But, but, cylinders are intuitively understandable, whereas bytes are just confusing! <grin/>. Like our programmers keep asking me how big to make their data sets, and then don't have any idea how many records they will need to store into that data set.
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 1:31 PM, Paul Gilmartin <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, 28 May 2013 17:34:17 +0000, Pommier, Rex R. wrote: > >>That's just where I was going in my thinking. It looks like something is >>defined as a 3380. 3380 track is 83% of capacity of 3390, and his initial >>allocation of 654 tracks is suspiciously close to 83% of his other 2 >>allocations of 780 tracks. >> > And this is why IBM (I believe) among coloro che sanno, recommends > allocating in bytes rather than geometry-sensitive units such as tracks > or cylinders. Good advice to follow, IMO. > > -- gil > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN -- This is a test of the Emergency Broadcast System. If this had been an actual emergency, do you really think we'd stick around to tell you? Maranatha! <>< John McKown ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
