Re: VSAM: Why a CISIZE of 4KB has 12 phyrecs/Track, not 13?

2021-10-25 Thread Joel C. Ewing
Specifically, see http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/ibm/dasd/reference_summary/GX26-4577-0_3390_Reference_Summary_Jun89.pdf, This reference Summary booklet contains on p10 the non-trivial calculation formula for how many physical blocks will fit in a 3390 track, and also contains a chart on p18

Re: VSAM: Why a CISIZE of 4KB has 12 phyrecs/Track, not 13?

2021-10-25 Thread Lennie Dymoke-Bradshaw
And also remember that if the data sets are extended format then each physical block is 32 bytes larger. Lennie Dymoke-Bradshaw https://rsclweb.com ‘Dance like no one is watching. Encrypt like everyone is.’ -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Radoslaw

Re: VSAM: Why a CISIZE of 4KB has 12 phyrecs/Track, not 13?

2021-10-25 Thread Seymour J Metz
There used to be a command on the CBT tape to do track capacity calculations. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of Radoslaw Skorupka [r.skoru...@hotmail.com]

Re: VSAM: Why a CISIZE of 4KB has 12 phyrecs/Track, not 13?

2021-10-25 Thread Seymour J Metz
There's a description of track capacity calculations in one of the DFSMS manuals; there are all sorts of overhead factors that have to be taken into account. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List

Re: VSAM: Why a CISIZE of 4KB has 12 phyrecs/Track, not 13?

2021-10-25 Thread Radoslaw Skorupka
W dniu 25.10.2021 o 16:44, Oscar pisze: Hi there, There's something I'm being missing, but acording to my numbers, there should be 13, not 12: Bytes per track: 56,664 bytes Bytes accessible per track: 55,996 bytes CI size: 4096 Physical record size: 4096 bytes Physical records per track

Re: VSAM: Why a CISIZE of 4KB has 12 phyrecs/Track, not 13?

2021-10-25 Thread Doug Shupe
Oscar, Here is a great Redbook for VSAM, enjoy. http://www.redbooks.ibm.com/abstracts/sg246105.html?Open Stay Safe > On Oct 25, 2021, at 10:54, Oscar wrote: > > Hi there, > > There's something I'm being missing, but acording to my numbers, there should > be 13, not 12: > > Bytes per

Re: VSAM: Why a CISIZE of 4KB has 12 phyrecs/Track, not 13?

2021-10-25 Thread Harry Wahl
Oscar, What you're missing is what used to be called the IRG (Inter Record Gap) on physical disk records. Now, on modern 3390 formatted disks, it is a more complicated calculation involving "cells," but it's the same idea; and only 12 4096 byte CIs will fit. Harry

Re: VSAM: Why a CISIZE of 4KB has 12 phyrecs/Track, not 13?

2021-10-25 Thread Farley, Peter x23353
Inter-record gaps between each physical block take space on the track away from data, not to mention count and key parts of each physical block (CKD means count-key-data). There is actually not any physical reason for IRG between physical blocks any more since we no longer have physical 33x0

Re: VSAM: Why a CISIZE of 4KB has 12 phyrecs/Track, not 13?

2021-10-25 Thread Doug Shupe
CA size and number of CI that fit in a CA Stay Safe > On Oct 25, 2021, at 10:54, Oscar wrote: > > Hi there, > > There's something I'm being missing, but acording to my numbers, there should > be 13, not 12: > > Bytes per track: 56,664 bytes > Bytes accessible per track: 55,996 bytes > CI

VSAM: Why a CISIZE of 4KB has 12 phyrecs/Track, not 13?

2021-10-25 Thread Oscar
Hi there, There's something I'm being missing, but acording to my numbers, there should be 13, not 12: Bytes per track: 56,664 bytes Bytes accessible per track: 55,996 bytes CI size: 4096 Physical record size: 4096 bytes Physical records per track (Bytes accessible per track / physical