Our top recommendation for improving DFSMShsm throughput is to use RLS for the
HSM CDSes. In nonRLS mode, each HSM locks access to the CDSes while it
performs its queued up I/O requests. While that host has the CDSes locked, all
other HSM hosts are queueing up their I/O. When a host gets excl
e-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of R.S.
Sent: 08 December, 2015 17:09
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: RLS implementation for CDS's in DFHSM
RLS does require CF (coupling facility).
Not everyone has CF.
Assuming one get inte
.
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Lizette Koehler
Sent: 08 December, 2015 14:03
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: RLS implementation for CDS's in DFHSM
So we just converted to RLS. We are not too worried about
R.S. wrote:
Q: What is the performance gain from having Catalog in RLS?
Well, that's a performance question, so the answer is "It depends."
In my opinion, any catalog contention you have for update activity is
likely to evaporate when it's accessed with RLS. The catalog-level lock
(SYSIGGV
t.net
or
jo.skip.robin...@gmail.com
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of R.S.
Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2015 8:09 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: (External):Re: RLS implementation for CDS's in DFHSM
RLS does
1. Never. Been doing this for a very long time.
2. No. See #1.
3. No. See #1.
.
.
.
J.O.Skip Robinson
Southern California Edison Company
Electric Dragon Team Paddler
SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager
626-302-7535 Office
323-715-0595 Mobile
jo.skip.robin...@sce.com
OR
jo.skip.robin...@att.net
OR
jo.ski
RLS does require CF (coupling facility).
Not everyone has CF.
Assuming one get internal CF for free, there's still effort to transform
monoplex to parallel sysplex (even single-member one). And the risk of
outage when something goes wrong.
Q: What is the performance gain from having Catalog in
Behalf
Of Vernooij, CP (ITOPT1) - KLM
Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2015 7:57 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: RLS implementation for CDS's in DFHSM
Is RLS really so few used or so scary?
I remember a quote from a z/OS course where RLS for Catalogs was introduced.
The Catalog p
So we just converted to RLS. We are not too worried about a CF failure as that
means other things would be broken.
I have seen on SMSVSAM issue that was self-inflicted.
So, at this time we have not had to do any type of recovery - it is very stable
And the benefits outweighed our concerns.
Lizet
Is RLS really so few used or so scary?
I remember a quote from a z/OS course where RLS for Catalogs was introduced.
The Catalog people asked the VSAM people all kinds of questions because they
were afraid of consequences. The VSAM people replied: come on, your catalog is
only a KSDS, so why are
Fingers crossed but we have been using it for quite a while with no issues.
Dan
On Tuesday, 8 December 2015, Kenneth J. Kripke wrote:
> This is an inquiry to see if there are shops that have implemented Record
> Level Sharing for their CDS's in DFHSM.
>
> 1. Concerns are how frequent have
11 matches
Mail list logo
