On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 16:42:41 -0700, Paul Gilmartin wrote: >In a recent note, McKown, John said: >> Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 16:17:56 -0600 >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List >> > On Behalf Of Paul Gilmartin >> >> > IBM's limits on PDS size (also PDSE) are _so_ 20th Century! Individal >> > program products shouldn't be compelled to such funky circumventions. >> >> For the truly weird amoung us, wouldn't it be "interesting" if IBM were >> to "get around" this problem by allowing SMPPTS to point to an UNIX >> subdirectory (like SMPNTS does now). This would allow a very large >> SMPPTS because an HFS or zFS filesystem can span a LOT of volumes. Hum, >> how big is 59 times a 3390-54 (or whatever the "largest" 3390 volume is >> now). >> >Ah! You expect an IBM product to make the transition to a >superior technology. Clearly SMP/E saw advantages to UNIX >filesystems for NTS (not to minimize the troubles reported >previously in this list when doing enormous RECEIVE FROMNETWORK). > >But I always seek the global solution rather than the local. >This is a problem for DF/SMS, not SMP/E. BPAM support for >reading UNIX directories already exists; the remaining >deficiency is write support and that newfangled replacement >for BLDL (the memory is the second thing to go). Ah! DESERV. >Completing BPAM support for UNIX would relieve SMP/E of >most of the coding.
Gil, Why stop there? With BPAM write/update support for Posix files we could substitute NFS for HFS or zFS, right? So the SMP/E disk support could be off-platform (on SAN or NAS?) if the customer so desired. (Where they might not be backed up reliably... but that's a different topic.) I don't think that the PDS directory simulation is the only issue that IBM would have to deal with though. Wouldn't there need to be a conversion process or does this magically drop in at a new release of z/OS, CICS, IMS, DB2, etc.? (How many sysprogs or their managers will want to make that leap of faith???) I'm not convinced that UNIX file system(s) are superior to z/OS' native file systems, but I'm all for variety and letting the customer & marketplace decide. I'd be less convinced if DFSMS allowed for substantially more than 59 volumes... I used to think that the 255 volume limit was too small and then IBM lowered it by 77%! -- Tom Schmidt Madison, WI ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
