Re: Documenting the underlying FBA design of 3375, 3380 and 3390?

k.html#10 Documenting the underlying FBA design of 3375, 3380 and 3390? I had to leave several file cabinets of stuff behind when I left. Old email archive basically has stuff regarding when various levels of 3375 support went into product and EREP issues related to 3375 ... and a note that 3375 w

Re: Documenting the underlying FBA design of 3375, 3380 and 3390?

In , on 06/29/2010 at 12:12 PM, Anne & Lynn Wheeler said: >aka 3375/florence was first of FBA device underneath (3370) with CKD >emulated above. But does anybody here still have manuals documenting that fact, or contacts with someone who has access to the IBM archives? I was hoping that someo

Re: Documenting the underlying FBA design of 3375, 3380 and 3390?

bi...@mainstar.com (Bill Fairchild) writes: > YDRC (You Don't Recall Correctly). > > The 3310 and 3370 were FBA above the covers. All other > mainframe-attachable DASDs from IBM were CKD above the covers (3390, > 3380, 3375, 3350, 3340, 3330, 2321, 2314, 2305, 2303, 2302, and 2301). aka 3375/flor

Re: Documenting the underlying FBA design of 3375, 3380 and 3390?

List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Staller, Allan Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2010 7:17 AM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: Re: Documenting the underlying FBA design of 3375, 3380 and 3390? IIRC, "Real" 3380 and 3390 were CKD, w/modern RAID disk, this is no longer true. Th

Re: Documenting the underlying FBA design of 3375, 3380 and 3390?

Thanks for the correction. FBA design of 3375, 3380 and 3390? YDRC (You Don't Recall Correctly). The 3310 and 3370 were FBA above the covers. All other mainframe-attachable DASDs from IBM were CKD above the covers (3390, 3380, 3375, 3350, 3340, 3330, 2321, 2314, 2305, 2303, 2302, and 2301). S

Re: Documenting the underlying FBA design of 3375, 3380 and 3390?

List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) Sent: Monday, June 28, 2010 9:28 PM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: Documenting the underlying FBA design of 3375, 3380 and 3390? Does anyone have formal IBM documentation stating that the 3375, 3380 and 3390 are FBA under the

Re: Documenting the underlying FBA design of 3375, 3380 and 3390?

Staller, Allan pisze: Does anyone have formal IBM documentation stating that the 3375, 3380 and 3390 are FBA under the cover. I'm looking for something more explicit than the intrusion of the cell size into capacity calculations. Thanks. IIRC, "Real" 3380 and 3390 were CKD, w/modern RAID disk

Re: Documenting the underlying FBA design of 3375, 3380 and 3390?

Does anyone have formal IBM documentation stating that the 3375, 3380 and 3390 are FBA under the cover. I'm looking for something more explicit than the intrusion of the cell size into capacity calculations. Thanks. IIRC, "Real" 3380 and 3390 were CKD, w/modern RAID disk, this is no longer true

Documenting the underlying FBA design of 3375, 3380 and 3390?

Does anyone have formal IBM documentation stating that the 3375, 3380 and 3390 are FBA under the cover. I'm looking for something more explicit than the intrusion of the cell size into capacity calculations. Thanks. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT ISO position; see