Systems)
Administrator, Executive, Financial Domain Division
WHS/ITMD/AEFDD
703-697-2305
Rate Our Service
-Original Message-
From: David Boyes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2006 11:19 AM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: 3390 Mod 3 verses 3390 Mod 9s
I have a question that pertains to performance.
We currently have 3390 mod 3 defined volumes. The customer requires a
larger mini disk size than what will fit on a 3390 mod 3. We are planning
to create 3390 mod 9s for their larger mini disks. Would someone explain
the performance hit that
We currently have 3390 mod 3 defined volumes. The customer requires a
larger mini disk size than what will fit on a 3390 mod 3. We are
planning
to create 3390 mod 9s for their larger mini disks.
If it's a CMS user, use SFS. That's exactly what it's for, and all those
restrictions are pretty
.
Thank you.
Cecelia Dusha
-Original Message-
From: Schuh, Richard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 12:48 PM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: 3390 Mod 3 verses 3390 Mod 9s
Tom and Co.,
I see no statement that there is any intent to combine the 3 existing
VM supports PAV for guests. I don't think it does, or needs to, support
it natively.
PAV is a chargable feature on the DS6800. I elected not to buy it on
our DS6800.
Tom Duerbusch
THD Consulting
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 4/25/2006 12:17 PM
Presently the application is split onto several disks.
