Bulk] Re: [IBM-MAIN] [Bulk] Re: [IBM-MAIN] General question on moving DFHSM work from mix TAPE/DASD to More DASD

On 27 Aug 2014 09:30:27 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote: >Hi Ron, > >I agree with everything that you say about cu tiering, except for the fact >that a migration tier is no longer necessary. CU tiering is an exciting new >storage opportunity for ILM. I'd like to discuss this topic wi

Re: [Bulk] Re: [IBM-MAIN] [Bulk] Re: [IBM-MAIN] General question on moving DFHSM work from mix TAPE/DASD to More DASD

Hi Ron, I agree with everything that you say about cu tiering, except for the fact that a migration tier is no longer necessary. CU tiering is an exciting new storage opportunity for ILM. I'd like to discuss this topic with you the next time that you attend SHARE or the Technical University.

Re: [Bulk] Re: [IBM-MAIN] [Bulk] Re: [IBM-MAIN] General question on moving DFHSM work from mix TAPE/DASD to More DASD

] On Behalf Of Shane Ginnane Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 3:41 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: [Bulk] Re: [IBM-MAIN] [Bulk] Re: [IBM-MAIN] General question on moving DFHSM work from mix TAPE/DASD to More DASD On Tue, 26 Aug 2014 00:18:21 -0700, Ron Hawkins wrote: >... but I drank

Re: [Bulk] Re: [IBM-MAIN] [Bulk] Re: [IBM-MAIN] General question on moving DFHSM work from mix TAPE/DASD to More DASD

ssage- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Glenn Wilcock Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 10:05 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: [Bulk] Re: [IBM-MAIN] [Bulk] Re: [IBM-MAIN] General question on moving DFHSM work from mix TAPE/DASD to More DA

Re: [Bulk] Re: [IBM-MAIN] General question on moving DFHSM work from mix TAPE/DASD to More DASD

While control unit storage tiering may be considered as a replacement to HSM processing for smaller environments, such a recommendation is an over simplification of the need for a comprehensive ILM strategy to properly manage data in middle-to-large environments. At the various conferences that

Re: [Bulk] Re: [IBM-MAIN] General question on moving DFHSM work from mix TAPE/DASD to More DASD

[mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Pommier, Rex Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 10:07 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: [Bulk] Re: [IBM-MAIN] General question on moving DFHSM work from mix TAPE/DASD to More DASD Ron, One of your explanation paragraphs caught my attention so I&#

Re: [Bulk] Re: [IBM-MAIN] [Bulk] Re: [IBM-MAIN] General question on moving DFHSM work from mix TAPE/DASD to More DASD

Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 7:07 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: [Bulk] Re: [IBM-MAIN] [Bulk] Re: [IBM-MAIN] General question on moving DFHSM work from mix TAPE/DASD to More DASD Ron, One of your explanation paragraphs caught my attention so I'm asking out of curiosity, for m

Re: [Bulk] Re: [IBM-MAIN] [Bulk] Re: [IBM-MAIN] General question on moving DFHSM work from mix TAPE/DASD to More DASD

IN] General question on moving DFHSM work from mix TAPE/DASD to More DASD On Tue, 26 Aug 2014 00:18:21 -0700, Ron Hawkins wrote: >A three tier strategy using HDD or SSD for Tier 1, Nearline SAS for >ML2, and virtualized Brand-X midrange storage for Tier 3 presents a new >paradigm

Re: [Bulk] Re: [IBM-MAIN] General question on moving DFHSM work from mix TAPE/DASD to More DASD

Ron, One of your explanation paragraphs caught my attention so I'm asking out of curiosity, for my own benefit. What I find important is there is no data transformation or recall latency: it is all transparent to the application. You have to read 12 months of General Ledger files or SMF data s

Re: [Bulk] Re: [IBM-MAIN] General question on moving DFHSM work from mix TAPE/DASD to More DASD

On Tue, 26 Aug 2014 00:18:21 -0700, Ron Hawkins wrote: >A three tier strategy using HDD or SSD for Tier 1, Nearline SAS >for ML2, and virtualized Brand-X midrange storage for Tier 3 presents a new >paradigm for archiving inactive and dormant data sets, including back-ups, >that I believe over ti

Re: [Bulk] Re: [IBM-MAIN] General question on moving DFHSM work from mix TAPE/DASD to More DASD

On Tue, 26 Aug 2014 00:18:21 -0700, Ron Hawkins wrote: >... but I drank the cool-aid back in 1994 with Iceberg That explains s much :0) Not that I'm about to argue storage tiering with you. Shane ... -- For IBM-MAIN

Re: [Bulk] Re: [IBM-MAIN] General question on moving DFHSM work from mix TAPE/DASD to More DASD

] On Behalf Of Lizette Koehler Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2014 12:19 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: [Bulk] Re: [IBM-MAIN] General question on moving DFHSM work from mix TAPE/DASD to More DASD The driving force is the Mgt team is familiar with NetBackup and Other Open system software that d

Re: General question on moving DFHSM work from mix TAPE/DASD to More DASD

Hi Lizette, A couple of years ago, I spoke with another customer at SHARE who did this successfully. As the other threads indicate, the most important action is to size your disk requirements. I'll send you an unofficial document that provides some things to consider when converting from an H

Re: General question on moving DFHSM work from mix TAPE/DASD to More DASD

In , on 08/23/2014 at 11:04 AM, TonyIcloud-OPERA said: >Yes, 1988. We had abundant spinning DASD since that's the only kind >that existed. 2305 clones. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT ISO position; see We don't care. W

Re: General question on moving DFHSM work from mix TAPE/DASD to More DASD

On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 2:19 PM, Lizette Koehler wrote: > The driving force is the Mgt team is familiar with NetBackup and Other Open > system software that does backup. They do not understand mainframe. > > I have been unsuccessful in explaining it is MORE THAN BACKUP on the > mainframe. And w

Re: General question on moving DFHSM work from mix TAPE/DASD to More DASD

on List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On >> Behalf Of TonyIcloud-OPERA >> Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2014 9:04 AM >> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU >> Subject: Re: General question on moving DFHSM work from mix TAPE/DASD to >> More DASD >> >> Yes, 1988.

Re: General question on moving DFHSM work from mix TAPE/DASD to More DASD

M-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On > Behalf Of TonyIcloud-OPERA > Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2014 9:04 AM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: Re: General question on moving DFHSM work from mix TAPE/DASD to > More DASD > > Yes, 1988. We had abundant spinning DASD since that's the

Re: General question on moving DFHSM work from mix TAPE/DASD to More DASD

Yes, 1988. We had abundant spinning DASD since that's the only kind that existed. It was a small MVS shop that IBM provided ($$) generously. Usual questions: 1. Do you have enough disk? No guessing allowed. 2. Is the tape mount scenario driving this plan? 2. Will it complicate your DR? 3. Wil

General question on moving DFHSM work from mix TAPE/DASD to More DASD

We are z/OS V1.12 We are considering changing from a mix of Tape and Disk for HSM functions. So ML2 would go away or be very reduced ML1 would be expanded BACKUP and ABARS would be directed to DASD. Has anyone done this? If so, what were some of the experiences?  Did you find the increase in da