We've changed our DR procedures to use RAW when we go to Sungard or IBM
Sterling Forest. For a 65GB database, this cut an hour off the recovery
time! First to create the filesystem and then to DSMFMT the volumes.

This is a dedicated TSM server on a p630 with SHARK disk. I don't think
they'll notice the difference in RAW or JFS and if JFS makes them happy..so
be it. I mostly wanted to know for myself. I'll checkout the "gospel".

Bill

-----Original Message-----
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU]On Behalf Of
Richard Sims
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 9:54 AM
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Subject: Re: RAW vs. JFS question


>The "new" TSM runing guide recommends using RAW volumes for performance
>reasons. I have a client that doesn't want to go RAW because the JFS
logging
>goes away. I'm not that AIX savy to be able to argue one way or the other
>with him...

Bill -

See "The Advantages of Using Journal File System Files" in the Admin Guide
for the gospel.  Not that two IBM sources might give conflicting
recommendations...

The biggest undocumented issue with raw volumes is in "visibility": site
management typically involves a bunch of people who are not always cognizant
of everything: without a file system on the volume, its purpose and usage is
far less apparent than a volume with a well-defined and readily viewable
file system.  This greatly increases the probability of "accidents"...very
expensive accidents.

   Richard Sims, BU