On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 16:43:01 -0400, George Haddad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote :
>Brian Nielsen wrote: >> On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 14:37:07 -0400, David Boyes <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> >> wrote: >> >>> Then we wouldn't need CMSDDR any more. >>> >>> >>> >> >> I don't see how that removes the need for CMS DDR. If anything it see ms >> >> to strengthen it because standalone DDR wouldn't have access to whatev er >> >> is doing the tape handling. I don't think you meant we wouldn't need >> standalone DDR because that will always be needed as a last resort for >> >> when CMS is not available, and therefore it has to be able to read wha t >> >> CMS DDR wrote. This requires the media handling function to be part o f >> >> standalone DDR, which seems contrary to your comment. Please clarify in >> >> case I misunderstood you. >> >> Brian Nielsen >> >> >> >Brian, I believe that David was referring to the CMSDDR package on the >VM Downlad page, not the CMS DDR module. Okay. I don't use it, but I looked it up. It seems completely irrelevan t to the discussion of what we require IBM's DDR to do. Brian Nielen
