On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 08:33:37 -0500, McKown, John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Veilleux, Jon L >> Subject: Re: 64-bits is a really big number! - was z/OS level >> for SETFRR for AMODE(64) >> >> >> What's the point if you don't have that much memory and can't >> back it on >> DASD? It's just an exercise with no practical value until you can back >> it. >> > >Why, "bragging rights", of course! "Planning for the future". Perhaps >some weird need for a sparse file? > >-- >John McKown Ummm. Bragging right for sure. But ask the architects of the OS/400 (iSeries?) Their Single-store design is architecturally set to 2**128 addressability, but they started out their implementation at 2**48, now at 2**64, (next 2**96? or 2**128). Maybe if you have a plan, you can actually use your designed upper limits? <gr> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
