On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 14:02:33 -0400, O'Brien, David W. (NIH/CIT) [C] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>And when was the last time you used non-3390 geometry? > >The device independence was important back in the early days of VSAM, circa 1975 when you had 3330s, 3350, 3340s on the floor, which were then followed by 3380s and 3390s. > >Assuming that 3390 geometry is here to stay at least from a logical Zos perspective, I don't see any downside to using Tracks or Cyls. But then I'm sure someone will disagree. > >________________________________ Actually, I don't disagree either. We have always used tracks/cylinders for allocation and have not had the urge or need to convert to other formats. But considering the current problem I'm having, I wondered if that was the correct decision? Regards, Gil. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
