I keep it standard to a MOD 3.
NO DR issues and its quicker to define the environment.
Ed
> On Jul 7, 2016, at 4:58 PM, Edward Finnell
> <000248cce9f3-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
>
> My concern is in a mixed CP Environment that you through stuff away. We
> kept a defined string
My concern is in a mixed CP Environment that you through stuff away. We
kept a defined string of 3380's for VMer's and they we happy. In the SSD can
still define 3380 mod2's for CKD.
In a message dated 7/7/2016 4:10:10 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
ee...@us.ibm.com writes:
I like to (t
There was no big rush (smile).
We're not thinking of volume size related changes in ServerPac that I
know about. We are thinking about a larger volume size for the
Customized Offerings Driver (COD) system, though, as it's getting tough
to keep it on 3390-3 size volumes.
I like to (try to) a
On Tue, 28 Jun 2016 12:19:28 -0400, John Eells wrote:
>What is the *smallest* volume size everyone sees in general use?
>
>For example, will we create any problems if we assume that "everyone"
>has or can define at least a 3390-9 size volume these days? What if we
>chose 3390-27?
Apologies for
On 7/5/2016 6:04 AM, John Eells wrote:
Ed Jaffe wrote:
We use three sizes only: mod-9, mod-27, and mod-216. The only reason we
still maintain mod-9s is because that is the format used by the software
sent to us by IBM.
Can you elaborate? Is that the volume size for the ADCD or something
els
n List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU]
> On Behalf Of Vernooij, CP (ITOPT1) - KLM
> Sent: Monday, July 04, 2016 5:16 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: Minimum Volume Sizes in the Wild
>
> We create as much 3390-54's as possible.
> We have some smaller volumes onl
Ed Jaffe wrote:
We use three sizes only: mod-9, mod-27, and mod-216. The only reason we
still maintain mod-9s is because that is the format used by the software
sent to us by IBM.
Can you elaborate? Is that the volume size for the ADCD or something
else? (For ServerPac, it might be the defa
Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
> Behalf Of Vernooij, CP (ITOPT1) - KLM
> Sent: Monday, July 04, 2016 5:16 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: Minimum Volume Sizes in the Wild
>
> We create as much 3390-54's a
, 2016 18:19
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Minimum Volume Sizes in the Wild
What is the *smallest* volume size everyone sees in general use?
For example, will we create any problems if we assume that "everyone"
has or can define at least a 3390-9 size volume these days? What if we
On 6/28/2016 9:19 AM, John Eells wrote:
What is the *smallest* volume size everyone sees in general use?
For example, will we create any problems if we assume that "everyone"
has or can define at least a 3390-9 size volume these days? What if
we chose 3390-27?
We use three sizes only: mod-9
: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 9:36 PM
Subject: Re: Minimum Volume Sizes in the Wild
The smallest I've seen is a MOD3. And that is just because it had a CAT on it
Steve
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Al Loeffler
We still have some mod 9s around, most of ours are mod 27 or 54.
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
When I was with IBM Education, we used to run class labs on minimal z/OS
(OS/390, MVS/...) systems as VM guests. The volumes were VM mini volumes just
as large as needed. If VM is still the base for those labs, I'm pretty sure
there still are volumes of various small sizes.
Not sure however if
W dniu 2016-06-28 o 18:19, John Eells pisze:
What is the *smallest* volume size everyone sees in general use?
For example, will we create any problems if we assume that "everyone"
has or can define at least a 3390-9 size volume these days? What if
we chose 3390-27?
Application data volumes
wever if this matters for your query.
--Peter Hunkeler
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of John Eells
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 9:19 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Minimum Volume Sizes in the Wild
What i
, June 28, 2016 6:37 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: [Bulk] Re: [IBM-MAIN] Minimum Volume Sizes in the Wild
The smallest I've seen is a MOD3. And that is just because it had a CAT on it
Steve
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV
ehalf
Of John Eells
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 9:19 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Minimum Volume Sizes in the Wild
What is the *smallest* volume size everyone sees in general use?
For example, will we create any problems if we assume that "everyone"
has or can define at
: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 9:19 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Minimum Volume Sizes in the Wild
What is the *smallest* volume size everyone sees in general use?
For example, will we create any problems if we assume that "everyone"
has or can define at least a 3390-9 size volume
always been fine for application files and Adabas.
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU]
> On Behalf Of Clark Morris
> Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 2:24 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: Minimum Volume Size
On Tue, 28 Jun 2016 12:19:28 -0400, John Eells wrote:
>What is the *smallest* volume size everyone sees in general use?
>
>For example, will we create any problems if we assume that "everyone"
>has or can define at least a 3390-9 size volume these days? What if we
>chose 3390-27?
>
I know if yo
to what is available in
other environments.
Clark Morris
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU]
>> On Behalf Of John Eells
>> Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 9:19 AM
>> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
DU
Subject: Re: Minimum Volume Sizes in the Wild [ EXTERNAL ]
Yep. 100 for JES2 checkpoints. 500+ for catalog volumes. Some mod 3s for ML1
and Mobius datasets due to large number of small datasets.
Mod 9s for most volumes. Storage groups are 1TB+ so new space is Mod 27s (due
to IPL volumes).
ere are always outliers! :-)
>
> Bob
>
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
> Behalf Of John Eells
> Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 12:19 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Minimum Volume Sizes in the Wi
ent from or received at this email address.
-Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU]
> On Behalf Of John Eells
> Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 9:19 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Minimum Volume Sizes in the Wi
LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Minimum Volume Sizes in the Wild
>
> What is the *smallest* volume size everyone sees in general use?
>
> For example, will we create any problems if we assume that "everyone"
> has or can define at least a 3390-9 size volume these days? What
John Eells
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 9:19 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: EXTERNAL: Minimum Volume Sizes in the Wild
What is the *smallest* volume size everyone sees in general use?
For example, will we create any problems if we assume that "everyone"
has or can define at lea
General use is -9 and -27. -3 are in use but vanishing. No -54 yet.
David
On Tuesday, June 28, 2016 John Eells wrote:
What is the *smallest* volume size everyone sees in general use?
For example, will we create any problems if we assume that "everyone"
has or can define at least a 3390-9
Sadly we still have some 3380's defined. Don't gasp...
Original Message
From: Chuck Kreiter
Sent: Tuesday, 28 June 2016 17:52
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Reply To: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
Subject: Re: Minimum Volume Sizes in the Wild
-- This email has reached the Bank via a
0:19 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Minimum Volume Sizes in the Wild
What is the *smallest* volume size everyone sees in general use?
For example, will we create any problems if we assume that "everyone"
has or can define at least a 3390-9 size volume these days? What if we chos
SERV.UA.EDU] On
> Behalf Of John Eells
> Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 12:19 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Minimum Volume Sizes in the Wild
>
> What is the *smallest* volume size everyone sees in general use?
>
> For example, will we create any problems if we ass
PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Minimum Volume Sizes in the Wild
What is the *smallest* volume size everyone sees in general use?
For example, will we create any problems if we assume that "everyone"
has or can define at least a 3390-9 size volume these days? What if we chos
What is the *smallest* volume size everyone sees in general use?
For example, will we create any problems if we assume that "everyone"
has or can define at least a 3390-9 size volume these days? What if we
chose 3390-27?
--
John Eells
IBM Poughkeepsie
ee...@us.ibm.com
--
32 matches
Mail list logo
