The gazillions of bytes above the bar is great, but I still have customers who complaint because we run ALL31 or AMODE 31 or RMODE 31. I attribute this to unchanged legacy programs over the years.
Scott ford www.identityforge.com from my IPAD > On Apr 18, 2014, at 3:07 PM, Paul Gilmartin <paulgboul...@aim.com> wrote: > >> On Fri, 18 Apr 2014 17:54:01 +0000, DASDBILL2 <dasdbi...@comcast.net> wrote: >> >> ... Giving a gazillion bytes above the bar to process X does not >> necessarily mean that process X will ruin system performance. The gazillion >> bytes could also have come from below the bar (for some values of >> gazillion). ... > Are there separate pools of real storage for above the bar and below the bar? > > Are there separate pools of page data sets for above the bar and below the > bar? > > Are there separate limits for total (system-wide) virtual storage in use > below the > bar and above the bar? > > Are the costs of resources (page and segment tables and other overhead) for > above the bar and below the bar different? > > Unless the answer to at least one of these (or any similar question) is "Yes," > effect of giving a gazillion bytes is the same above the bar as below. > > (Or is that what you were implying.) > > -- gil > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
