The LPARs are anywhere between 15 and 30 virtual drives all at 35GB right now. I'm going to set up at least two or more vSCSI controllers on each, so we can vitrualize tape/dvd on one then have the others for storage.

Jim Oberholtzer
Chief Technical Architect
Agile Technology Architects

On 10/16/13 6:56 PM, Sue Baker wrote:
Jim Oberholtzer<midrangel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote on Wed, 16
Oct 2013 22:28:42 GMT:

>Any reason to change those too? Now is
>the time to make that decision.
I'm sure you've seen the discussion between Larry and Evan.

I disagree with the approach of having large LS with *ENDALC
specified and the remaining drives smaller. While it does
indeed limit writes of new stuff from going to the load source,
it means you are effectively operating with 5 instead of 6 units
when you're taking the approach of allocating the least amount
of stuff to the IBM i LPAR.

You don't mention how many units are in your customer's
environment, so it's somewhat difficult to give a definitive

I would say that if you're going to attempt to mimic your
customer's environment with lots fewer virtual drives & physcial
resource than what they have for physical drives but you have
the space, try to keep the sizes the same and don't use *ENDALC.

If your going to be space constrained, then your only choice
might be to use Larry's *ENDALC strategy but instead of 6 total
VSCSI units you go with 7 ... LS @ 70G with *ENDALC plus 6 35G.
Yup, it's 70G more than the original plan, but that's much
better than 210 G more than you originally planned.

-- Sue IBM Americas Advanced Technical Skills (ATS) Power Systems Rochester, MN

This thread ...


Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page