chvg -t OR larger PP's?

From: TIM MUELLER (MUELLT@JFS.HAMILTON-CO.ORG)
Date: Wed Jul 17 2002 - 16:03:06 EDT

Next message: Bob Booth - UIUC: "Re: chvg -t OR larger PP's?"
Previous message: Fabrice Guerini: "Re: How can I search only a portion of a file?"
Next in thread: Bob Booth - UIUC: "Re: chvg -t OR larger PP's?"
Reply: Bob Booth - UIUC: "Re: chvg -t OR larger PP's?"
Maybe reply: Basim Chafik: "Re: chvg -t OR larger PP's?"
Maybe reply: justin.bleistein@SUNGARD.COM: "Re: chvg -t OR larger PP's?"
Maybe reply: Jolet, John: "Re: chvg -t OR larger PP's?"
Maybe reply: Green, Simon: "Re: chvg -t OR larger PP's?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

Our current production system has a VG using 8MB PPs. The system to which we will be upgrading to has larger drives and will require either 16MB PPs or the use of chvg -t in order to avoid the default limit of 1016 PPs per PV. I can't see any (dis)advantages to using one method over the other. Are there any? TIA.

-Tim

Tim Mueller
Hamilton County Dept. of Job & Family Services
Cincinnati, Ohio USA
muellt@jfs.hamilton-co.org

Next message: Bob Booth - UIUC: "Re: chvg -t OR larger PP's?"
Previous message: Fabrice Guerini: "Re: How can I search only a portion of a file?"
Next in thread: Bob Booth - UIUC: "Re: chvg -t OR larger PP's?"
Reply: Bob Booth - UIUC: "Re: chvg -t OR larger PP's?"
Maybe reply: Basim Chafik: "Re: chvg -t OR larger PP's?"
Maybe reply: justin.bleistein@SUNGARD.COM: "Re: chvg -t OR larger PP's?"
Maybe reply: Jolet, John: "Re: chvg -t OR larger PP's?"
Maybe reply: Green, Simon: "Re: chvg -t OR larger PP's?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Wed Apr 09 2008 - 22:16:04 EDT