> On Wed, 17 Apr 2002, John Summerfield wrote:
> > Or can I do better on a PC than you can on a mainframe?
>
> John, the reason why large filesystems are challenging on S/390 is
> because the disk hardware is still tuned mostly for MVS, which does not
> use a fixed-block storage strategy. As a result, DASD tend to be of
> record/track/cylinder geometry and in standard sizes. Now there
> *is* a 10G size, but the common one these days is about 2.3G.
>
> S/390 does also have FBA (fixed block architecture) DASD devices.
> Sadly, even in the Linux world these are not widely known or used.
> I maintain that they should be employed heavily and heartily!
> The benefits are numerous.
Back when I was a sysprog we used VS1, and that had no support for FBA
devices (I think the 3370 was supported on MVS back then).
We used 2314 (and 2319), and Memorex 3330-{1,11} equivalents.
>
I wasn't referring to the use of LVM. I was referring to the assertion
that ext2 and/oor glibc can't cope.
They can, and I've done it on my PC. However, I don't recall the
precise software requirements.
Of course, you need some disk-combining facility such as RAID or LVM if
your physical disks are not that big.
I'm sadly out of touch with mainframe hardware; it seems strange to me
I can get 120 Gbyte disks for my PC and you folk are using 2.3 Gbyte
drives on your mainframes. I know the theoretical limit is larger than
that, and was back when S/360 was announced.
--
Cheers
John Summerfield
Microsoft's most solid OS: http://www.geocities.com/rcwoolley/
Note: mail delivered to me is deemed to be intended for me, for my
disposition.
==============================
If you don't like being told you're wrong,
be right!
