Chris Langford has already stated the fundamental answer to the original
question - I'll re-state it for emphasis before we fly off on too many
tangents and it gets lost:
To allow complete virtualisation of minidisks of any size up to and
including full-pack. Virtualising a full-pack
On Friday, 03/16/2007 at 10:32 CET, Rob van der Heij [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Suppose IBM would come up with something on the HMC to maintain the CP
directory. An easy-to-use GUI application that talked to CP through
some new hack in the SCLP area. That would make it impossible to run
VM
On 3/16/07, Alan Altmark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sir, let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater, eh? There are all
sorts of places where the underlying hardware does *not* shine through to
the guest. Example: the integrated 3270 console. VM continues to run
under VM just fine, albeit
Why, is easy
CMS was developed in the '60s. There was no concept of PCs or their disk
structure at that time. Memory was very expensive (hence the 512 byte blocks)
and disk was too expensive to waste. Most of what was going to be under CMS
was files like we xedit with. Not data files.
Perhaps an FST?
It sounds like he is looking for something at the Volume level - more than
just the contents of a single MDISK. He would like a mapping on the
volume to show where all the mdisks are, owners, passwords, etc. The
concept is interesting but it opens a few cans of worms, one of which being
Hmmm. I don't know the history, but can imagine some problems.
1) VOLSER=1 has n minidisks, defined in CP Object directory.
2) Now imagine that the disk is taken offline, perhaps for some DASD
service.
3) And the CP Object directory is updated, re-allocating those minidisks
to a new
John,
I have a PFKEY set up in MAINT to list mdisks in different ways, one of
which might be what you are looking for. I actually run this every time
I up date the directory and run an edit on it, I can spot an overlap on
files easily this way also.
PF06 DELAY DISKMAP USER#DIRMAP USER(GAPFILE
-Original Message-
From: The IBM z/VM Operating System
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of A. Harry Williams
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 10:23 AM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: Historical curiousity question.
Just a guess.
The CP Directory has information
I am not having a problem at all with how things are done. I was just
curious about why the original developers made DASD management such
a
burden on the sysprog. Especially in the early days. But performance
could very well be the reason.
1) Back then, there *wasn't* much DASD to manage. VM
To support minidisks that already have a VTOC embedded
i.e 'MDISK cuu devt 0 END volser'
McKown, John wrote:
This is not important, but I just have to ask this. Does anybody know
why the original designers of VM did not do something for minidisks
akin to a OS/360 VTOC? Actually, it would be
On Thursday, 03/15/2007 at 10:55 EST, McKown, John
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The CP Directory has information for each user. At logon time,
the information about a single user is available very quickly.
This makes sense to me. IIRC, the VM directory is memory resident so all
this
2007/3/15, Alan Altmark [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Thursday, 03/15/2007 at 10:55 EST, McKown, John
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The CP Directory has information for each user. At logon time,
the information about a single user is available very quickly.
This makes sense to me. IIRC, the VM
um, at the risk of the wrath of Chuckie, not quite. The directory is treated as
CP virtual storage. So some of it is usually resident (at least the index
pages) and the rest is treated as nice preferred page i/o to the drct area.
With storage sizes what they are these days, I'm thinking a lot
On Thursday, 03/15/2007 at 10:01 CET, Kris Buelens
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alan, isn't the CP directory entirely stored in a CP dataspace nowadays?
Well, sort of, but the parts of CP that want to read the directory don't
know that. :-)
The directory is memory mapped into the CP execution
--- McKown, John [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
This is not important, but I just have to ask this.
Does anybody know
why the original designers of VM did not do
something for minidisks
akin to a OS/360 VTOC? Actually, it would be more
akin to a partition
table on a PC disk. It just seems that
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 12:48:15 -0400, David Boyes wrote:
I am not having a problem at all with how things are done. I was just
curious about why the original developers made DASD management such
a
burden on the sysprog. Especially in the early days. But performance
could very well be the
17 matches
Mail list logo
