"Note that in 99% of cases, I will be loading to a 3390, not 3330 or 3350 - so do I lose something by choosing 3330? Like gross wastage of space on a 3390 during the load process."
So you would be doing an IEBCOPY with a reblock to the new DASD track size. Joe On Sun, Jun 16, 2024 at 7:11 PM Paul Edwards < [email protected]> wrote: > On Sun, 16 Jun 2024 23:48:56 +0000, Seymour J Metz <[email protected]> wrote: > > > What's wrong with using 3330 or 3350? > > I didn't say there was something wrong with them - that's > basically my question. > > > Both have track sizes less than 32KiB. > > I wasn't aware that that was even an issue. > > But yes - the answer may well be to select 3330. > > Maybe I can ask my question a different way to try to get a > handle on the problem. > > Is there an advantage of using 3330 over 3390 (to put a load > module on with the intention of doing an IEBCOPY unload)? > > e.g. will 3330 work on an unmodified MVS 3.8J while 3390 will not? > > And the reverse - is there an advantage of using 3390 over 3330? > > Note that in 99% of cases, I will be loading to a 3390, not 3330 > or 3350 - so do I lose something by choosing 3330? Like gross > wastage of space on a 3390 during the load process. > > Up till now I have always used 3390, but now I am looking closer > at that choice. > > Thanks. Paul. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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
