In article <[email protected]> you write: >On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 09:34:27 -0400, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote: >> >>[1] MFT eventually got ATTACH, but that came later. >> >??? How could that possibly work? > >Doesn't "MFT" stand for "Multiprogramming with a Fixed number of Tasks"? > >The instant one does an ATTACH, doesn't the number of tasks change? > >(Or did MFT simulate ATTACH by dispatching an idle member of the fixed >task pool?)
Gil et al, "Fixed number of Tasks" was really a misuse of the term "tasks". It was really a fixed number of partitions. Eact partition could run a "job" or a "started task" (this may not be the correct terminology, card reader reading cards into spool or a writer, driving spool files to a printer or punch, etc) Each job or task could multiprogram within itself, and once ATTACH was added, multithread. As a historical note, early MFT versions only had 1 initiator. All but the last were never ending jobs, HASP being a typical one. You IPL'd and started a job in P1. It did a WAITR macro and the initiator moved to P2 etc. You could move the initiator back down with an operator command if the never ending job ended, and you could restart it or another, again with operator commands. -- Rich Greenberg Sarasota, FL, USA richgr atsign panix.com + 1 941 378 2097 Eastern time. N6LRT I speak for myself & my dogs only. VM'er since CP-67 Canines: Val,Red,Shasta,Zero,Casey & Cinnar (At the bridge) Owner:Chinook-L Canines: Red & Max (Siberians) Retired at the beach Asst Owner:Sibernet-L ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
