On 2014-08-11 15:39, Blaicher, Christopher Y. wrote: > I have not researched this, at all, so this is an educational question. > > From your response to Barry it seems you are saying the Binder will write a > 32K block and then write a short block on a track? > Yes (I have been told).
>If it is doing that, then how is that any better than a Half-track blocksize? >It is still two blocks per track, or are you saying the binder wastes the >remainder of the track? > It does not waste the remainder of the track. But if Binder needs to write 32760 bytes, then: o If BLKSIZE=32760, it will write 32760 bytes followed by an IBG. o If BLKSIZE=27998, it will write 27998 bytes, an IBG, 4762 bytes, then an IBG. One more interblock gap, and correspondingly less space for the next block. The difference is tiny; I'll leave it to the Half-track advocates to concoct a scenario where Half-track is superior. And for PDSE, it scarcely matters. Everything is written in 4KiB pages. (But does Binder know this and ignore the specified BLKSIZE?) -- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
