ADSM-L

Re: stk 9840

2000-09-08 09:34:30
Subject: Re: stk 9840
From: Bill Colwell <bcolwell AT DRAPER DOT COM>
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 09:28:58 -0400
Lesley,

We got 9840's very early and 3590 emulation wasn't available.
At the time we were running adsm 3.1 & tsm 3.7 didn't exist, so
there was no performance difference.  You should choose 3590
emulation if there are no strong reasons for doing 3490 emulation.

If your site is os/390 and has dfsms-hsm, you definitely want
3590 for block count reasons.

--
--------------------------
--------------------------
Bill Colwell
Bill Colwell
C. S. Draper Lab
Cambridge, Ma.
bcolwell AT draper DOT com
--------------------------
In <BFD9823CDDEDD11194710008C728AE6901B2352E AT nzwnm201.nz.eds DOT com>, on 
09/08/00
In <BFD9823CDDEDD11194710008C728AE6901B2352E AT nzwnm201.nz.eds DOT com>, on 
09/08/00
   at 09:28 AM, "Walker, Lesley R" <lesley.walker AT EDS DOT COM> said:

>Bill Colwell [SMTP:bcolwell AT DRAPER DOT COM] wrote:
>> TAPEIOBUFS came in with 3.7.  All my storage pools are
>> on stk 9840s but they are emulating 3490's.  I have tapeiobufs set
>> to 9 anyway;  after the storage pools were in use, we
>> got some 9840's in 3590 mode.  I hoped that I could do the dbb
>> to the 3590s and it would be faster but it wasn't.
>>
>Just out of curiosity, why do you have the 9840s emulating 3490s and 3590s?
>Is there an advantage to doing this, or is it just for compatibility with
>pre-existing tapes?

>The reason I ask is because I am in the throes of setting up a new
>implementation with STK 9840s (in a Powderhorn) and I don't know a lot about
>tapes yet.
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>