I am not hard set on filling the track for filling sake. I do it because it seems orderly. Certainly a vendor should allocate 'stingy' because they are also not providing the disk space but they should be considerate and use reasonable numbers. We should not be guessing how many more directory blocks they need, nor how much larger the secondary should have been.
I'll go back on my earlier post and say 'allocate what you need plus 10%. I read someone up that to 20%. The actual % is dependent on the vendor and the product. They need to do analysis and then provide good numbers. If they already fill 43 directory blocks, then using Tom's method they should have upped to 90, not 45. I could live with that. If they fill 2 directory blocks then I do not want to see 90, 45 is still okay by me. On Wed, 16 May 2007 18:49:21 -0400, Richards.Bob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Tom, > >You aren't the only ones, just the vocal ones! <LOL> > >Bob Richards > >-----Original Message----- >From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >Behalf Of Pinnacle > >>>>#4 - Directory blocks should ALWAYS be a multiple of 45. That way I >>>>won't >>>>get directory out of space the next time you expand your product. >>> >> >> My gripe is that there is NO REASON for a vendor to be stingy with >> directory blocks. I hate it when the initial install goes OK, then the >> first maintenance tape causes me 5 runs because 4 datasets run out of >> directory blocks. >> >> You'd think that they were paying for the disk space. >> > >Neal, > >THANK YOU!!!!!!!! I took so much crap for this one. Guess you and I >are >the only ones that think running out of directory blocks during >maintenance >because the initial install specified 10 is stupid. > >Regards, >Tom Conley > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
