On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 08:32:35 -0600, Rick Fochtman wrote: > >>Yeah? So when can we expect IBM to recognize its blunder and abandon >>its commitment never to provide customers anything better than a 3390? >> >----------------------<unsnip>------------------- >Define "better". One of the biggest complaints about IBM's DASD upgrades
Size matters. >was the constantly changing geometry; that's why the geometry is >"frozen" at the 3390 level. And by freezing the geometry, they're free >to affect other improvements, like RAID technology, reliability, reduced >power and A/C requirements, etc. without having customers ticked off by >changes in track length, etc.and consequent changes to old JCL. > And a similarly big complaint is the increasing complexity of the process of allocating and using increasingly large data sets. It's all emulated now. Surely a future product could have a firmware setting either to emulate a large number of 3390 volumes for customers afflicted with "dusty decks" or a single enormous volume of the new architecture, or any mixture of the two. To support increasingly large data sets, it's necessary either to provide a new device geometry or increase the ceiling on the number of volumes in a multivolume data set (and remove such restrictions as the prohibition of multivolume PDSEs). It's not apparent to me that the former introduces more complexity or incompatibility than the latter. -- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
