>New applications should exploit storage above the bar as much as possible, IMHO. >I agree with that point of view; I wish IBM would do as they say!
And what makes you think that they don't, to the extent anyone would care (i.e., if they use private storage you should not care)? And they can't exploit storage above the bar for executable modules, which is what this discussion has been about. >I disagree to the extent that IBM should not be putting new code below the line And what makes you think that IBM is putting new code below the line in common storage? By "new code" I mean new modules. Do you? I am trying to differentiate between code added to existing modules for which the cost, or compatibility issues, or performance ramifications might well make it unreasonable to move the code above the line simply because of the additions that are needed to keep the operating system working properly. And if code is below the line in private storage, it is very likely for a functional reason or for ease of programming; no one should care about that. As has been stated, below 16M storage usage for nucleus and LPA modules has decreased between OS/390 R10 and z/OS 1.8. Peter Relson z/OS Core Technology Design ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
