2:31 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Tape Mount Management
Thank you for all the feedback. Even though we are all virtual tape, I am
under the impression that not all the data residing on tape should be. Yes
it's virtual and therefore disk, but many of the JCL used tod
candidates
(Large, sequential, single open).
Kees.
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
> Behalf Of Brian Fraser
> Sent: 01 February, 2019 10:21
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: Tape Mount Management
>
.UA.EDU] On
> > Behalf Of Benik, John E
> > Sent: 31 January, 2019 21:31
> > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> > Subject: Re: Tape Mount Management
> >
> > Thank you for all the feedback. Even though we are all virtual tape, I
> > am under the impression that n
List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
> Behalf Of Benik, John E
> Sent: 31 January, 2019 21:31
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: Tape Mount Management
>
> Thank you for all the feedback. Even though we are all virtual tape, I
> am under the impression that not
An odd thing happened when I was looking at an application that
was burning CPU. Because they had gone to LBI (Large Block
Interface) and because we were using a VTS (don't know which
one), reads and buffer xfer were faster to C-Store (memory) than
DASD was!! Since they were also doing READ
Thank you for all the feedback. Even though we are all virtual tape, I am
under the impression that not all the data residing on tape should be. Yes
it's virtual and therefore disk, but many of the JCL used today is old and
since there is no chargeback for tape, users continue to write their
