This is a very interesting discussion.
I have nothing to contribute concerning what vendors might supply as
directory block allocations - or do I?
My own rules of thumb for trying to be neat with pre/non-SMS partitioned
data sets - which I codified in some TSO clists for reorganising my
partitioned data sets - were 100% more than currently used for *active*
partitioned data sets and 5% more for inactive partitioned data sets -
rounded up to the next multiple of 5 - unless less than 5 - or something
like that.
It's interesting to map those rules of thumb to what a vendor might select.
If he/she is confident that the product is well nigh perfect and will not
need to change much, the 5% rule will apply. If he/she is somewhat less
confident, perhaps the 100% rule will apply. Which should he/she go for I
wonder.
Incidentally, my partitioned data sets were for a collection of
test/education systems and so nobody should assume my ROTs should be
considered necessarily valid for production systems. I was trying to ensure
that all the shared data sets for a variety of products could be
accommodated on one shared volume - over a VM base. This required a certain
meanness in the allocation of data sets - including directory blocks.
Chris Mason
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kenneth E Tomiak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 1:13 AM
Subject: Re: Top 10 software install gripes
I am not hard set on filling the track for filling sake. I do it because it
seems
orderly. Certainly a vendor should allocate 'stingy' because they are also
not
providing the disk space but they should be considerate and use reasonable
numbers. We should not be guessing how many more directory blocks they
need, nor how much larger the secondary should have been.
I'll go back on my earlier post and say 'allocate what you need plus 10%.
I
read someone up that to 20%. The actual % is dependent on the vendor and
the product. They need to do analysis and then provide good numbers.
If they already fill 43 directory blocks, then using Tom's method they
should
have upped to 90, not 45. I could live with that. If they fill 2 directory
blocks
then I do not want to see 90, 45 is still okay by me.
On Wed, 16 May 2007 18:49:21 -0400, Richards.Bob
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Tom,
You aren't the only ones, just the vocal ones! <LOL>
Bob Richards
-----Original Message-----
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Pinnacle
#4 - Directory blocks should ALWAYS be a multiple of 45. That way I
won't
get directory out of space the next time you expand your product.
My gripe is that there is NO REASON for a vendor to be stingy with
directory blocks. I hate it when the initial install goes OK, then the
first maintenance tape causes me 5 runs because 4 datasets run out of
directory blocks.
You'd think that they were paying for the disk space.
Neal,
THANK YOU!!!!!!!! I took so much crap for this one. Guess you and I
are
the only ones that think running out of directory blocks during
maintenance
because the initial install specified 10 is stupid.
Regards,
Tom Conley
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
