text: From a user’s perspective, no procedural difference exists in retrieving the data from either 
  cache or archive storage. The only user-perceivable difference is the response time. Various 
  archive storage mechanisms provide different performance profiles. For example, when you 
  use OAM and the data is stored in DB2 tables on disk, the response time is as fast as the 
  cache response time. The main difference in response time is based on the type of disk that is 
  used by either method. Conversely, if the OAM data is stored on optical disks or tape, the 
  response time is increased dramatically. If you use a network-attached Tivoli Storage 
  Manager server, the retrieval rates (throughput and response times) are governed by the 
  Tivoli Storage Manager device and the TCP/IP connection to that device. 
  
  Typically in a z/OS environment, data is*not*stored in cache. Content Manager OnDemand for 
  z/OS customers typically use OAM as their storage manager. OAM supports storing the data 
  directly in DB2 where the storing and retrieval rates are exceptionally fast, which eliminates 
  the need to maintain and monitor cache file systems in the z/OS file system (zFS) or the 
  hierarchical file system (HFS). 