Ted, My examples have nothing to do with the price of disk...
I've been using these techniques since 1996, and they still work more than 10 years later. The performance gain made sense then, and it makes sense now. After all, I'm sure you are one of the supporters of the maxim "the best IO is the one you don't do." That's something compression can do for you. Ron > -----Original Message----- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Ted MacNEIL > Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2010 5:19 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [IBM-MAIN] VSAM Max Lrecl? > > >I'm wondering if your primary rule of not compressing a file unless it will > exceed its architectural limit may have blocked the opportunity for you to > come across cases where compression is not a waste of time. > > It's actually the other way around. > > We found it a waste of time and resources. > So, we instigated the rule. > > People thought they were saving by compression, and we found uncompressed disk > was cheaper. > > 10 years ago, it made sense. > Now? > > PS: It's the vendors' fault. > You guys made disk cheap! > > - > I'm a SuperHero with neither powers, nor motivation! > Kimota! > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to [email protected] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO > Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
