On Sat, 23 May 2009, Ted MacNEIL wrote: > >You seem to be agreeing with Steve Thompson that "In the MVS world, we are > >not device dependant," only insofar as there is only one type of device. A > >weak assertion indeed. > > Not at all. > There are at least two device types -- tape and disk. > And, I can convert to either without re-compiling. > That is device independent. > - > Too busy driving to stop for gas!
I agree, except for truly "direct access" data sets. What I have fought with here is the mindset of "I must allocate in CYLINDERS in order to be efficient." I want them to allocate in RECORDS (or millions of records). But, "oh, no! that is not good because I understand what a cylinder is, but I don't know how much space 1 million records requires." Then when I ask them how many records they'll get in that CYLinder allocation, I get the deer in the headlights look. In today's world, if all JCL were allocated in records (not blocks), (and use ROUND if really necesary), then __most__ people wouldn't care one bit about the number of bytes per track or tracks per cylinder or cylinders per volume. They'd care about something more reasonable like number of records or even gigabytes. And I could have my "beloved" FBA architecture mapped onto standard SAN resident storage. Oh, except for some things like PDSes. PDSes are the legacy of the devil, IMO. But the cost to eliminate them would likely be horrendous for things like IPL and NIP. -- Trying to write with a pencil that is dull is pointless. Maranatha! John McKown ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
