In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 12/05/2007
at 07:33 AM, Doc Farmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
One question - how many 80 column cards would equal one 305 RAMAC?
Well, the disk drive on the 650 derived from the RAMAC and could hold the
equivalent of 75000 cards.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz,
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 12/05/2007
at 08:34 AM, Rick Fochtman [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Looks a little like the old 2302 fixed disk drive.
Superficially, but if you look closely you'll see that while the 2302 has
the comb of R/W arms that you're used to, the RAMAC had an arm that moved
both
There is one at the IBM museum in Sindelfingen/Germany (near Boeblingen),
and as far as I remember, it has only one arm.
Kind regards
Bernd
Am Sonntag, 9. Dezember 2007 18:14 schrieben Sie:
Superficially, but if you look closely you'll see that while the 2302 has
the comb of R/W arms
Paul Gilmartin wrote:
Ummm. Imagine the effect on a dusty JCL deck which said,
DD SPACE=(CYL,100). But perhaps not. ISTM that SMS or DYNALLOC
(or maybe even ISPF) sometimes adjusts my requested SPACE to
account for the difference between 3380 and 3390.
I believe there was a panel in the
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of John P. Baker
Using the current track size, the space on a volume can
theoretically reach
244 TB. If we use the full capabilities of ECKD
architecture, a single volume can accommodate 72,055 PB.
Who would live
Chase, John wrote:
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of John P. Baker
Using the current track size, the space on a volume can
theoretically reach
244 TB. If we use the full capabilities of ECKD
architecture, a single volume can accommodate 72,055 PB.
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 04:06:58 +, Ted MacNEIL wrote:
However, if you specify allocation in terms of blocks blocksize, what does
it matter?
That's a BIG IF at a lot of locations.
I don't believe it was proposed that IBM end marketing of 3390 geometry;
only that an alternative be made
On 5 Dec 2007 12:39:03 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Patrick
O'Keefe) wrote:
Furthermore, no one even reported the disappearance of
20 cars.
...
Maybe they were not willing to admit why they had 20 car-loads
of cards in the first place. That's a LOT of cards to write notes on.
There was a society
On 5 Dec 2007 16:23:59 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ed Gould)
wrote:
Maybe they were not willing to admit why they had 20 car-loads
of cards in the first place. That's a LOT of cards to write notes on.
Paat:
I was thinking that they ended up as fuel for heating. I don't think
you could make
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Howard Brazee
On 5 Dec 2007 12:39:03 -0800, Patrick O'Keefe wrote:
Furthermore, no one even reported the disappearance of 20 cars.
...
Maybe they were not willing to admit why they had 20
car-loads of cards
--snip---
Furthermore, no one even reported the disappearance of 20 cars.
...
Maybe they were not willing to admit why they had 20 car-loads of
cards
in the first place. That's a LOT of cards to write notes on.
There was a society in
On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 07:33:10 -0600, Doc Farmer wrote:
What kills me (figuratively, of course) is when I look at the capacity of
today's
IBM drives. A 3390-3 seems like so much when you're talking tracks and
cyls, but it's really around 2.8 gig. Hades tintinnabulum, I've got over a
TERABYTE of
Doc Farmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Geez, what am I supposed to do with all those years of feeling
*unofficially*
old?
What kills me (figuratively, of course) is when I look at the capacity
of today's
IBM drives. A 3390-3 seems like so much when you're
http://www.snopes.com/photos/technology/storage.asp
I guess we can all feel really officially OLD.
Ed
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET
On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 08:32:35 -0600, Rick Fochtman wrote:
Yeah? So when can we expect IBM to recognize its blunder and abandon
its commitment never to provide customers anything better than a 3390?
--unsnip---
Define better. One of the biggest complaints about
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Gilmartin
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 7:49 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: IBM RAMAC now an URBAN Legend:(
On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 07:33:10 -0600, Doc Farmer wrote
On 5 Dec 2007 05:33:20 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Doc Farmer)
wrote:
Geez, what am I supposed to do with all those years of feeling *unofficially*
old?
What kills me (figuratively, of course) is when I look at the capacity of
today's
IBM drives. A 3390-3 seems like so much when you're talking
Ed Gould wrote:
http://www.snopes.com/photos/technology/storage.asp
I guess we can all feel really officially OLD.
I remember standing on Madison Avenue and watching the arm go up
and down. Seems like a different world, almost.
Gerhard Postpischil
Bradford, VT
I know the arguments about people don't want to do another DASD conversion.
Having lived 3330 to 3350 to 3380 to 3390 (with emulation mode in there), I
agree with the sentiment.
But, 3390 does not entirely limit the size of a volume.
It's the software architecture.
With virtualisation and
On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 08:34:43 -0600, Rick Fochtman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
Looks a little like the old 2302 fixed disk drive.
...
I've never seen either in real life, but the sfuff to the left of the
platters in the picture look to me like verticle movement stuff for
the head. I think the
On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 15:55:23 +, Ted MacNEIL wrote:
But, 3390 does not entirely limit the size of a volume.
It's the software architecture.
z/Series HW design is far in advance of z/OS software design.
The bar is a delusion of z/OS, not a limitation of z/Series.
With virtualisation and
On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 09:16:24 -0600, Ed Gould
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
Furthermore, no one even reported the disappearance of
20 cars.
...
Maybe they were not willing to admit why they had 20 car-loads
of cards in the first place. That's a LOT of cards to write notes on.
Pat O'Keefe
On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 14:38:53 -0600, Patrick O'Keefe wrote:
On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 09:16:24 -0600, Ed Gould
wrote:
Furthermore, no one even reported the disappearance of
20 cars.
Maybe they were not willing to admit why they had 20 car-loads
of cards in the first place. That's a LOT of cards to
On Dec 5, 2007, at 7:33 AM, Doc Farmer wrote:
Geez, what am I supposed to do with all those years of feeling
*unofficially*
old?
What kills me (figuratively, of course) is when I look at the
capacity of today's
IBM drives. A 3390-3 seems like so much when you're talking tracks
and
cyls,
--snip
Yeah? So when can we expect IBM to recognize its blunder and abandon
its commitment never to provide customers anything better than a 3390?
--unsnip---
Define better. One of the biggest complaints about
-snip--
http://www.snopes.com/photos/technology/storage.asp
I guess we can all feel really officially OLD.
unsnip---
Looks a little like the old 2302 fixed disk drive.
Geez, what am I supposed to do with all those years of feeling *unofficially*
old?
What kills me (figuratively, of course) is when I look at the capacity of
today's
IBM drives. A 3390-3 seems like so much when you're talking tracks and
cyls, but it's really around 2.8 gig. Hades
On Dec 5, 2007, at 2:38 PM, Patrick O'Keefe wrote:
On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 09:16:24 -0600, Ed Gould
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
Furthermore, no one even reported the disappearance of
20 cars.
...
Maybe they were not willing to admit why they had 20 car-loads
of cards in the first place. That's
On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 16:36:30 -0800, Edward Jaffe wrote:
Paul Gilmartin wrote:
Ummm. I think the platter size is pretty much maxed out to the
capacity of CC. But the unused capacity of HH should allow for
thousands more platters than 15.
And that's four bits, which is a lot! Disk addresses
On Dec 5, 2007, at 9:55 AM, Ted MacNEIL wrote:
I know the arguments about people don't want to do another DASD
conversion.
Having lived 3330 to 3350 to 3380 to 3390 (with emulation mode in
there), I agree with the sentiment.
But, 3390 does not entirely limit the size of a volume.
It's the
Paul Gilmartin wrote:
And that's four bits, which is a lot! Disk addresses are currently of
the form 'cc0hr' where '0' is an unused nibble for 3390 geometry. If the
current max disk size is 54GB, then 16 times that much would be ...
ITYM bytes, not nibbles. I see:
Of course, you're
Paul Gilmartin wrote:
Ummm. I think the platter size is pretty much maxed out to the
capacity of CC. But the unused capacity of HH should allow for
thousands more platters than 15.
And that's four bits, which is a lot! Disk addresses are currently of
the form 'cc0hr' where '0' is an
On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 17:13:00 -0800, Edward Jaffe wrote:
Of course, you're right! CCHHR is five *bytes* long. We currently use
only four bits of the sixteen allocated for HH. So, that means we could
use an additional twelve bits to extend the disk size to 4K times the
current 54GB size! (Thanks for
@BAMA.UA.EDU
cc
Subject
Re: IBM RAMAC now an URBAN Legend:(
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Gilmartin
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 7:49 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: IBM RAMAC now an URBAN Legend
Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Paul Gilmartin
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 8:24 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: IBM RAMAC now an URBAN Legend:(
On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 17:13:00 -0800, Edward Jaffe wrote:
Of course, you're right
No of tracks- 65,535
Track capacity - 16,777,215
Unfortunately, those two violate IBM's promise of not changing the 3390
architecture.
-
Too busy driving to stop for gas!
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive
@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: IBM RAMAC now an URBAN Legend:(
No of tracks- 65,535
Track capacity - 16,777,215
Unfortunately, those two violate IBM's promise of not changing the 3390
architecture.
-
Too busy driving to stop for gas
However, if you specify allocation in terms of blocks blocksize, what does
it matter?
That's a BIG IF at a lot of locations.
-
Too busy driving to stop for gas!
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access
38 matches
Mail list logo
