At 12:06 AM -0500 10/23/02, Chris Gibes said:

You are absolutely correct.  Co-location is by storage pool, not by
management class.  So yes, you would need to carve your disk up into
multiple storage pools to selectively use co-location,

Thanks for the confirmation

my guess is that it's
not viable to add more disk (or you're on one of those platforms where
disk is not "cheap"...)

Expenditures are always political.  Management is always more willing
to spend huge gobs of money into a new disaster than drop a few more
pennies into an existing one.  And I'm more concerned about the
management headaches than the cost, as you point out ..

the total amount of disk and the total amount
being backed up are going to be the same regardless of how many pools
you have, so carving one big pool up, shouldn't be that big of an issue,

true, but

as long as you put some planning into the size of the disk pools.

There's the catch.  We can't plan more than 30 minutes into the
future around here.  It's easier to manage one big chunk of something
than a bunch of little chunks.  If we carve up our disk pools based
on today's "plan", we'll have to re-configure them tomorrow.  Our
database has already exceeded the allocation that IBM told us was way
bigger than we'd ever need, and we haven't even finished the
installation yet.
--


Matt Simpson --  OS/390 Support
219 McVey Hall  -- (859) 257-2900 x300
University Of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40506
<mailto:msimpson AT uky DOT edu>
mainframe --   An obsolete device still used by thousands of obsolete
companies serving billions of obsolete customers and making huge obsolete
profits for their obsolete shareholders.  And this year's run twice as fast
as last year's.