This stuff has circled back, from where we tried to save on dads bytes, program bytes ( remember Assembler half words ) and other techniques to save storage. Now the same situation is occurring on AWS..
Scott On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 3:20 PM Gerhard adam <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > ... and so goes the mythology. The truth is that programmers > routinely used lousy block sizes and wastes tremendous amounts of space. > JCL sizes were rarely scrutinized nor was data set usage. It was entirely > possible for test data to exist for weeks or months beyond its usefulness > This isn’t to say that money was obviousness spent and even wasted, but > few installations took managing their DASD seriously. They would worry > about saving a byte by packing a date while wasting 100 tracks due to poor > blocking. > This is why nothing really happened until System Determined Blocksize, and > the Storage Administrator tools became available. > People certainly wrung their hands but rarely did anything about it > > > > Get Outlook for iOS > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 12:08 PM -0700, "Pommier, Rex" < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Agreed. Another thing to remember was that we were dealing with disk > volumes measured in kilobytes or megabytes instead of terabytes. In > addition, the site I cut my teeth on had all removable disk packs that got > rotated onto the drives for processing of each application. Every byte > saved per record gave us the better chance of fitting the entire set of > datasets on a single disk set so we could process it. > > Rex > > -----Original Message----- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Charles Mills > Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2020 12:32 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [External] Re: Here we go again; > > Faulty logic there. A byte here and byte there and pretty soon you have to > buy ANOTHER unit of DASD. It costs the same empty or full, but if it gets > nearly full you have to pay for another. > > Charles > > > -----Original Message----- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of Gerhard adam > Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2020 10:06 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Here we go again; > > > > > > The notion of “savings” was marketing nonsense. The DASD was paid > for regardless of whether it held a production database or someone’s golf > handicap. > It cost the same whether it was empty or full. The notion of “saving” was > nonsense and even under the best of circumstances could only be deferred > expenses > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email > to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > > > The information contained in this message is confidential, protected from > disclosure and may be legally privileged. If the reader of this message is > not the intended recipient or an employee or agent responsible for > delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified > that any disclosure, distribution, copying, or any action taken or action > omitted in reliance on it, is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If > you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately > by replying to this message and destroy the material in its entirety, > whether in electronic or hard copy format. Thank you. > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 > -- Scott Ford IDMWORKS z/OS Development ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
