On 17 Jul 2006 06:17:57 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote: >> > Interesting thing about the expansion is that it uses ALET >> > field to store the >> > 64 bit address. Looks like 64 bit dataspaces ain't a'coming. >> >> Why would you need one? >> >> AFAIK, the total capacity of all DASD ever manufactured is still >> insufficient to fully back even ONE 64-bit address space....
At the rate 80 - 200 gigabyte drives and higher have been produced and sold, is the statement being made for only mainframe DASD? I realize that no z box could handle that much DASD space and wonder if either i or p boxes could in theory. > >Yup, true enough. And probably will be true for a generation or two to >come. >64-bit dataspaces aren't such a bad idea though because their >intelligent use could avoid the perceived "need" for 64-bit common >storage. > ><soap-box> >Doing 64-bit common storage is just a bad idea. Providing usable >interfaces for the existing 64-bit (managed) sharing above the bar is a >much better idea. ></soap-box> > >CC > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >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
