lto:ma..pac..@UK.. ..COM]
Sent: May 20, 2016 01:48
Subject: Re: What was a 3314? (was: Whither VIO)
Right. My (now long gone, I fear) VIOTOES presentation majored on (the then
new) DFSMS implementation. In particular ACS Routines and VIOMAXSIZE.
But I still thought you had to have some VIO
-7535 Office
robin...@sce.com
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Martin Packer
Sent: Friday, May 20, 2016 11:39 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: (External):Re: What was a 3314? (was: Whither VIO)
The "all 16 ex
The "all 16 extents" applies to VIOMAXSIZE calculation, by the way.
Cheers, Martin
Sent from my iPad
> On 20 May 2016, at 17:26, Paul Gilmartin
<000433f07816-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
>
>> On 2016-05-19, at 15:04, Longabaugh, Robert E wrote:
>>
>> ... Also VIO would get all 16
On 2016-05-19, at 15:04, Longabaugh, Robert E wrote:
> ... Also VIO would get all 16 extents at once, so saying TRK(1,1) was not
> better than saying TRK(16). When a job did the VIO allocation, it got the
> page slots.
>
Perhaps not quite. My experience is that it gets the page slot as
: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: What was a 3314? (was: Whither VIO)
Wasn't the MM the bon number?
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Edward Gould
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2016 11:20 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
S
ame Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU]
>> On Behalf Of Norman.Hollander
>> Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2016 2:45 PM
>> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
>> Subject: Re: What was a 3314? (was: Whither VIO)
>>
>> Maybe a bunch of JCL with UNIT=VIO is a cause to make you
On 19 May 2016 at 16:56, Martin Packer wrote:
> The whole disk is NOT in your virtual storage; The track window IS (IIRC).
Well I wasn't thinking *your* (the caller's) virtual storage;
obviously it can't all be there. I was thinking there would be a VSM
mapping of the
Wasn't the MM the bon number?
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Edward Gould
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2016 11:20 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: What was a 3314? (was: Whither VIO)
> On May 18, 2016, a
On Behalf Of Norman.Hollander
> Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2016 2:45 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: What was a 3314? (was: Whither VIO)
>
> Maybe a bunch of JCL with UNIT=VIO is a cause to make you fuss?
>
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe
table disk was the
3314. OK- discuss further...
zNorman
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Martin Packer
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2016 10:45 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: What was a 3314? (was: Whither VIO)
; as they came in.
>
>
> Bob Longabaugh
> CA Technologies
> Storage Management
>
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
Behalf Of Martin Packer
> Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2016 3:56 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@
agement
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Martin Packer
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2016 3:56 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: What was a 3314? (was: Whither VIO)
The whole disk is NOT in your virtual stor
The whole disk is NOT in your virtual storage; The track window IS (IIRC).
Cheers, Martin
Sent from my iPad
> On 19 May 2016, at 21:45, Tony Harminc wrote:
>
>> On 19 May 2016 at 01:44, Martin Packer wrote:
>> It's sort of come back to me:
>>
>> A
On 19 May 2016 at 01:44, Martin Packer wrote:
> It's sort of come back to me:
>
> A small track size limits the virtual storage window (probably usually
> below the line in 1989 when I looked at this). Or it might've been
> cylinder. But I think it was track.
>
> I'm
table disk was the
3314. OK- discuss further...
zNorman
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Martin Packer
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2016 10:45 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: What was a 3314? (was: Whither VIO)
It's so
On Thu, 19 May 2016 13:40:48 +, Roach, Dennis wrote:
>Since almost all "3390" DASD resides on FBA arrayed disks, the software exists
>and is running in the control units to convert ECKD to FBA requests.
>
Kinda proprietary, though, whether from IBM or competitors, and hard to make
a
K- discuss further...
zNorman
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Martin Packer
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2016 10:45 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: What was a 3314? (was: Whither VIO)
It's sort of come
W dniu 2016-05-19 o 15:40, Roach, Dennis pisze:
Since almost all "3390" DASD resides on FBA arrayed disks, the software exists
and is running in the control units to convert ECKD to FBA requests.
Not so easy.
USB stick use USB "CCW", so without hardware changes on mainframe side
there would
nufactured, since the
beginning of time.
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Clark Morris
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2016 8:29 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: What was a 3314? (was: Whither VIO)
[Default] On 18 May
[Default] On 18 May 2016 19:31:34 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main
ste...@copper.net (Steve Thompson) wrote:
>> snip
>Makes one very glad to have things like thumb drives that we have
>today. Now if I could just get one big enough to IPL z/OS...
Would 128 gigabytes be enough. I think I have
On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 7:33 PM, Edward Gould
wrote:
> Chales,
>
> 2321 was a data cell (magnetic strip) hardly could be called DASD)
>
Technically, it was because you could get to a particular "block" of data
"directly" (DASD == Direct Access Storage Device) as
gt; From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
Behalf Of Edward Gould
>> Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2016 5:33 PM
>> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
>> Subject: Re: What was a 3314? (was: Whither VIO)
>>
>> Chales,
>>
>> 2321 wa
18, 2016 5:33 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: What was a 3314? (was: Whither VIO)
>
> Chales,
>
> 2321 was a data cell (magnetic strip) hardly could be called DASD) I don’t
> recall a 3314 . The removable 3340 (not sure the number anyone?)
>
Well, the S/360-20 had TPS (Tape Processing System, not to be
confused with Tape Operating System) which had a RESVOL that was
a tape. And there were utilities to update the tape in place (not
copy to another tape and then back, actual update blocks in
place). From time to time one would have
On Wed, 18 May 2016 17:50:53 -0700, Charles Mills wrote:
> ... It was indeed a direct access storage device. Not a disk, but DASD
> nonetheless. Certainly not magnetic tape (though it had a family
> resemblance!) and certainly not unit record.
>
What's the criterion? Max/Min latency ratio?
@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: What was a 3314? (was: Whither VIO)
Chales,
2321 was a data cell (magnetic strip) hardly could be called DASD) I don’t
recall a 3314 . The removable 3340 (not sure the number anyone?)
Ed
> On May 16, 2016, at 7:47 PM, Charles Mills <charl...@mcn.org> wrote:
>
a mobile; please excuse the brevity
>
> Original message
> From: Steve Thompson <ste...@copper.net>
> Date: 05/16/2016 4:51 PM (GMT-08:00)
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: What was a 3314? (was: Whither VIO)
>
> 2314, 2419, 2311, t
Lots of OEM's changed 1st digit but kept geometry.CDC, Memorex, Telex,
Amdahl, StoraeTek.
In a message dated 5/16/2016 6:40:33 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
charl...@mcn.org writes:
You are going to get some replies on that!
nt: Monday, May 16, 2016 4:16 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: (External):Re: What was a 3314? (was: Whither VIO)
>
> [Default] On 16 May 2016 07:01:50 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main
> jcal...@narsil.org (Jerry Callen) wrote:
>
>> In the "Whither VIO" thr
6-302-7535 Office
robin...@sce.com
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Clark Morris
Sent: Monday, May 16, 2016 4:16 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: (External):Re: What was a 3314? (was: Whither VIO)
[Default] On 16 M
PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: What was a 3314? (was: Whither VIO)
OK, the sleeping dog wants some attention. Before my first reply, I
carefully Googled device type 2314 to verify the number. Then I typed '3314'
because who has ever worked with DASD that started with something other than
Co-Manager
323-715-0595 Mobile
626-302-7535 Office
robin...@sce.com
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Clark Morris
Sent: Monday, May 16, 2016 4:16 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: (External):Re: What was a 3314
[Default] On 16 May 2016 07:01:50 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main
jcal...@narsil.org (Jerry Callen) wrote:
>In the "Whither VIO" thread, J.O.Skip Robinson wrote:
>
>> In a previous life, we defined VIO (I believe) to device 3314 even though
>> we had none left on the floor
>
>That's a device
On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 9:09 AM, R.S.
wrote:
> W dniu 2016-05-16 o 16:01, Jerry Callen pisze:
>
>> In the "Whither VIO" thread, J.O.Skip Robinson wrote:
>>
>> In a previous life, we defined VIO (I believe) to device 3314 even
>>> though we had none left on the
W dniu 2016-05-16 o 16:01, Jerry Callen pisze:
In the "Whither VIO" thread, J.O.Skip Robinson wrote:
In a previous life, we defined VIO (I believe) to device 3314 even though we
had none left on the floor
That's a device type I've never heard of, and the Google knows not of. Could this be
In the "Whither VIO" thread, J.O.Skip Robinson wrote:
> In a previous life, we defined VIO (I believe) to device 3314 even though we
> had none left on the floor
That's a device type I've never heard of, and the Google knows not of. Could
this be a typo for "2314"?
-- Jerry
36 matches
Mail list logo