The XA changes made the interface more complicating, but also removed the need to manage multiple paths. From the perspective of an OS developer, the net effect is to make it simpler. For a training project you would stick to single path unshared devices and wind up with the interface complexity the benefit.
-- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 ________________________________________ From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [[email protected]] on behalf of Jay Maynard [[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, May 29, 2022 10:29 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: my new z114 I never worked at the bare metal level...but I thought one of the major reasons they reworked the I/O subsystem in XA was to simplify doing I/O. You don't' have to deal with statues of the channel and the control unit and the device; just do an SSCH and off you go. On Sun, May 29, 2022 at 9:17 AM Seymour J Metz <[email protected]> wrote: > I realize that SIO no longer exists in zArch; in fact, it never existed in > XA or ESA. That's why I asked about S/370 LPARs. For S/370, learning on > bare metal is more viable, but I believe that for a beginner ESA or Z on > bare metal might be more traumatic than first learning on z/OS or CMS. > -- Jay Maynard ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
