On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 07:40:32 -0500, Ambat Ravi Nair <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>only hiccup was, the Common Tape Subsystem address space choked (80A-10)
>when started at REGION=3M. when asked, the regional CA support simply
>stated to bump it up to 4M, but no calculations offered.
>
It's 2007
interesting this topic should come up - i just did an exercise to reblock
the TMC, and to add about 400,000 volume records + 150,000 DSNB records on
Sunday (in Production).
with BLKSIZE=340, the old copy was 9600 trks with 93% used.
with BLKSIZE=8840, i allocated 9000 trks --> used 61%
amazing!
On 20 Aug 2007 16:41:25 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main
(Message-ID:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Russell Witt) wrote:
The main reason to block the TMC is space utilization
Actually, there's at least one more good reason to
block the TMC. Reading an unblocked TMC (for custom
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Hare, Tim
Sent: Monday, August 20, 2007 3:14 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: CA-1 TMC Reblock - recommended size?
I am at long last getting around to reblocking my TMC.. the TMSBLDVR util
I reblocked around December and I think I'm running about 8k now. I took
CA1's recomendation, or at least their examples from their documentation.
I've had no problems
Harold Zbiegien
American Greetings Corp
--
For IBM-MAIN s
Behalf Of Glenn Miller
Sent: Monday, August 20, 2007 3:16 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: CA-1 TMC Reblock - recommended size?
Tim,
The attributes of our TMC are:
LRECL: 340
BLKSIZE: 3400
RECFM: FB
ALLOCATED CYLINDERS: 1,500
USED CYLINDERS: 465
Like Dave, I don't have any speci
Tim,
The attributes of our TMC are:
LRECL: 340
BLKSIZE: 3400
RECFM: FB
ALLOCATED CYLINDERS: 1,500
USED CYLINDERS: 465
Like Dave, I don't have any specific reasons why. I would be willing to bet
that the small BLKSIZE is one reason why some of the CA-1 maintenance jobs
run for awhile ( probal
, August 20, 2007 1:37 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: CA-1 TMC Reblock - recommended size?
On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 16:13:59 -0400, Hare, Tim wrote:
>What sizes are being used by other CA-1 shops?
>
We are FB 340 340. I don't know why, but it's been that way since the
b
On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 16:13:59 -0400, Hare, Tim wrote:
>What sizes are being used by other CA-1 shops?
>
We are FB 340 340. I don't know why, but it's been that way since the
beginning of time.
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff
I am at long last getting around to reblocking my TMC.. the TMSBLDVR utility
gives space calculations for block size 8840; but of course that's not the only
size possible. Is there any particular reason to use 8840 (26 records per
block)? Is there a negative performance or availability impact f
10 matches
Mail list logo
