We might be in agreement except for your incorrect use of the word "no".
On 12/04/2015 08:52 PM, Alan Altmark wrote: >> > MVS should grow up. > No, ... Yes, MVS should grow up. But we'll consider that out of scope for this conversation. Okay? > ... Linux should obey the IBM VOL1 label standard when using ECKD devices, > just like everyone else. In fact, if I were asked (I haven't been), I > would suggest that it use the CPVOLUME format. That's one that MVS > already recognizes, and whose reactions Certain People are expending > effort to improve upon. The objection is to track-and-record behavior in support of CDL. I didn't hear anyone complain about VOL1, and I don't recall complaining about it myself. Reason for rant is the tricks with tracks, which only loosely links with labeling. AS IT HAPPENS, the CPVOLUME form of VOL1 label fits nicely at the front of an EXT2/3/4 filesystem. > Alternatively, Linux could obtain, via IBM channels, an official VOL1 > standard version ID. E.g. one that has zeroes in the VTOC address > indicating no VTOC. So much the better. > If there were no VTOC, then a volumes could be entirely formatted with 4K > records. The label is defined in the VOL1 label standard to be a > *minimum* of 80 bytes. It can be 4096. It's the VTOC that's creates the > problem. Agreed. > All of the OSes would have to recognize it since "version number" is part > of the standard, specifically designed for building interoperable labels. Interoperability is a good thing. -- R; <>< ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@vm.marist.edu with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For more information on Linux on System z, visit http://wiki.linuxvm.org/
