They say that the memory is the scond thing to go; I can't remember the first.

From DOS/VS Data Management Guide 
<http://bitsavers.org/pdf/ibm/370/DOS_VS/Rel_29_Nov73/GC33-5372-2_DOS_VS_Data_Management_Guide_Rel_29_Nov73.pdf>

"In order to locate any particular file, there is a table on each volume called
the Volume Table Of Contents (VTOC). "

--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
עַם יִשְׂרָאֵל חַי
נֵ֣צַח יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל לֹ֥א יְשַׁקֵּ֖ר

________________________________________
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU> on behalf of 
Lennie Bradshaw <lennie-brads...@outlook.com>
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2024 6:02 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: VTOCs vs. catalogs

When I started on IBM System/370 the shop I was at used DOS/VS. DOS/VS at that 
time did not have VTOCs. We used //DLBL statements in JCL which specified the 
exact locations of datasets on disk. This changed with the introduction of VSAM 
on DOS/VS, but only for VSAM datasets.
Fortunately I soon moved to a company using OS/VS2 and got to use VTOCs and 
CVOLs there.

As regards, why both VTOCs and Catalogs exist, what would be the alternative?
The more pertinent question is, I think,
Why do we have both VVDS datasets and VTOCs? Historically I understand, but it 
could improve efficiency to merge these.
It would probably break too many existing interfaces though.

Lennie Dymoke-Bradshaw
https://secure-web.cisco.com/1jXOAuzSz0mv5GshkE1m6vpNy3z4inQP9fZF6gnNsJSY42PIfiBYGmb_A9RIk2F8r0zrdY9m-tXDCObPpPQJbFFA49s_4oPzqGSovgu__dpsDB6GiJsJBT4Bm_Kjc74_e7KrkXTwR20Pe5u7YkJ8SehvC1vtMqc7kRnpebp6JRLjiaJDPXbx7g2gS3uKVq25lKkR3lcUeonNoJWpe0mn97J1-r0s7gPympMvlrWBt_ooDSshYxLp8dPDY9c9XjNuqtHS4J_fRnbF4zo_VVQxzayg5CcjlH87GcCTae0sPDGlq7m-ZUerCdazNepePJV-lzd_RrjM6ba6JXNJzcVWKRpEioQq8LKF80EumL7Me5BJm9RMmOn2ZKQwgyFkGJ7JO2Zue4KBVcXF3gOxqRAFV2cslZbytPRp2x_aEDPAadPU/https%3A%2F%2Frsclweb.com


-----Original Message-----
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU> On Behalf Of 
Joel C. Ewing
Sent: 24 May 2024 06:02
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: VTOCs vs. catalogs

VTOCs did come first.   The  original DOS/360 Operating System did not have 
catalogs.   VTOCs contain not only information about physical location and 
organization of datasets on the volume but also (for OS/360 and its MVS and 
z/OS descendants) contains a list of all the free extents on the volume to 
support automated allocation of new extents for datasets.   It makes sense to 
still keep that level of information at the volume level and not in some 
centralized "catalog", because an individual volume can be varied online or 
offline, added to or deleted from the system, and also any hardware failures 
that might affect data availability tends to affects specific  volumes, so it 
simplifies many things to keep volume-level descriptive information on the 
related volume.

As the total number number of DASD volumes on a system increases, having that 
VTOC-level information  distributed across all  volumes vs putting all that 
info in a centralized location improves  performance by distributing read/write 
activity for that data across all the volumes, and prevents a single point of 
failure that could cause loss of all datasets.

Without  a catalog to map data set names to volumes, it was necessary to 
manually record and maintain a record of what volume(s) contain each dataset.   
That was practical for a few volumes and a small number of datasets, but 
obviously impractical when talking about 100's of volumes and 1000's of 
datasets. OS/360 was designed to support very large systems;  Hence it included 
a catalog; but its use was optional for application datasets.   These days the 
recommended practice is that all z/OS application DASD datasets should be under 
SMS, and SMS datasets must be cataloged.

The original CVOL catalog evolved into multi-level ICF catalogs, and an 
eventual need to save additional dataset attributes  to support SMS and VSAM 
datasets resulted in an additional VVDS dataset to store that info on each 
volume.

As the capacity and maximum number of datasets on a volume increased, a serial 
search through a VTOC became a performance bottleneck, and an optional VTOCIX 
(VTOC Index) was added to each volume for more efficient access.

There is some redundancy with having  VTOCs, VVDSs, and Catalogs, but that aids 
in error detection and recovery by allowing cross-checking between VTOCs, VVDSs 
and Catalogs to look for and resolve inconsistencies.

On z/OS it is typical to use multi-level catalogs for security and availability 
reasons and to keep application and personal datasets in catalogs distinct from 
those containing system-level datasets essential to the operating system.

To reduce I/O and improve catalog performance, z/OS accesses catalogs via a 
system Catalog address space that provides additional in-memory caching for all 
open ICF catalogs.

     JC Ewing

On 5/23/24 21:32, Phil Smith III wrote:
> I'm curious whether any of you old-timers can explain why we have both
> VTOCs and catalogs. I'm guessing it comes down to (a) VTOCs came first
> and catalogs were added to solve some problem (what?) and/or (b) catalogs 
> were added to save some I/O and/or memory, back when a bit of those mattered. 
> But I'd like to understand. Anyone?
>
>
> ...

--
Joel C. Ewing

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to 
lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN


----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Reply via email to