On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 15:02:55 -0500, Matt Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>That doesn't seem to be true here. We have several 3390-3 volumes with >75-track VTOCs and 14-track VTOCIXes. Running the report you suggested shows >VTOCs ranging from 85-95% full, and VTOCIXes running from 97-99% full, so it >looks like in our case, it's closer to 20% than 5%. I'm not sure why. >I know we have some weird applications that create a bunch of empty 1-track >datasets (and maybe even 0=track), so >we tend to use a lot more DSCBs on a 3390-3 volume than saner installations >would, but I don't know if >that affects the VTOC-to-VTOCIX ratio. Now I think I know why we're weird. I looked at the appendix Bruce recommended. I haven't actually crunched the numbers, but I see that VTOCIX size is dependent on average DSNAME length. The same programmer that likes to create empty datasets also insists that all his DSNAMES must be exactly 44 characters long, because he wants to use everything that's available to him. He actually pads names with dashes in situations where he doesn't have enough relevant information to fill 44 characters. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
