>From a modern perspective the single-level store in FS would've meant at least 128-bit addressing, perhaps 256, by now. And there'd be consequences to that. :-)
Cheers, Martin Martin Packer, zChampion, Principal Systems Investigator, Worldwide Banking Center of Excellence, IBM +44-7802-245-584 email: martin_pac...@uk.ibm.com Twitter / Facebook IDs: MartinPacker Blog: https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/mydeveloperworks/blogs/MartinPacker From: Lynn Wheeler <l...@garlic.com> To: IBM-MAIN@listserv.ua.edu Date: 19/02/2014 17:52 Subject: Re: assembler Sent by: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <IBM-MAIN@listserv.ua.edu> t...@harminc.net (Tony Harminc) writes: > In my circles the term "core" survived for quite a long time after the > introduction of the first 370 models with non magnetic-core storage > (the 158 and 168, followed closely by the lower end 138, 148 and so > on). And amusingly the UNIX people still use "core" in some contexts, > much as they use "print" in a way long dissociated from ink on paper. re: http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014c.html#71 asssembler folklore I was told was IBM's move to the term "virtual storage" was because of patent on "virtual memory". there was possibly ancillary reason ... supposedly tss/360 was move to "single level store" .... programmer/application not seeing difference between memory access and file accesss ... all appeared the same. in the early 70s, the future system effort ... which was going to totally replace 360/370 ... was heavily "single level store" and overlapped os/360 movement to "virtual memory". however, part of tss/360 was very poor optimization for accessing data on disk in its "single level store". I took a lot of what I saw tss/360 did wrong when I did my cms paged-mapped filesystem on cp67 at the scientific center in the early 70s. The FS effort wasn't any better than what tss/360 had been doing ... and one of the reasons I would periodically ridicule FS (which probably wasn't the most career enhancing activity). In any case, that was just one of the things that contributed to the failure of FS ... misc. past posts http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submain.html#futuresys I suspect that over the years a lot of the stuff I was doing internally would ship in products ... the reputation that page-mapped filesystem got from the tss/360 and Future System implementations contributed to not shipping my cms paged mapped filesystem (although i could show factor of three times throughput improvement for moderately filesystem intensive applications). http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submain.html#mmap ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN Unless stated otherwise above: IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
