W dniu 23.03.2021 o 13:55, Paul Gilmartin pisze:
On Tue, 23 Mar 2021 12:03:09 +0100, Radoslaw Skorupka wrote:
However when you specify records or kilobytes, the system assumes the
following:
a) you have only inkling about mainframe DASD
Wrong! It forces me to know more than I care to.
Agreed. However that was the intention. Personally I discourage students
from using AVGREC. It is counterintuitive IMHO, especially when you have
to record sizes - in LRECL and SPACE.
Of course TRK/CYL require some calculation to know how many records... -
it is the same like in KB or MB.
b) you want such and such number or kilobytes, megabytes or records. AT
LEAST.
What infuriates me is that when I want, e.g., 1GB (a reasonable amount
given that I can carry terabytes in my shirt pocket), I must factor it into
U, K, or M (why no "G", even "T"?) rather than the intuitive
BLKSIZE=0,SPACE=(1000000000,1).
A PITA when I'm generating JCL with a program. Why does IBM choose
to afflict me with 20th Century, 2311 mentality?
Agreed. I would vote for SPACE=(GB,(10,5)) and TB, and MB, and PB of
course.
From the other hand I'm so used to TRK and CYL so I don't feel any pain
with that. Especially I saw the last non-3390 DASD in... I don't
remember, maybe in 1999. Of course emulated. And few years later I saw
DFSMS track size in some system. Unfortunately it was used to education
purposes and I had to explain it...
BTW: I would be happy to exchange my 2TB pocked HDD for 2311 disk pack.
Or 3340. Any taker?
Or at least my new shining 3" diskette for some punched tape. (yes, 3",
not 3.5")
Regards
--
Radoslaw Skorupka
(looking for new job)
Lodz, Poland
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
