On May 23, 2007, at 1:15 PM, Thomas Conley wrote:
I know SELTAPE was internalized eons ago, but I thought it was
internalized as
NEXT. I'm seeing what looks like RANDOM on z/OS V1R8. Is this a
bug or a
feature? My concern is that NEXT always seemed to be the best
algorithm to
spread out the pain and minimize certain drives getting hammered.
Regards,
Tom Conley
Tom,
Hmmmm.. I guess I disagree. When next is used (IMO) the same drive
(lowest addr) tends to get used a lot more than the rest. I
complained to IBM a long time ago that they weren't rotating the
drives enough. When I changed it random all the drives seemed to get
used but the operators complained as they had to do more work.
Meanwhile tape errors went down considerably.
Ed
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
