On Tue, 1 Nov 2005 14:22:32 +0100, Barbara Nitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >I don't consider what DB2 does right and I think that their setting is >asinine given what we now learned about the possible paging config. So the >only chance I see is submitting an RCF that the Extended addressability >guide is clearly wrong because DB2 doesn't play by the rules outlined there. >My guess is that IBM will change the Ext Addr Guide. :-( > I guess GRS should be documented as bypassing IEFUSI too. Its MEMLIMIT is 64PB. Hope there are no future bugs with GRS 64-bit storage usage either. If IBM was worried about customers not changing the MEMLIMIT=0 default, why didn't they just code REGION=0M. I'm not really paranoid like Barbara is, I guess I just don't like the fact that IBM isn't "playing by the rules" as Wayne said. If limiting storage for OS system address spaces and subsystems via IEFUSI for 24-bit and 31-bit was allowed before, why the need to ignore it now for some address spaces / subsystems? Were so many installations shooting themselves in the feet that IBM decided this was for our own good? Mark -- Mark Zelden Sr. Software and Systems Architect - z/OS Team Lead Zurich North America and Farmers Insurance Group mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Systems Programming expert at http://Search390.com/ateExperts/ Mark's MVS Utilities: http://home.flash.net/~mzelden/mvsutil.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
