On 4 May 2007 10:36:04 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom Marchant) wrote: >There are historical (hysterical?) reasons for small block sizes, too. Long >ago, >when you might have only had 120K available for your program and data, you >might have had to keep your blocks much smaller. Today, it's usually not a >problem.
I would think that most reasons for blocking at particular rates would be less important now with such cheap memory. I'm curious whether the tape drives nowadays have sufficient buffering, not to mention how the virtual swapping works to make our old calculations irrelevant. But I don't know. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
