Re: 262668 cylinders per volume ... Where did they get that number?
- From: cfmpublic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Clark Morris)
- Date: 27 Feb 2008 16:26:40 -0800
On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 10:39:52 -0800 (PST), in bit.listserv.ibm-main you
wrote:
Disk volumes can now be up to 262668 cylinders. Where did they get
that number? It would make sense if it were slightly less than a
power of two (e.g. 262144), but that number is slightly more than a
power of two.
Are channel programs changing the cylinder designation from 16 bits to
32 bits?
If they wanted to increase the capacity of a volume, why not simply
increase the number of tracks-per-cylinder? If I gotta re-write my
code for more than 65535 cylinders, I might as well re-write my code
for more than 15 tracks.
All of this to avoid getting FBA, improving ESDS by among other things
giving GDG function to them, and making PDSE a base data type rather
than a Started Task add-on.
Clark Morris
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to listserv@xxxxxxxxxxx with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
.
- References:
- 262668 cylinders per volume ... Where did they get that number?
- From: NadCixelsyd
- 262668 cylinders per volume ... Where did they get that number?
- Prev by Date: Re: z/OS 1.10 announcement -DASD size
- Next by Date: Re: z/OS 1.10 announcement -DASD size
- Previous by thread: 262668 cylinders per volume ... Where did they get that number?
- Next by thread: Re: 262668 cylinders per volume ... Where did they get that number?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
