Re: share mainframe disk experience
- From: tpuddico@xxxxxxx (Thomas H Puddicombe)
- Date: 3 Aug 2010 05:55:37 -0700
I agree - 400,000 SSCH/sec @ .7ms is fast. Curious as to the
configuration of both the channel subsystem and the USP-V.
Tom Puddicombe
Mainframe Performance & Capacity Planning
CSC
71 Deerfield Rd, Meriden, CT 06450
ITIS | (860) 428-3252 | tpuddico@xxxxxxx | www.csc.com
This is a PRIVATE message. If you are not the intended recipient, please
delete without copying and kindly advise us by e-mail of the mistake in
delivery.
NOTE: Regardless of content, this e-mail shall not operate to bind CSC to
any order or other contract unless pursuant to explicit written agreement
or government initiative expressly permitting the use of e-mail for such
purpose.
From:
Ron Hawkins <ron.hawkins1960@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To:
IBM-MAIN@xxxxxxxxxxx
Date:
08/03/2010 03:14 AM
Subject:
Re: share mainframe disk experience
Brian,
I'll agree with this to some extent if all you want to do is write a file,
read and update it a few times, and then delete it.
However when it comes to Business Continuance, Interoperability,
Virtualization, and other not so traditional features I don't agree that
one
can just go out and by 'NO-NAME' generic mainframe DASD, plug it in and
expect it to automatically meet all your needs. This where each vendor has
strengths and weaknesses that may or may not be relevant to you companies
not-so-traditional DASD requirements.
Old Sharks are very fast? I have some difficulty with that one. A USP-V
doing nearly 400,000 SSCH/sec with 0.7ms response time is what I call
fast,
and that's without zHPF.
Ron
-----Original Message-----Behalf Of
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@xxxxxxxxxxx] On
Brian Westermannow
Sent: Monday, August 02, 2010 11:23 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [IBM-MAIN] share mainframe disk experience
I hate to admit it, but Ted is absolutely right.
Most (I want to say all, but just can't commit to it:) vendors units are
very reliable, and even older RVAs, like IBM Shark are very reliable and
are very reasonably priced.can
Mostly what you get now is increased speed and capacity with a smaller
footprint and less energy usage, but even the old Sharks are VERY fast.
Unless you have some mission critical stuff, or applications that have
requirements that are far above what the older hardware can handle, you
end up saving upwards of 90% of the cost of a comparable (and faster)new
unit. If you need the extra features, then by all means, buy it. Ifyou
don't then why spend money you don't have to?
Brian
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to listserv@xxxxxxxxxxx with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to listserv@xxxxxxxxxxx with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to listserv@xxxxxxxxxxx with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
.
- References:
- Re: share mainframe disk experience
- From: Brian Westerman
- Re: share mainframe disk experience
- Prev by Date: Re: History of Hard-coded Offsets (Was: TSSO problems)
- Next by Date: Re: History of Hard-coded Offsets
- Previous by thread: Re: share mainframe disk experience
- Next by thread: Re: share mainframe disk experience
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
