Ted MacNEIL wrote:
This would allow a migration path, better disk I-O routines because FBA wouldn't have to be mapped to CKD.
Why?
Better than what?
2-5 ms per I/O is not an issue!
What are we to gain with FBA, these days?
(From somebody who remembers 50-60 ms per I/O)
It sounds as
-snip---
It sounds as if they're concerned about the application or operating
system math required to convert an emulated FBA sector number to
cccHR. You have to divide by some RPT (records per track) value to
get track and
Rick Fochtman wrote:
-snip---
It sounds as if they're concerned about the application or operating
system math required to convert an emulated FBA sector number to
cccHR. You have to divide by some RPT (records per track) value
snip---
Edward Jaffe wrote:
Rick Fochtman wrote:
-snip---
It sounds as if they're concerned about the application or operating
system math required to convert an emulated
Really? I always thought the 3380s and 3390s were CKD device also, but I
don't have anything to support that thought.
Eric Bielefeld
Sr. z/OS Systems Programmer
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
414-475-7434
- Original Message -
From: Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
AFAIK, the last
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 07/03/2008
at 02:34 PM, Wayne Driscoll [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
As was mentioned, FBA doesn't contain support for RESERVE/RELEASE,
What that really means is that the 3310 and 3370 didn't support
Reserve/Release; were IBM to come up with newer DASD supporting the FBA
Eric Bielefeld wrote:
Really? I always thought the 3380s and 3390s were CKD device also
Yes, really. Seymour J is right, as hard as that might be to believe.
These drives are, under the covers, really FBA devices. Externally,
however, they are CKD devices (because you use the standard CKD
I resent that remark. :-)
John P. Baker
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Chase, John
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 8:36 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Another difference between platforms...
Anybody who understands
Altmark
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 3:45 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Another difference between platforms...
No. Count-Key-Data describes a *semantic* for accessing data. Many of
those semantics (such as searching) do not apply to FBA. Another example:
There is no RESERVE
On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 16:58:42 -0400, John P. Baker
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The FBA command set originally contained support for Reserve/Release.
The IBM 4331 and 4361 processors (direct attach), as well as the 3880-4
controller provided the following related channel commands:
X'14'
On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 20:31:26 -0500, Paul Gilmartin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 14:34:29 -0500, Wayne Driscoll wrote:
Clark,
As was mentioned, FBA doesn't contain support for RESERVE/RELEASE,
causing
RACF/VM and RACF-z/OS to be unable to share a mini-disk resident
database.
If
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on
07/02/2008
at 04:29 PM, Thompson, Steve [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Is it CKD vs. FBA?
Yes.
Or is this caused by it being cheaper to emulate CKD
on RAID?
AFAIK, the last real CKD device that IBM announced was the 3350; the 3375,
3380 and everything since have been FBA
On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 17:49:06 -0500, Rick Fochtman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--snip---
How difficult would it be to write (or under the covers, convert) CKD
CCWs to FBA CCWs?
--unsnip
Isn't
The following message is a courtesy copy of an article
that has been posted to bit.listserv.ibm-main,alt.folklore.computers as well.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Graeme Gibson) writes:
..but blind is completely out of court here and cannot go
unchallenged in this forum. If CKD compatability had been
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Rick Fochtman
-snip
Blind pursuit of backward compatibility has left us stuck
with CKD even while most of the major logical methods of
storage are FBA (VSAM,
Anybody who understands Assembler is obsolete. :-D
Until there is a system or application problem that requires detailed
analysis. ;}
Jon L. Veilleux
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(860) 636-2683
This e-mail may contain confidential or privileged information. If
you think you have received
Chase, John wrote:
Anybody who understands Assembler is obsolete. :-D
Right! Real programmers write machine code g
Gerhard Postpischil
Bradford, VT
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send
On 2 Jul 2008 14:23:25 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 16:29:50 -0400, Thompson, Steve wrote:
Is it CKD vs. FBA? Or is this caused by it being cheaper to emulate CKD
on RAID? And then, to continue with 3390 based geometry because it is
cheaper to do that than to put
This would allow a migration path, better disk I-O routines because FBA
wouldn't have to be mapped to CKD.
Why?
Better than what?
2-5 ms per I/O is not an issue!
What are we to gain with FBA, these days?
(From somebody who remembers 50-60 ms per I/O)
-
Too busy driving to stop for gas!
are strictly my own.
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Clark Morris
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 1:27 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Another difference between platforms...
On 2 Jul 2008 14:23:25 -0700
] On Behalf
Of Clark Morris
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 1:27 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Another difference between platforms...
On 2 Jul 2008 14:23:25 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 16:29:50 -0400, Thompson, Steve wrote:
Is it CKD vs. FBA
On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 14:34:29 -0500, Wayne Driscoll wrote:
Clark,
As was mentioned, FBA doesn't contain support for RESERVE/RELEASE, causing
RACF/VM and RACF-z/OS to be unable to share a mini-disk resident database.
If you can't share a RACF database, how would any other multi-system sharing
be
On 30 Jun 2008 11:01:24 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gary Green
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 12:36 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Another difference between platforms
On 2 Jul 2008 12:39:29 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Clark Morris)
wrote:
Apple has changed processors for its OS.
Twice.But maybe the bigger change is to change their core OS to
Unix.
But by starting clean, they were able to get rid of vulnerabilities by
design instead of by patching.
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Clark Morris
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 2:39 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Another difference between platforms...
snip
... Blind pursuit of backward compatibility has left us
On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 16:29:50 -0400, Thompson, Steve wrote:
Is it CKD vs. FBA? Or is this caused by it being cheaper to emulate CKD
on RAID? And then, to continue with 3390 based geometry because it is
cheaper to do that than to put out a new DASD device?
What does you mean, Steve? All of the
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Tom Marchant
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 4:23 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Another difference between platforms...
snip
How much existing code would break? Example: PDS uses TTR
I bet Shai Hess knows...
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Thompson, Steve
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 5:02 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Another difference between platforms...
-Original
--snip---
How difficult would it be to write (or under the covers, convert) CKD
CCWs to FBA CCWs?
--unsnip
Isn't that exactly what happens in the current crop of RAID controllers now?
I still maintain that while FBA architecture has some advantages, there's
still a place for CKD architecture as well. I guess that makes me obsolete,
too. :-)
Me three! (8-{]}
I know how to manage and tune ECKD DASD.
I was at an IBM seminar about 20 years ago, and somebody asked about FBA.
The
PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Clark Morris
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 2:39 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Another difference between platforms...
snip
Blind pursuit of backward compatibility has left us stuck with CKD
even while most of the major logical methods of storage are FBA (VSAM,
DB2
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 20:04:05 -0400, Gary Green [EMAIL PROTECTED]
SYSTEMS.COM wrote:
I enjoy cross-country motorcycle trips. Unfortunately, once I started
working for a consulting outfit, that fell to the wayside. :( Perhaps at
my next job... (he says hopefully)
Ah, nothing quite so Zen as
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Arthur Gutowski
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 20:04:05 -0400, Gary Green
I enjoy cross-country motorcycle trips. Unfortunately, once I
started
working for a consulting outfit, that fell to the wayside. :(
Perhaps
at
Quoting Chase, John :
Unfortunately, my dentist shares a
parking lot with a shrink's office. :-|
Hopefully the former doesn't drive you to the latter with questions such
as ...
is it safe ... ???
Shane ...
--
For IBM-MAIN
Off-list.
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Shane Ginnane
Quoting Chase, John :
Unfortunately, my dentist shares a
parking lot with a shrink's office. :-|
Hopefully the former doesn't drive you to the latter with
questions such as
-snip
I enjoy cross-country motorcycle trips. Unfortunately, once I started
working for a consulting outfit, that fell to the wayside. :( Perhaps at
my next job... (he says hopefully)
Ah, nothing quite so Zen as
Back in the 80's we mainframe(rs) went from 24 bit to 31 bit, then towards the
end of the millennium, we started migrating to 64 bit with the introduction of
z/OS. During all this time I do not recall any of the applications we ran on
the older platforms ever going dark because of the change.
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gary Green
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 12:36 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Another difference between platforms...
Back in the 80's we mainframe(rs) went from 24 bit to 31 bit
] On Behalf Of Gary Green
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 12:36 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Another difference between platforms...
Back in the 80's we mainframe(rs) went from 24 bit to 31 bit,
then towards the end of the millennium, we started migrating
to 64 bit with the introduction
snip---
On all I concur...
Their development platforms are just as bad.
I remember a PC project I worked on somewhere around the tail end of the 90's,
a pretty big one at that. By the time project was complete, the development
environment and
Subject: Re: Another difference between platforms...
snip---
On all I concur...
Their development platforms are just as bad.
I remember a PC project I worked on somewhere around the tail end of the
90's, a pretty big one at that. By the time
41 matches
Mail list logo
