On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 11:06:41 -0600, John McKown wrote: >On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 10:38:57 -0600, Martin Kline wrote: >> >>You can't satisfy everyone. I suspect it was a performance choice made many >>years ago. For whatever reason, it is what it is. Deal with it or get over it. > >Correct. I remember CVOLs. The original OS/360 catalog structure. Many of >the current ills we have in this area are due to compatibility with the >original CVOL structure.
I spent a *lot* of time in the microfiche, reading the CVOL code. Whatever the reason was for concatenating the generation data sets in reverse order, I don't think it was for performance. -- Tom Marchant ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
