On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 12:48:15 -0400, David Boyes wrote: >> I am not having a problem at all with how things are done. I was just >> curious about why the original developers made "DASD management" such >a >> burden on the sysprog. Especially in the early days. But performance >> could very well be the reason. > >1) Back then, there *wasn't* much DASD to manage. VM systems have >historically been smaller and lighter, and been relatively resource-poor >compared to their OS-based siblings. Consider the original purpose of VM >was to be a *migration aid* from OS/360 to later releases; it wasn't >intended to be a permanent thing (at least not until real customers got >their hands on it) so there wouldn't have been a lot of "VM" disk to >manage. >
Was it? I was taught by some of the people that worked at Lincoln Labs that VM was a CE/SE training aid. That is why it was designed to so closely emulate a 360 Mod 50. You could "break" things and the CE/SE would learn how to detect what was broken and how to fix it. Lloyd User of VM and its cousin VP/CSS since 1975.
