Suppose a EBCDIC file on a tape from IBM mainframe is read onto a Linux
server, and this EBCDIC file on the tape has 100 records with a length
of 13054, is it correct to estimate the size of the file on Linux server
would be 1,305,400 bytes?
Maybe.
[Last time I did this, I out-sourced it to a b
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> Usually but not always.
"Usually" usually means "not always". But you brought up a good point. Logical
"records" often bridged "physical" recordsand in the case of the start-stop
tapes
the usual real "physical" record was the block.
Along the same lines, some tap
Original message
>From: Jon maddog Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
>> Suppose a EBCDIC file on a tape from IBM mainframe is read onto a Linux
>> server, and this EBCDIC file on the tape has 100 records with a length of
>> 13054, is it correct to estimate the size of
On Friday 15 September 2006 3:22 pm, Jon maddog Hall wrote:
> Usually you can use the 'dd' command to easily read an ibm EBCDIC tape
> and convert it to ASCII. Remember that most Unix systems (heck, most
> systems in general) use "ASCII", not "EBCDIC", so you might want to
> convert it, assuming t
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> Suppose a EBCDIC file on a tape from IBM mainframe is read onto a Linux
> server, and this EBCDIC file on the tape has 100 records with a length of
> 13054, is it correct to estimate the size of the file on Linux server would
> be 1,305,400 bytes?
Generally speaking, y
Seven folks attended the September meeting of MonadLUG last night.
Charlie Farinella ran the meeting in Guy's absence, and we had a
brief discussion on keeping the administrative overhead to minimum to
focus on the contents of the meeting. All were in agreement and we
dove in.
It was Ray
Hi,
Suppose a EBCDIC file on a tape from IBM mainframe is read onto a Linux
server, and this EBCDIC file on the tape has 100 records with a length
of 13054, is it correct to estimate the size of the file on Linux server
would be 1,305,400 bytes? Is block size information also needed to
calcul