In a PBHA environment (e.g. using two systems, or within the same site as in your case), I would recommend using multiple volumes rather than a single monolithic 60 TB volume, for these reasons:
-
Replication load balancing: Multiple volumes can be spread across volume groups and I/O groups so replication traffic is balanced. This helps avoid bottlenecks or a single hotspot.
-
Redundancy / isolation: If one volume or VG hits an issue (e.g. replication, journal resource exhaustion), others may still function.
-
Manageability & flexibility: You can grow, migrate, rebalance or tune individual volumes independently.
-
Risk containment: Smaller units reduce blast radius in case of any internal problem or failure.
-
IBM's own caution: As mentioned, IBM suggests having multiple replicating volume groups per I/O group, rather than relying on a single VG handling everything under PBHA. public.dhe.ibm.com+1
-
Avoid single-group bottlenecks: The release notes explicitly mention potential node warmstarts or performance impacts if only one VG is replicating in an I/O group. public.dhe.ibm.com
So in your scenario of ~60 TB, splitting it into multiple volumes (for example, 10 volumes of 6 TB each) is a safer and more flexible approach, especially when the two PBHA nodes are in the same site.
You should also ensure your interconnect (ISL / replication link) bandwidth and latency are sized adequately to handle the aggregated write load, and that the journal / replication resources in the PBHA nodes are sufficient for that many volumes.
------------------------------
Mustapha Gbogboade
------------------------------