Hi,
I haven't actually tried this (let alone measured the result), but it
would seem to me that the only way you could gain from spreading the
data base across different volumes, would be if there were several
(parallel) queries to it, able to run concurrently to the different
physical data sets. This doens't look very likely to happen, especially
not for those operations for which you most want good data base
performance (e.g. large restores).
So, although I believe that for cached raid devices the difference will
be small either way, I'm thinking of "defragmentating" our data base to
less volumes. So if I'm wrong on this, I'll be happy to be corrected,
it'll save me the trouble.

Cheers,
Chris

ps: does anyone else experience that this ADSM data base gets very big
very quickly ?

>-----Original Message-----
>From:  Toora, Kuli [SMTP:kulbinder.toora AT MEB.CO DOT UK]
>Sent:  woensdag 16 juni 1999 15:44
>To:    ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
>Subject:       A question on Databases.
>
>Hello,
>
>I have a question on databases and the defining of database volumes in the
>os390 environment.
>
>- is it better to define several small database volumes on different
>physical DASD(disk) volumes rather than one big database volume on one DASD
>volume?.
>I would have thought that spreading the database volumes across different
>physial DASD volumes would be better. Does any one have any input on this?
>
>Thanks,
>
>Kuli.
>
>Kulbinder Toora
>01384 296191 x3498
>e-mail - Kulbinder.toora AT meb.co DOT uk
>Midlands Electricity
>
>================================================================
>This outgoing e-mail (and any attachments) has been checked
>(using Sophos SAVI 3.21 and Dr Solomon's v7.95) at MEB (UK 01384 296191)
>before despatch, and has been found to be clean from any virus infection.
>
>Virus queries - PC Tech Support (09 3521)
>E-mail system - External Postmaster (09 3673).
>
>================================================================