Radoslaw and Steve, >> Well, that's a good point. I remember a few years back someone posted >> on this group that if you thought about 64-bit address spaces it's >> really absurd:
> He was obviously wrong. 64-bit addressing does not imply full sized > adddress space. [Ron Hawkins] If I remember correctly the post you are referring to was by Chris Craddock, and he usually knows what he is talking about. I think Steve may have placed Chris's post somewhat out of context, and it may be worth re-reading something like that before either of you start tilting at windmills. I have not re-read it, but my recollection seems different to yours. I'm wondering how many there are in our community that are still holding off consolidating their 3380 Ds to Es, keep their LPAR to CP ratio less than 2:1, will never use RAID-5, refuse to put more than 90GB behind a DASD controller, and run channels at less than 30% busy. Once upon a time these were things that were supposed to make MVS shrivel up and die. A 32x80 Sysplex in the near future does not seem so farfetched when I was working on an asymmetric 16 way Sysplex in 2004. All dedicated CEC with up to 10xCP each as I recall and it ran just peachy. IMHO I think it's quite neat how MVS can be made to adapt to what users want to do with it. Ron . ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
