Skip: I thought when it came out it was a GREAT thing. I incorporated it in several presentations to programmers. The comments that I came back with: Its too complicated and I never know how many records so I allocate the max (i.e. CYL ) and don’t worry about it. Those were typical responses, when pressed for more specifics I got back its too complicated.
Ed > On Aug 12, 2016, at 9:56 AM, Jesse 1 Robinson <[email protected]> wrote: > > VSAM was invented (shortly) before I got into this biz, so I cannot speak to > its roots, but I've always supposed that AVGREC (average record) was supplied > for the benefit of application designers who did not want to calculate > gearhead values like xxxO-bytes or--even worse--disk-dependent values like > tracks or cylinders. (This was lonnng before we had standardized on 3390 > architecture.) It might also simplify upgrading a cluster if the record size > changes. > > Once documented, this parameter would be more trouble to remove than it's > worth. Don't like it? Don't use it. But also don't carry it forward in any > new extension. > > . > . > . > J.O.Skip Robinson > Southern California Edison Company > Electric Dragon Team Paddler > SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager > 323-715-0595 Mobile > 626-302-7535 Office > [email protected] > > -----Original Message----- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of Paul Gilmartin > Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2016 11:23 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: (External):Re: RFE to add new sizes to AVGREC and IDCAMS Define > > On Fri, 12 Aug 2016 07:17:49 +0200, Peter Hunkeler wrote: > >>> I'd be happier with dispensing with AVGREC entirely and being allowed to >>> code: >> SPACE=(1,(1M,1000K)) * SI (decimal) prefixes, please. >> >> Ohh, no. Please not another new syntax. The >> Early-morning-after-heavy-New-Years-Eve-party design of AVGREC is stupid >> enough. >> > If the new one were more intuitive, it could displace the old one, preserved > only for legacy compaibility. > >> The first subparameter of SPACE= specifies the *unit*: number of bytes (aka >> block), tracks (TRK), or cylinders (CYL). I will never understand how IBM >> could think AVGREC is the way to go. >> > Most plausible is that someone discovered an unused entry in the Converter's > symbol table and repurposed it rather than inventing a new one. Any > alternative makes even less sense. > >> Why not just add KB, MB, GB, TB, ... to TRK and CYL as space unit >> specification? SPACE=(GB,(1,3)) gives you 1GB primary and 3GB secondary. >> Simple to understand and remember. >> > Retain forms such as the equivalent SPACE=(1000000,(1000,3000)) for legacy > compatibility and in case the finer granularity is needed. But any redesign > should make AVGREC superfluous. > > What's the etymology of "AVGREC"? > > -- gil > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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
