Re: what is a 'full pack' minidisk?
I second what Jim Hughes said - essentially that if it doesn't include cylinder 0 it's just a minidisk, no matter what the size. Personally, and as discussed here by others in the distant past, I prefer to not give out the last cylinder of a real volume in order to make it much easier to copy a 1st level volume for 2nd level testing. Doing this is just an extention of the same logic that leaves the last cylinder of the system volumes empty by design (as requested of IBM by user groups). So now you need a term for a 1 to (END-1) minidisk :) On a related note, I don't like using END in the first place because it's not obvious how big it is unless you know the size of the volume. It's an unneeded obfuscation. Brian Nielsen On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 16:45:54 -0600, Scott Rohling scott.rohl...@gmail.com wrote: I like that - it does imply 'almost'.. but now I'm going for '12end'. We'll see if it lasts through the weekend ;-) Tot ziens! Scott Rohling On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 4:33 PM, Rob van der Heij rvdh...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 11:26 PM, Scott Rohling scott.rohl...@gmail.com wrote: Ok -- darn it. a 1 to END minidisk just doesn't have the same ring to it as 'full pack'. And it's another syllable to mumble.. ;-) Care for my pseudo full-pack terminology maybe? (sounds more official than almost full-pack)
Re: what is a 'full pack' minidisk?
On the other hand, it is possible for 3390-xx devices to be most any size that you want. The -03, -06 etc. designations are almost meaningless. You are not required to define (in the CU) a multiple of 3339 for the disk sizes. In this environment, 0-END is the way to define a full-pack minidisk regardless of the number of cylinders. The other way would be by DEVNO, iff you can count on the hardware people never changing the address. Here, the hardware people have changed the addresses of disks and have redefined capacities upward, but they have never changed a volser of one of the VM packs or created a duplicate of one that I care about; 0-END is best for me. I agree with the idea that a minidisk defined from 1-end is just a minidisk and the full-pack designation is a special case, unique unto itself. Personally, I have never seen the need for a term for an mdisk defined as 1-end, where end is either the word END or a number that is the equal to highest cylinder of the disk. Aside from being lazy, not wanting to periodically (after every h/w activity that includes messing with the dasd controllers) have to enter QUERY DASD DETAILS for every disk that I want protected by an MDISK that covers the entire disk, prefer the use of END instead of 3339, 10016 or whatever the ending cylinder number is. As an aside, I have seen some (physical) disks defined as small as 100 cylinders. Regards, Richard Schuh -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Brian Nielsen Sent: Monday, June 21, 2010 7:59 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: what is a 'full pack' minidisk? I second what Jim Hughes said - essentially that if it doesn't include = cylinder 0 it's just a minidisk, no matter what the size. Personally, and as discussed here by others in the distant past, I prefer= to not give out the last cylinder of a real volume in order to make it = much easier to copy a 1st level volume for 2nd level testing. Doing this= is just an extention of the same logic that leaves the last cylinder of = the system volumes empty by design (as requested of IBM by user groups). So now you need a term for a 1 to (END-1) minidisk :) On a related note, I don't like using END in the first place because = it's not obvious how big it is unless you know the size of the volume. = It's an unneeded obfuscation. Brian Nielsen On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 16:45:54 -0600, Scott Rohling scott.rohl...@gmail.com wrote: I like that - it does imply 'almost'.. but now I'm going for '12end'. We'll see if it lasts through the weekend ;-) Tot ziens! Scott Rohling On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 4:33 PM, Rob van der Heij rvdh...@gmail.com = wrote: On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 11:26 PM, Scott Rohling scott.rohl...@gmail.com wrote: Ok -- darn it. a 1 to END minidisk just doesn't have the same = ring to it as 'full pack'. And it's another syllable to mumble.. ;-) Care for my pseudo full-pack terminology maybe? (sounds more official than almost full-pack)
Re: what is a 'full pack' minidisk?
I'm NOT advocating the use of END when defining MDISKs!One of the first things I beg my customers to do is stop using END and use the number of cylinders on all MDISK statements. I concur that it's lazy and creates extra work and confusion. Also makes creating DASD usage reports out of a directory from a remote system impossible. My original post was about how to refer to a minidisk that's defined from 1-END -- because that language fits all sizes. Referring to it and actually defining it are two different things. Always use the number of cylinders when defining an MDISK. Never use END. On a DEFINE MDISK command - go ahead and use END -- but NOT in the directory. Scott Rohling On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 9:59 AM, Schuh, Richard rsc...@visa.com wrote: On the other hand, it is possible for 3390-xx devices to be most any size that you want. The -03, -06 etc. designations are almost meaningless. You are not required to define (in the CU) a multiple of 3339 for the disk sizes. In this environment, 0-END is the way to define a full-pack minidisk regardless of the number of cylinders. The other way would be by DEVNO, iff you can count on the hardware people never changing the address. Here, the hardware people have changed the addresses of disks and have redefined capacities upward, but they have never changed a volser of one of the VM packs or created a duplicate of one that I care about; 0-END is best for me. I agree with the idea that a minidisk defined from 1-end is just a minidisk and the full-pack designation is a special case, unique unto itself. Personally, I have never seen the need for a term for an mdisk defined as 1-end, where end is either the word END or a number that is the equal to highest cylinder of the disk. Aside from being lazy, not wanting to periodically (after every h/w activity that includes messing with the dasd controllers) have to enter QUERY DASD DETAILS for every disk that I want protected by an MDISK that covers the entire disk, prefer the use of END instead of 3339, 10016 or whatever the ending cylinder number is. As an aside, I have seen some (physical) disks defined as small as 100 cylinders. Regards, Richard Schuh -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Brian Nielsen Sent: Monday, June 21, 2010 7:59 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: what is a 'full pack' minidisk? I second what Jim Hughes said - essentially that if it doesn't include = cylinder 0 it's just a minidisk, no matter what the size. Personally, and as discussed here by others in the distant past, I prefer= to not give out the last cylinder of a real volume in order to make it = much easier to copy a 1st level volume for 2nd level testing. Doing this= is just an extention of the same logic that leaves the last cylinder of = the system volumes empty by design (as requested of IBM by user groups). So now you need a term for a 1 to (END-1) minidisk :) On a related note, I don't like using END in the first place because = it's not obvious how big it is unless you know the size of the volume. = It's an unneeded obfuscation. Brian Nielsen On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 16:45:54 -0600, Scott Rohling scott.rohl...@gmail.com wrote: I like that - it does imply 'almost'.. but now I'm going for '12end'. We'll see if it lasts through the weekend ;-) Tot ziens! Scott Rohling On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 4:33 PM, Rob van der Heij rvdh...@gmail.com = wrote: On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 11:26 PM, Scott Rohling scott.rohl...@gmail.com wrote: Ok -- darn it. a 1 to END minidisk just doesn't have the same = ring to it as 'full pack'. And it's another syllable to mumble.. ;-) Care for my pseudo full-pack terminology maybe? (sounds more official than almost full-pack)
Re: what is a 'full pack' minidisk?
What do you do for your reports if an mdisk is defined by DEVNO instead of volser? You have remote access to the directory but cannot get the output from QUERY DASD DETAILS? You have your preferences, which you state as though they are an absolute law. I have mine which are different from yours, so I guess I am breaking the law :-). I hope the offense is not a felony. If I am ever in a position where I have to report on DASD usage by cylinder from a remote location that has access to the directory but not to the system, I might change. Until then, I see no compelling reason why I should switch. Regards, Richard Schuh From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Scott Rohling Sent: Monday, June 21, 2010 10:53 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: what is a 'full pack' minidisk? I'm NOT advocating the use of END when defining MDISKs!One of the first things I beg my customers to do is stop using END and use the number of cylinders on all MDISK statements. I concur that it's lazy and creates extra work and confusion. Also makes creating DASD usage reports out of a directory from a remote system impossible. My original post was about how to refer to a minidisk that's defined from 1-END -- because that language fits all sizes. Referring to it and actually defining it are two different things. Always use the number of cylinders when defining an MDISK. Never use END. On a DEFINE MDISK command - go ahead and use END -- but NOT in the directory. Scott Rohling On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 9:59 AM, Schuh, Richard rsc...@visa.commailto:rsc...@visa.com wrote: On the other hand, it is possible for 3390-xx devices to be most any size that you want. The -03, -06 etc. designations are almost meaningless. You are not required to define (in the CU) a multiple of 3339 for the disk sizes. In this environment, 0-END is the way to define a full-pack minidisk regardless of the number of cylinders. The other way would be by DEVNO, iff you can count on the hardware people never changing the address. Here, the hardware people have changed the addresses of disks and have redefined capacities upward, but they have never changed a volser of one of the VM packs or created a duplicate of one that I care about; 0-END is best for me. I agree with the idea that a minidisk defined from 1-end is just a minidisk and the full-pack designation is a special case, unique unto itself. Personally, I have never seen the need for a term for an mdisk defined as 1-end, where end is either the word END or a number that is the equal to highest cylinder of the disk. Aside from being lazy, not wanting to periodically (after every h/w activity that includes messing with the dasd controllers) have to enter QUERY DASD DETAILS for every disk that I want protected by an MDISK that covers the entire disk, prefer the use of END instead of 3339, 10016 or whatever the ending cylinder number is. As an aside, I have seen some (physical) disks defined as small as 100 cylinders. Regards, Richard Schuh -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDUmailto:IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU] On Behalf Of Brian Nielsen Sent: Monday, June 21, 2010 7:59 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDUmailto:IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: what is a 'full pack' minidisk? I second what Jim Hughes said - essentially that if it doesn't include = cylinder 0 it's just a minidisk, no matter what the size. Personally, and as discussed here by others in the distant past, I prefer= to not give out the last cylinder of a real volume in order to make it = much easier to copy a 1st level volume for 2nd level testing. Doing this= is just an extention of the same logic that leaves the last cylinder of = the system volumes empty by design (as requested of IBM by user groups). So now you need a term for a 1 to (END-1) minidisk :) On a related note, I don't like using END in the first place because = it's not obvious how big it is unless you know the size of the volume. = It's an unneeded obfuscation. Brian Nielsen On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 16:45:54 -0600, Scott Rohling scott.rohl...@gmail.commailto:scott.rohl...@gmail.com wrote: I like that - it does imply 'almost'.. but now I'm going for '12end'. We'll see if it lasts through the weekend ;-) Tot ziens! Scott Rohling On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 4:33 PM, Rob van der Heij rvdh...@gmail.commailto:rvdh...@gmail.com = wrote: On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 11:26 PM, Scott Rohling scott.rohl...@gmail.commailto:scott.rohl...@gmail.com wrote: Ok -- darn it. a 1 to END minidisk just doesn't have the same = ring to it as 'full pack'. And it's another syllable to mumble.. ;-) Care for my pseudo full-pack terminology maybe? (sounds more official than almost full-pack)
Re: what is a 'full pack' minidisk?
Ah - well DEVNO isn't supported in the referenced report ;-) (an in house thing from long ago) I didn't mean to state my 'rules' as law -- I always hate it when others do that :-)More like Scott's Rules... Most of my reasons for wanting to see specific cylinders in the directory revolve around avoiding the need for Q DASD DETAILS... whether remote or not.One example is someone who thought the volumes they picked were 3390-9 and but were 3390-54. They coded the MDISK statements 1 to END (from habit) - told the Linux folks they were ready - and now we have a very bloated Linux guest and can't just move the minidisk to another volume (like we could if they had specified the size of 10016). Mostly - specifying the size just avoids confusion and gives an immediate view of the number of cylinders the MDISK requires. END is ambiguous and requires knowledge of the # of cylinders defined on the volume. Avoiding ambiguity goes a long way to eliminating errors... shrug YMMV I consider it a 'best practice' and list it as such for customers.. The exception are 'disk holder' users - like those that define all the volumes on the system as 0 END for the purposes of physical backup, etc. Then END makes sense because you want the whole volume defined regardless of size and it's an 'overlay' disk. Scott Rohling On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 1:18 PM, Schuh, Richard rsc...@visa.com wrote: What do you do for your reports if an mdisk is defined by DEVNO instead of volser? You have remote access to the directory but cannot get the output from QUERY DASD DETAILS? You have your preferences, which you state as though they are an absolute law. I have mine which are different from yours, so I guess I am breaking the law :-). I hope the offense is not a felony. If I am ever in a position where I have to report on DASD usage by cylinder from a remote location that has access to the directory but not to the system, I might change. Until then, I see no compelling reason why I should switch. Regards, Richard Schuh -- *From:* The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] *On Behalf Of *Scott Rohling *Sent:* Monday, June 21, 2010 10:53 AM *To:* IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU *Subject:* Re: what is a 'full pack' minidisk? I'm NOT advocating the use of END when defining MDISKs!One of the first things I beg my customers to do is stop using END and use the number of cylinders on all MDISK statements. I concur that it's lazy and creates extra work and confusion. Also makes creating DASD usage reports out of a directory from a remote system impossible. My original post was about how to refer to a minidisk that's defined from 1-END -- because that language fits all sizes. Referring to it and actually defining it are two different things. Always use the number of cylinders when defining an MDISK. Never use END. On a DEFINE MDISK command - go ahead and use END -- but NOT in the directory. Scott Rohling On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 9:59 AM, Schuh, Richard rsc...@visa.com wrote: On the other hand, it is possible for 3390-xx devices to be most any size that you want. The -03, -06 etc. designations are almost meaningless. You are not required to define (in the CU) a multiple of 3339 for the disk sizes. In this environment, 0-END is the way to define a full-pack minidisk regardless of the number of cylinders. The other way would be by DEVNO, iff you can count on the hardware people never changing the address. Here, the hardware people have changed the addresses of disks and have redefined capacities upward, but they have never changed a volser of one of the VM packs or created a duplicate of one that I care about; 0-END is best for me. I agree with the idea that a minidisk defined from 1-end is just a minidisk and the full-pack designation is a special case, unique unto itself. Personally, I have never seen the need for a term for an mdisk defined as 1-end, where end is either the word END or a number that is the equal to highest cylinder of the disk. Aside from being lazy, not wanting to periodically (after every h/w activity that includes messing with the dasd controllers) have to enter QUERY DASD DETAILS for every disk that I want protected by an MDISK that covers the entire disk, prefer the use of END instead of 3339, 10016 or whatever the ending cylinder number is. As an aside, I have seen some (physical) disks defined as small as 100 cylinders. Regards, Richard Schuh -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Brian Nielsen Sent: Monday, June 21, 2010 7:59 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: what is a 'full pack' minidisk? I second what Jim Hughes said - essentially that if it doesn't include = cylinder 0 it's just a minidisk, no matter what the size. Personally, and as discussed here by others
Re: what is a 'full pack' minidisk?
Another exception might be made for disks used by a system that IPLs both in a virtual machine and on the bare iron and is aware of the full size of each device. Yet another could be devices shared with another system such as z/OS. I have hundreds of disks in these categories, heavily weighted toward the first. And they get changed frequently enough that updating the directory each time would be a real PITA because the changes usually are done in the wee hours of the morning - the directory updates would need to be coordinated with the h/w updates. By specifying 0-END, I prevent my having to make those coordinated directory updates while it is very dark and tired outside, and all of the typos that I would need to correct. Regards, Richard Schuh From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Scott Rohling Sent: Monday, June 21, 2010 12:50 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: what is a 'full pack' minidisk? Ah - well DEVNO isn't supported in the referenced report ;-) (an in house thing from long ago) I didn't mean to state my 'rules' as law -- I always hate it when others do that :-)More like Scott's Rules... Most of my reasons for wanting to see specific cylinders in the directory revolve around avoiding the need for Q DASD DETAILS... whether remote or not. One example is someone who thought the volumes they picked were 3390-9 and but were 3390-54. They coded the MDISK statements 1 to END (from habit) - told the Linux folks they were ready - and now we have a very bloated Linux guest and can't just move the minidisk to another volume (like we could if they had specified the size of 10016). Mostly - specifying the size just avoids confusion and gives an immediate view of the number of cylinders the MDISK requires. END is ambiguous and requires knowledge of the # of cylinders defined on the volume. Avoiding ambiguity goes a long way to eliminating errors... shrug YMMV I consider it a 'best practice' and list it as such for customers.. The exception are 'disk holder' users - like those that define all the volumes on the system as 0 END for the purposes of physical backup, etc. Then END makes sense because you want the whole volume defined regardless of size and it's an 'overlay' disk. Scott Rohling On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 1:18 PM, Schuh, Richard rsc...@visa.commailto:rsc...@visa.com wrote: What do you do for your reports if an mdisk is defined by DEVNO instead of volser? You have remote access to the directory but cannot get the output from QUERY DASD DETAILS? You have your preferences, which you state as though they are an absolute law. I have mine which are different from yours, so I guess I am breaking the law :-). I hope the offense is not a felony. If I am ever in a position where I have to report on DASD usage by cylinder from a remote location that has access to the directory but not to the system, I might change. Until then, I see no compelling reason why I should switch. Regards, Richard Schuh From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDUmailto:IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU] On Behalf Of Scott Rohling Sent: Monday, June 21, 2010 10:53 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDUmailto:IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: what is a 'full pack' minidisk? I'm NOT advocating the use of END when defining MDISKs!One of the first things I beg my customers to do is stop using END and use the number of cylinders on all MDISK statements. I concur that it's lazy and creates extra work and confusion. Also makes creating DASD usage reports out of a directory from a remote system impossible. My original post was about how to refer to a minidisk that's defined from 1-END -- because that language fits all sizes. Referring to it and actually defining it are two different things. Always use the number of cylinders when defining an MDISK. Never use END. On a DEFINE MDISK command - go ahead and use END -- but NOT in the directory. Scott Rohling On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 9:59 AM, Schuh, Richard rsc...@visa.commailto:rsc...@visa.com wrote: On the other hand, it is possible for 3390-xx devices to be most any size that you want. The -03, -06 etc. designations are almost meaningless. You are not required to define (in the CU) a multiple of 3339 for the disk sizes. In this environment, 0-END is the way to define a full-pack minidisk regardless of the number of cylinders. The other way would be by DEVNO, iff you can count on the hardware people never changing the address. Here, the hardware people have changed the addresses of disks and have redefined capacities upward, but they have never changed a volser of one of the VM packs or created a duplicate of one that I care about; 0-END is best for me. I agree with the idea that a minidisk defined from 1-end is just a minidisk and the full-pack
Re: what is a 'full pack' minidisk?
Just to avoid confusion to newbies. Note that to have a fullpack minidisk there is no need to define it with 0 END in the CP directory; 0 3339 would also define a fullpack if you define it on a 3390 model 3. For CP, the translations it has to perform for the IO's issued by a guest are a bit less complex if it is a fullpack minidisk. Simply said: it doesn't have to check the guest reads/writes to just that part of a volume. And, when a target minidisk doesn't start at cylinder 0, CP must change all cylinder numbers to apply an offset. 2010/6/19 zMan zedgarhoo...@gmail.com Most-pack. On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 7:20 PM, Scott Rohling scott.rohl...@gmail.comwrote: one off full pack ? Scott Rohling On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 5:17 PM, Schuh, Richard rsc...@visa.com wrote: Others great big big honking near full pack not full pack well-nigh full pack shaved full pack Regards, Richard Schuh -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Les Koehler Sent: Friday, June 18, 2010 4:03 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: what is a 'full pack' minidisk? How about: virtual full-pack Les Rob van der Heij wrote: On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 11:26 PM, Scott Rohling scott.rohl...@gmail.com wrote: Ok -- darn it. a 1 to END minidisk just doesn't have the same ring to it as 'full pack'. And it's another syllable to mumble.. ;-) Care for my pseudo full-pack terminology maybe? (sounds more official than almost full-pack) -- zMan -- I've got a mainframe and I'm not afraid to use it -- Kris Buelens, IBM Belgium, VM customer support
Re: what is a 'full pack' minidisk?
On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 16:45:54 -0600 Scott Rohling said: I like that - it does imply 'almost'.. but now I'm going for '12end'. We'll see if it lasts through the weekend ;-) Tot ziens! How about 1 short of a full pack(deck)? Scott Rohling On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 4:33 PM, Rob van der Heij rvdh...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 11:26 PM, Scott Rohling scott.rohl...@gmail.com wrote: Ok -- darn it. a 1 to END minidisk just doesn't have the same ring to it as 'full pack'. And it's another syllable to mumble.. ;-) Care for my pseudo full-pack terminology maybe? (sounds more official than almost full-pack)
Re: what is a 'full pack' minidisk?
On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 12:38 PM, Kris Buelens kris.buel...@gmail.com wrote: For CP, the translations it has to perform for the IO's issued by a guest are a bit less complex if it is a fullpack minidisk. Simply said: it doesn't have to check the guest reads/writes to just that part of a volume. And, when a target minidisk doesn't start at cylinder 0, CP must change all cylinder numbers to apply an offset. Channel Program translation must create a real channel program, lock the guest pages, change the address in the CCW to point to the real page, etc. Adding an offset to the seek is the least of that trouble. I have not checked the code, but I would not be surprised if CP were just adding 0 to them... And don't forget the untranslate to present the device status to the guest again. Fortunately, the CCHR is virtual, or relative to the start of the mini disk. It's the Control Unit that verifies that the channel program does not go beyond the edge or does not write on a R/O disk. CP puts a Define Extent CCW at the start of the Channel Program that reflects the size of the mini disk. It also has other info for the CU, so it's also there for full pack... Only V=R and V=F guests could take a shortcut because CP did not need to lock the guest pages. Rob
what is a 'full pack' minidisk?
Are there different terms for a minidisk that is defined from 1-END as opposed to 0-END ?I keep having to clarify which I mean every time I use the phrase 'full pack minidisk'. Is there a more succinct way to refer to them separately so I don't have to parenthetically explain what I mean? (1-END) Thanks from a befuddled old man .. Scott Rohling
Re: what is a 'full pack' minidisk?
I usually use the following terms, but they are by no means standardized. 0-END is full pack. 1-END is Entire usable disk From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Scott Rohling Sent: Friday, June 18, 2010 5:06 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: what is a 'full pack' minidisk? Are there different terms for a minidisk that is defined from 1-END as opposed to 0-END ?I keep having to clarify which I mean every time I use the phrase 'full pack minidisk'. Is there a more succinct way to refer to them separately so I don't have to parenthetically explain what I mean? (1-END) Thanks from a befuddled old man .. Scott Rohling
Re: what is a 'full pack' minidisk?
1-end is a minidisk. 0-end is a full pack minidisk. Jim Hughes 603-271-5586 It is fun to do the impossible. From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Scott Rohling Sent: Friday, June 18, 2010 5:06 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: what is a 'full pack' minidisk? Are there different terms for a minidisk that is defined from 1-END as opposed to 0-END ?I keep having to clarify which I mean every time I use the phrase 'full pack minidisk'. Is there a more succinct way to refer to them separately so I don't have to parenthetically explain what I mean? (1-END) Thanks from a befuddled old man .. Scott Rohling
Re: what is a 'full pack' minidisk?
On Friday, 06/18/2010 at 05:07 EDT, Scott Rohling scott.rohl...@gmail.com wrote: Are there different terms for a minidisk that is defined from 1-END as opposed to 0-END ?I keep having to clarify which I mean every time I use the phrase 'full pack minidisk'. A fullpack minidisk is define as either 0-END or with DEVNO. Is there a more succinct way to refer to them separately so I don't have to parenthetically explain what I mean? (1-END) There is no official term, but I don't see what's wrong with a 1 to END minidisk. It requires no more explication than fullpack. If there isn't a VMer on the other end of the conversation, you're going to explain it no matter what you say! :-) Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott
Re: what is a 'full pack' minidisk?
Ok -- darn it. a 1 to END minidisk just doesn't have the same ring to it as 'full pack'. And it's another syllable to mumble.. ;-) For Linux guests - my typical recommendation is to use '1 to END minidisks' rather than get into dividing things any smaller - unless there is a really compelling reason. And I typically refer to this as a 'full pack' provisioning implementation -- so I think I need to stop doing that. Thanks all -- wanted to make sure I wasn't in the dark on how to refer to these beasties. Scott Rohling On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 3:16 PM, Alan Altmark alan_altm...@us.ibm.comwrote: On Friday, 06/18/2010 at 05:07 EDT, Scott Rohling scott.rohl...@gmail.com wrote: Are there different terms for a minidisk that is defined from 1-END as opposed to 0-END ?I keep having to clarify which I mean every time I use the phrase 'full pack minidisk'. A fullpack minidisk is define as either 0-END or with DEVNO. Is there a more succinct way to refer to them separately so I don't have to parenthetically explain what I mean? (1-END) There is no official term, but I don't see what's wrong with a 1 to END minidisk. It requires no more explication than fullpack. If there isn't a VMer on the other end of the conversation, you're going to explain it no matter what you say! :-) Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott
Re: what is a 'full pack' minidisk?
There are some people who use full-pack to refer to either, which is not really correct or good. (I have been trying for 12+ years to convince the people here that what they are running is not VPARS. but TPF. It is difficult to change a culture.) If there is some ingrained term at your site, you may be better off using it. Since there is no official term for the mdisk defined from 1-end in the lexicon, you are pretty much free to call it what you want. Just don't make it George. Regards, Richard Schuh From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Scott Rohling Sent: Friday, June 18, 2010 2:06 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: what is a 'full pack' minidisk? Are there different terms for a minidisk that is defined from 1-END as opposed to 0-END ?I keep having to clarify which I mean every time I use the phrase 'full pack minidisk'. Is there a more succinct way to refer to them separately so I don't have to parenthetically explain what I mean? (1-END) Thanks from a befuddled old man .. Scott Rohling
Re: what is a 'full pack' minidisk?
Your original question included the phrase: every time I use the phrase 'full pack minidisk'. Now you're whining that: 1 to END minidisk just doesn't have the same ring to it as 'full pack'. And it's another syllable to mumble.. ;-) Granted, it does take one whole extra syllable, but : 1 to end minidisk vs full pack minidisk saves a whole BYTE! Maybe it depends on your elocution skills vs your typing speed and quality (both frequent challenges for me). But syllable itself uses a the same number of syllables as bytes as 1 to end! ;-) Oh look... it's: FRIDAY!! BYTE me! ;-) Mike Walter Hewitt Associates The opinions expressed herein are mine alone, not my employer's. Scott Rohling scott.rohl...@gmail.com Sent by: The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU 06/18/2010 04:26 PM Please respond to The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU To IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU cc Subject Re: what is a 'full pack' minidisk? Ok -- darn it. a 1 to END minidisk just doesn't have the same ring to it as 'full pack'. And it's another syllable to mumble.. ;-) For Linux guests - my typical recommendation is to use '1 to END minidisks' rather than get into dividing things any smaller - unless there is a really compelling reason. And I typically refer to this as a 'full pack' provisioning implementation -- so I think I need to stop doing that. Thanks all -- wanted to make sure I wasn't in the dark on how to refer to these beasties. Scott Rohling On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 3:16 PM, Alan Altmark alan_altm...@us.ibm.com wrote: On Friday, 06/18/2010 at 05:07 EDT, Scott Rohling scott.rohl...@gmail.com wrote: Are there different terms for a minidisk that is defined from 1-END as opposed to 0-END ?I keep having to clarify which I mean every time I use the phrase 'full pack minidisk'. A fullpack minidisk is define as either 0-END or with DEVNO. Is there a more succinct way to refer to them separately so I don't have to parenthetically explain what I mean? (1-END) There is no official term, but I don't see what's wrong with a 1 to END minidisk. It requires no more explication than fullpack. If there isn't a VMer on the other end of the conversation, you're going to explain it no matter what you say! :-) Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott The information contained in this e-mail and any accompanying documents may contain information that is confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply e-mail and then delete this message, including any attachments. Any dissemination, distribution or other use of the contents of this message by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. All messages sent to and from this e-mail address may be monitored as permitted by applicable law and regulations to ensure compliance with our internal policies and to protect our business. E-mails are not secure and cannot be guaranteed to be error free as they can be intercepted, amended, lost or destroyed, or contain viruses. You are deemed to have accepted these risks if you communicate with us by e-mail.
Re: what is a 'full pack' minidisk?
right - or late for dinner ;-) On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 4:04 PM, Schuh, Richard rsc...@visa.com wrote: There are some people who use full-pack to refer to either, which is not really correct or good. (I have been trying for 12+ years to convince the people here that what they are running is not VPARS. but TPF. It is difficult to change a culture.) If there is some ingrained term at your site, you may be better off using it. Since there is no official term for the mdisk defined from 1-end in the lexicon, you are pretty much free to call it what you want. Just don't make it George. Regards, Richard Schuh -- *From:* The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] *On Behalf Of *Scott Rohling *Sent:* Friday, June 18, 2010 2:06 PM *To:* IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU *Subject:* what is a 'full pack' minidisk? Are there different terms for a minidisk that is defined from 1-END as opposed to 0-END ?I keep having to clarify which I mean every time I use the phrase 'full pack minidisk'. Is there a more succinct way to refer to them separately so I don't have to parenthetically explain what I mean? (1-END) Thanks from a befuddled old man .. Scott Rohling
Re: what is a 'full pack' minidisk?
Sense of humors are fussy things, aren't they? ;-)This would be better with a beer in hand and some peanuts in the shell.. I officially dub it: 12end minidisk and save a few more bytes. Those non-mainframe muggles will pronounce it 'twelve end minidisk' and we can all smirk. Have a good weekend, Richard, and all! (I never whine, I only grumble and mumble - like a true curmudgeon) Scott Rohling On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 4:19 PM, Mike Walter mike.wal...@hewitt.com wrote: Your original question included the phrase: every time I use the phrase 'full pack minidisk'. Now you're whining that: 1 to END minidisk just doesn't have the same ring to it as 'full pack'. And it's another syllable to mumble.. ;-) Granted, it does take one *whole extra syllable*, but : 1 to end minidisk vs full pack minidisk *saves a whole BYTE!* Maybe it depends on your elocution skills vs your typing speed and quality (both frequent challenges for me). But syllable itself uses a the same number of syllables as bytes as 1 to end! ;-) Oh look... it's: FRIDAY!! BYTE me! ;-) Mike Walter Hewitt Associates The opinions expressed herein are mine alone, not my employer's. *Scott Rohling scott.rohl...@gmail.com* Sent by: The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU 06/18/2010 04:26 PM Please respond to The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU To IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU cc Subject Re: what is a 'full pack' minidisk? Ok -- darn it. a 1 to END minidisk just doesn't have the same ring to it as 'full pack'. And it's another syllable to mumble.. ;-) For Linux guests - my typical recommendation is to use '1 to END minidisks' rather than get into dividing things any smaller - unless there is a really compelling reason. And I typically refer to this as a 'full pack' provisioning implementation -- so I think I need to stop doing that. Thanks all -- wanted to make sure I wasn't in the dark on how to refer to these beasties. Scott Rohling On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 3:16 PM, Alan Altmark *alan_altm...@us.ibm.com*alan_altm...@us.ibm.com wrote: On Friday, 06/18/2010 at 05:07 EDT, Scott Rohling *scott.rohl...@gmail.com* scott.rohl...@gmail.com wrote: Are there different terms for a minidisk that is defined from 1-END as opposed to 0-END ?I keep having to clarify which I mean every time I use the phrase 'full pack minidisk'. A fullpack minidisk is define as either 0-END or with DEVNO. Is there a more succinct way to refer to them separately so I don't have to parenthetically explain what I mean? (1-END) There is no official term, but I don't see what's wrong with a 1 to END minidisk. It requires no more explication than fullpack. If there isn't a VMer on the other end of the conversation, you're going to explain it no matter what you say! :-) Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott -- The information contained in this e-mail and any accompanying documents may contain information that is confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply e-mail and then delete this message, including any attachments. Any dissemination, distribution or other use of the contents of this message by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. All messages sent to and from this e-mail address may be monitored as permitted by applicable law and regulations to ensure compliance with our internal policies and to protect our business. E-mails are not secure and cannot be guaranteed to be error free as they can be intercepted, amended, lost or destroyed, or contain viruses. You are deemed to have accepted these risks if you communicate with us by e-mail.
Re: what is a 'full pack' minidisk?
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 11:26 PM, Scott Rohling scott.rohl...@gmail.com wrote: Ok -- darn it. a 1 to END minidisk just doesn't have the same ring to it as 'full pack'. And it's another syllable to mumble.. ;-) Care for my pseudo full-pack terminology maybe? (sounds more official than almost full-pack)
Re: what is a 'full pack' minidisk?
I like that - it does imply 'almost'.. but now I'm going for '12end'. We'll see if it lasts through the weekend ;-) Tot ziens! Scott Rohling On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 4:33 PM, Rob van der Heij rvdh...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 11:26 PM, Scott Rohling scott.rohl...@gmail.com wrote: Ok -- darn it. a 1 to END minidisk just doesn't have the same ring to it as 'full pack'. And it's another syllable to mumble.. ;-) Care for my pseudo full-pack terminology maybe? (sounds more official than almost full-pack)
Re: what is a 'full pack' minidisk?
How about: virtual full-pack Les Rob van der Heij wrote: On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 11:26 PM, Scott Rohling scott.rohl...@gmail.com wrote: Ok -- darn it. a 1 to END minidisk just doesn't have the same ring to it as 'full pack'. And it's another syllable to mumble.. ;-) Care for my pseudo full-pack terminology maybe? (sounds more official than almost full-pack)
Re: what is a 'full pack' minidisk?
Others great big big honking near full pack not full pack well-nigh full pack shaved full pack Regards, Richard Schuh -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Les Koehler Sent: Friday, June 18, 2010 4:03 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: what is a 'full pack' minidisk? How about: virtual full-pack Les Rob van der Heij wrote: On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 11:26 PM, Scott Rohling scott.rohl...@gmail.com wrote: Ok -- darn it. a 1 to END minidisk just doesn't have the same ring to it as 'full pack'. And it's another syllable to mumble.. ;-) Care for my pseudo full-pack terminology maybe? (sounds more official than almost full-pack)
Re: what is a 'full pack' minidisk?
one off full pack ? Scott Rohling On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 5:17 PM, Schuh, Richard rsc...@visa.com wrote: Others great big big honking near full pack not full pack well-nigh full pack shaved full pack Regards, Richard Schuh -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Les Koehler Sent: Friday, June 18, 2010 4:03 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: what is a 'full pack' minidisk? How about: virtual full-pack Les Rob van der Heij wrote: On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 11:26 PM, Scott Rohling scott.rohl...@gmail.com wrote: Ok -- darn it. a 1 to END minidisk just doesn't have the same ring to it as 'full pack'. And it's another syllable to mumble.. ;-) Care for my pseudo full-pack terminology maybe? (sounds more official than almost full-pack)
Re: what is a 'full pack' minidisk?
Most-pack. On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 7:20 PM, Scott Rohling scott.rohl...@gmail.comwrote: one off full pack ? Scott Rohling On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 5:17 PM, Schuh, Richard rsc...@visa.com wrote: Others great big big honking near full pack not full pack well-nigh full pack shaved full pack Regards, Richard Schuh -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of Les Koehler Sent: Friday, June 18, 2010 4:03 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: what is a 'full pack' minidisk? How about: virtual full-pack Les Rob van der Heij wrote: On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 11:26 PM, Scott Rohling scott.rohl...@gmail.com wrote: Ok -- darn it. a 1 to END minidisk just doesn't have the same ring to it as 'full pack'. And it's another syllable to mumble.. ;-) Care for my pseudo full-pack terminology maybe? (sounds more official than almost full-pack) -- zMan -- I've got a mainframe and I'm not afraid to use it
