Load source versus virtual disks -- MIDRANGE-L

× The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.

Subject: Load source versus virtual disks
From: rob@xxxxxxxxx
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 15:55:05 -0400
List-archive: <http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l>
List-help: <mailto:midrange-l-request@midrange.com?subject=help>
List-id: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion <midrange-l.midrange.com>
List-post: <mailto:midrange-l@midrange.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l>, <mailto:midrange-l-request@midrange.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l>, <mailto:midrange-l-request@midrange.com?subject=unsubscribe>

I am hearing that load source sizes do not apply when using virtual disks.
For example, if PartitionA hosts PartitionB then I could have twenty 20GB
drives on PartitionB, for example, and not be concerned about the 35GB
load source minimum.

If someone from IBM wants to know who I've heard this from I'll be happy
to reply offlist. Just double checking.

Rob Berendt

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

Follow-Ups:

Re: Load source versus virtual disks , Jim Oberholtzer

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.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 on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.