On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 12:50:16 -0500, Eric Bielefeld <[email protected]> wrote: >Thanks for clearing up how the current drives actually work. It just seems >like IBM could get away from the track and cylinder stuff, which >artificially restricts the amount of storage you use. If you use short >blocksizes, or long ones that just go over 1/2 track, you waste an awfull >lot of space. Of course, well written SMS routines can correct that, but it >still makes things a lot more complicated than it should be.
Perhaps I don't understand your point, Eric, but from the user perspective aren't things simple already? Just let the system pick the block size, and while you're at it allocate the space in terms meaningful to the user/application: megabytes or records. Thus, the only things that -should- be affected by the cylinder/head architecture are programs, and it's a lot simpler to leave them alone than it is to have to change them. Remember it's not just IBM code that would have to change. Many vendors and customers have written code that knows and depends on the cylinder/head architecture. -- Walt ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
