On Mon, 22 Jul 2013 13:36:01 -0400, Thomas Conley <pinnc...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
> Isn't it ironic that a >utility designed to save DASD space uses a 6144 blocksize and actually >wastes DASD? > Taking the risk of starting another flame war here... Are there still any shops that have actual SLED? In today's world of emulated DASD, would it really still hold true that using smaller block sizes is actually wasting space? After all, these bytes are in the end physically written to FBA devices with 512 byte sectors, no? In the old days, there were inter-record gaps that took up space, but is this still the case? And even if the emulation is so good that it simulates those, what is happening with the actual capacity of the physical disks. Is that being eaten by simulated IRG? Thanks for shedding some light on this, whoever knows the internals of these current DASD boxes, Jantje. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
