<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: New disks for AS/400</title>
	<atom:link href="http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/itanswers/new-disks-for-as400/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/itanswers/new-disks-for-as400/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 20 Jun 2013 06:31:43 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>By: jennymack</title>
		<link>http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/itanswers/new-disks-for-as400/#comment-72844</link>
		<dc:creator>jennymack</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Jan 2010 15:16:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-72844</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[DanD and Tom,

Great, thorough answers here -- thanks for helping out!]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>DanD and Tom,</p>
<p>Great, thorough answers here &#8212; thanks for helping out!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: tomliotta</title>
		<link>http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/itanswers/new-disks-for-as400/#comment-72816</link>
		<dc:creator>tomliotta</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Jan 2010 07:01:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-72816</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[One question to answer -- why would you &lt;i&gt;want&lt;/i&gt; to add two mirrored drives to the same ASP that already has a RAID set configured? Practically speaking, it doesn&#039;t make a lot of sense. I don&#039;t really see much advantage of adding such relatively large drives in with drives that are almost the same size in total as the added capacity you&#039;ll gain.

I suspect that there&#039;s going to be a significant imbalance in usage between the two sizes. You might be better served by deliberately creating a user ASP. You could assign specific libraries or objects to that ASP. I&#039;d want to look at object types that would best fit, perhaps large objects that are less frequently accessed and possibly in sequential mode, for example.

Mixing the sizes and types of protection will likely cause disk management to put effort into keeping individual objects completely on one set or the other anyway. I&#039;m not sure you&#039;d want objects scatter-loaded across the two sets.

Now, if you wanted to add two mirrored 36GB drives to a RAID set of 146GB drives, I&#039;d be far more comfortable with DanD&#039;s suggestion to mirror the load-source. But going the opposite way isn&#039;t giving me a very good feeling. (Load-source mirroring is indeed the most common setup.)

Tom]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>One question to answer &#8212; why would you <i>want</i> to add two mirrored drives to the same ASP that already has a RAID set configured? Practically speaking, it doesn&#8217;t make a lot of sense. I don&#8217;t really see much advantage of adding such relatively large drives in with drives that are almost the same size in total as the added capacity you&#8217;ll gain.</p>
<p>I suspect that there&#8217;s going to be a significant imbalance in usage between the two sizes. You might be better served by deliberately creating a user ASP. You could assign specific libraries or objects to that ASP. I&#8217;d want to look at object types that would best fit, perhaps large objects that are less frequently accessed and possibly in sequential mode, for example.</p>
<p>Mixing the sizes and types of protection will likely cause disk management to put effort into keeping individual objects completely on one set or the other anyway. I&#8217;m not sure you&#8217;d want objects scatter-loaded across the two sets.</p>
<p>Now, if you wanted to add two mirrored 36GB drives to a RAID set of 146GB drives, I&#8217;d be far more comfortable with DanD&#8217;s suggestion to mirror the load-source. But going the opposite way isn&#8217;t giving me a very good feeling. (Load-source mirroring is indeed the most common setup.)</p>
<p>Tom</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: tomliotta</title>
		<link>http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/itanswers/new-disks-for-as400/#comment-72769</link>
		<dc:creator>tomliotta</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Jan 2010 23:57:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-72769</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I need to dig into details in order to provide a complete How-To answer.

However, the basic answer is that you can add the two mirrored drives to ASP 1 (or the base system ASP, if that&#039;s what you expect); you don&#039;t need to create a new ASP for them.

Beyond that is the question of the proper procedure for getting it done correctly. You might want to wait for someone who does it on a regular basis. I do it too seldom to have it in mind.

Tom]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I need to dig into details in order to provide a complete How-To answer.</p>
<p>However, the basic answer is that you can add the two mirrored drives to ASP 1 (or the base system ASP, if that&#8217;s what you expect); you don&#8217;t need to create a new ASP for them.</p>
<p>Beyond that is the question of the proper procedure for getting it done correctly. You might want to wait for someone who does it on a regular basis. I do it too seldom to have it in mind.</p>
<p>Tom</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Page Caching using memcached
Database Caching 6/9 queries in 0.012 seconds using memcached
Object Caching 296/299 objects using memcached

Served from: itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com @ 2013-06-20 07:03:15 -->