Jim Oberholtzer<midrangel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote on Wed, 16
Oct 2013 22:28:42 GMT:
>Any reason to change those too? Now isI'm sure you've seen the discussion between Larry and Evan.
>the time to make that decision.
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 mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2015 by MIDRANGE dot COM and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available here. If you have questions about this, please contact