It may more sense for you to determine the number of tracks and then simply 
multiply by maximum track capacity of 56664 (for 3390 devices). 
Do you have a copy of GX26-4577-03 (or later)?

Lennie

-----Original Message-----
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <[email protected]> On Behalf Of 
Joseph Reichman
Sent: 30 June 2026 16:14
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Net bytes per track

Since I would rather high mean I want max possible

I multiply if it’s cyl by 15 for secondery by 16 And then by 56664 it’s 
impossible to use more than allocated



Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef> ________________________________
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <[email protected]> on behalf of 
Lennie Bradshaw <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, 30 June 2026 11:10:34
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Net bytes per track

Also, some data sets can have variable block sizes. They can also have RECFM=U 
like load libraries, so that the block sizes are not predictable. I think the 
binder uses 32K blocks and then fills the track with shorter blocks.

Lennie

-----Original Message-----
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <[email protected]> On Behalf Of 
Michael Oujesky
Sent: 30 June 2026 15:46
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Net bytes per track

Not quite correct.  SMS compressed files super-block and write full tracks of 
data.  BLKSIZE becomes logical (i.e. the buffer size of data used between the 
applcation and the SAM access method.

See SMF14CIS in the 14/15 SMF record for the actual physical size on the track.

Michael

At 08:19 PM 6/29/2026, Michael Watkins wrote:
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64Yes, 56664 bytes per track on a 3390, 
>but the maximum z/OS BLKSIZE is 32,760 bytes and only one block will 
>fit on a track.
>
>To maximize the amount of data on a track, half-track blocking is 
>typically used. There is a 668-byte inter-record gap on a native 3390 
>(platters on a spindle), which has been replicated on RAIDed FBA 
>devices in modern DASD architecture. This means there is a maximum 
>half-track BLKSIZE of 27998 bytes since 668+(2x27998)=56664.
>
>For a data set with 80-byte records, this means half-track blocking 
>means a 27920-byte BLKSIZE since 349 x 80 = 27920 and there isn't room 
>in
>27998 for the 350th 80-byte record.
>
>Also keep in mind that z/OS will append 32 bytes onto each block when 
>DSNTYPE=EXTENDED is specified, meaning less space for data records is 
>available.
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
><[email protected]> On Behalf Of Joseph Reichman
>Sent: Monday, June 29, 2026 8:01 PM
>To: [email protected]
>Subject: Re: Net bytes per track
>
>CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the Texas Comptroller's 
>email system.
>DO NOT click links or open attachments unless you expect them from the 
>sender and know the content is safe.
>
>I keep on seeing from AI 56,664 bytes per tack for 3390 pack how is 
>that determined
>
>
>Joe Reichman
>
>On Mon, Jun 29, 2026 at 8:58 PM Attila Fogarasi < 
>[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > The net bytes (i.e. longest record you can write to that track) 
> > varies by access method as there is overhead (control bytes).
> > TRKCALC is provided to compute the largest record which can fit on a 
> > track (using EXCP), see
>B‚‡GG3¢ò÷W&ÆFVfVç6Ræ6öÒ÷c2õõö‡GG3¢ð/www.ibm.com/docs/en/zos/3.2.0?topi
> > c=instructions-performing-track-calculations-trkcalc-macro__;!!JJZmG
> > cL
> > PLA!f8gIQp2WmnK5aJpNmmtG4m8kLdObQsseimGBKGffYscn-nyU3MS1l3Ja7JSZEZ7c
> > 6P
>”[XՍ“VŽNPMÓYUÎS“ZÑ̐ܭÖ[^™ÖL€g$
> >
> > Unless you are using EXCP the hardware track capacity is irrelevant,
>HXØÙ\ÜÈY]Ù\ÙYÚ[]@rmine the actual bytes per track (and
> > varies by BLKSIZE).
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 30, 2026 at 10:35 AM Joseph Reichman < 
> > [email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > Would anyone know how to get the net bytes per track for a 3390
> > >
> > H]™H™Y[ˆ\Ú[™È]@pe ddname,buffer,devtab
> > >
> > B‚âv†W&R'VffW"—232 byte output field
> > >
> > ]]ÙY\ÈÛˆÛÛZ[™È˜XÀk with the overhead of 58,864
> > >
> > H[šÈH™]@s 56,664
> > >
> > HÛÝ[ZÙHÈÙ]]šYÝ\™H›Ùܘ@mmatically instead of hard
>ˆÛÙ[™Â‚—@Ð €ø4(ø€øPhanks
> > >
> > KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK@---------------------------
>ˆKH›ÜˆP“KSPRSˆÝXœØÜšX€e / signoff / archive access instructions,
> > Ù[™[X@il to [email protected] with the message: INFO
>  > IBM-MAIN
> > >
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > --
>›ÜˆP“KSPRSˆÝXœÀcribe / 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
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>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

----------------------------------------------------------------------
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

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Reply via email to