Variable length records?
>________________________________ > From: Scott Ford <[email protected]> >To: [email protected] >Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 8:59 AM >Subject: Re: Archaic allocation in JCL (Was: Physical record size query) > >Gil, > >Worked with a math phd for a bunch of yrs and he preached records for >allocations, not cyls or tracks. I guess everyone has an opinion... > >Sent from my iPad >Scott Ford >Senior Systems Engineer >www.identityforge.com > > > >On Feb 17, 2012, at 10:41 AM, Paul Gilmartin <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 09:59:13 -0500, Scott Ford wrote: >>> >>> Me too, never even thought of megabytes until the pc slam dunk artists came >>> along, everyone I knew calculated their file size in tracks or cyls. As >>> someone tod me new world order....lol >>> >> I would have expected that during technology transitions with a >> mixture of DASD geometries in a shop, bytes or records would >> have been the invariant metric of data set size, therefore the >> most convenient. Perhaps it was just bigotry, evident in the >> characterization in the paragraph above: "We're dinos; we don't >> do megabytes!" >> >> But then there's volume capacity which, in megabytes, is not >> invariant, even for a single volume of a single given model. >> >> -- gil >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, >> send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, >send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
