John Eells wrote:
Steven Conway wrote:
I agree with CC that having jobs blow due to limited storage is
archaic. John's suggestion of a "warn mode" is outstanding. And,
it's heartening for Martin to tell us people within IBM are looking
at this issue.
<snip>
I hate to make this my last post before the holidays, so I suppose
I'll have to find something else to post about later today. But
celebration for this particular reason seems premature; as far as I
know nothing is in plan to address this yet.
As always, interested parties should consider submitting a requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------
I disagree with CC. If a vendor can't tell me how much storage is
needed, I get VERY LEERY. I can't afford (when I'm working, at least) to
have a storage hog that might adversely affect performance of my entire
image. Not only do I have to be concerned about storage creep in
programs, my other concern in this area is the poor slob who expects to
store a week's SMF data in a VIO file. And a management that doesn't
allow the use of controls in this area only adds to my headaches.....
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
