I would say if you think you might grow it, start with 4 LUNs, not 6.  I think 
I heard somewhere that fewer DB volumes are better and too many can be a 
problem.  I have no experience with this.  Most of our databases are on 2-3 
volumes.

At 02:47 PM 4/17/2013, James R Owen wrote:
>Seeking your experienced advice or reasoned opinion:
>
>We have a TSMv5.5.7 service with very fragmented 500GB DB @ 76% utilized
>but only 8% reduceable.  As soon as possible we will start TSMv5->v6
>migration to new 1200GB DB and 200GB Log.   Another TSMv6 service with
>800GB DB @ ~50% utilized performs well using 4 * 200GB LUNs = PVs = LVs
>= JFS2 FileSpaces  (with 1 each per 200GB LUN on fast NetApp disk.)
>
>For this TSMv5->v6.3.3 conversion, using same fast disk, which TSMv6 DB
>config is better practice?
>
>   a)   6 * 200GB LUNs  (LUN = PV = LV = FileSpace)
>   b)   4 * 300GB LUNs  ...
>
>We might eventually need to incrementally grow this TSMv6 DB up to twice
>initial size adding similar sized LUNs!
>
>--
>jim.owen AT yale DOT edu   (w#203.432.6693, c#203.494.9201, h#203.387.3030)


--
Paul Zarnowski                            Ph: 607-255-4757
Manager of Storage Services               Fx: 607-255-8521
IT at Cornell / Infrastructure            Em: psz1 AT cornell DOT edu
719 Rhodes Hall, Ithaca, NY 14853-3801