Fw: Re: 308x Processors - was Mainframe articles

2009-05-12 Thread Patrick Falcone
Correction they were 3081K 32's, one of the other posts jolted my memory back into focus. Sorry for the drift. --- On Tue, 5/12/09, Patrick Falcone patrick.falco...@verizon.net wrote: From: Patrick Falcone patrick.falco...@verizon.net Subject: Re: 308x Processors - was Mainframe articles To:

Re: Fw: Re: 308x Processors - was Mainframe articles

2009-05-12 Thread Anne Lynn Wheeler
The following message is a courtesy copy of an article that has been posted to bit.listserv.ibm-main as well. patrick.falco...@verizon.net (Patrick Falcone) writes: Correction they were 3081K 32's, one of the other posts jolted my memory back into focus. Sorry for the drift. re:

Re: Fw: Re: 308x Processors - was Mainframe articles

2009-05-12 Thread Thompson, Steve
-Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Anne Lynn Wheeler Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 12:40 PM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: Re: Fw: Re: 308x Processors - was Mainframe articles SNIP 3033 and 3081 in 370 mode were 24bit

Re: Fw: Re: 308x Processors - was Mainframe articles

2009-05-12 Thread Anne Lynn Wheeler
steve_thomp...@stercomm.com (Thompson, Steve) writes: SNIP 3033 and 3081 in 370 mode were 24bit (16mbyte) addressing (real virtual). SNIPPAGE Didn't the 30xx machines have 26 bit addressing (the 3033 mode) when operating in S/370 mode? Starting with the 3033MP? re:

Re: Fw: Re: 308x Processors - was Mainframe articles

2009-05-12 Thread Ted MacNEIL
3033 and 3081 in 370 mode were 24bit 16mbyte) addressing (real virtual). We had 40M on our 3081 in 370 mode. Virtual was 16, but the OS could use the extra 24M, not as efficiently as XA, but it was used. - Too busy driving to stop for gas!