Re: SELTAPE algorithm in z/OS

2007-05-23 Thread Ed Gould
On May 23, 2007, at 1:15 PM, Thomas Conley wrote: I know SELTAPE was internalized eons ago, but I thought it was internalized as NEXT. I'm seeing what looks like RANDOM on z/OS V1R8. Is this a bug or a feature? My concern is that NEXT always seemed to be the best algorithm to spread out

Re: SELTAPE algorithm in z/OS

2007-05-23 Thread Patrick . Falcone
ame Discussion List 05/23/2007 02:15 PM Please respond to IBM Mainframe Discussion List To IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU cc Subject SELTAPE algorithm in z/OS I know SELTAPE was internalized eons ago, but I thought it was internalized as NEXT. I'm seeing what looks like RANDOM on z/OS V1R8

Re: SELTAPE algorithm in z/OS

2007-05-23 Thread Schwarz, Barry A
What would you like to happen if the first mount is for 10 EXCPs and the next one is for 10M? -Original Message- From: Thomas Conley [mailto:snip] Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 11:16 AM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: SELTAPE algorithm in z/OS I know SELTAPE was internalized eons ago

SELTAPE algorithm in z/OS

2007-05-23 Thread Thomas Conley
I know SELTAPE was internalized eons ago, but I thought it was internalized as NEXT. I'm seeing what looks like RANDOM on z/OS V1R8. Is this a bug or a feature? My concern is that NEXT always seemed to be the best algorithm to spread out the pain and minimize certain drives getting hammered.