In
<985915eee6984740ae93f8495c624c6c23194bd...@jscpcwexmaa1.bsg.ad.adp.com>,
on 06/10/2013
at 11:38 AM, "Farley, Peter x23353" <[email protected]>
said:
>Why is it that IBM (and organizations that use their mainframe
>systems) so vigorously resist a conversion off of the ECKD
>"standard"?
Before asking "why", ask "whether". I have seen no evidence that
anybody but IBM resists such a change.
>perhaps it is past time to change the storage paradigm entirely, not
>from ECKD to FBA but to transition instead to something like the
>Multics model where every object in the system (whether in memory or
>on external storage, whether data or program) has an address, and
>all addresses are unique.
That's not the Multics model. The Multic model is that segment numbers
are dynamically assigned as needed, and that in general two processes
will use different numbers for the same segment. IBM had something
similar in TSS, but abandoned it.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
Atid/2 <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
