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
We create as much 3390-54's as possible.
We have some smaller volumes only because they were converted as is from ESS's.
And we have some 3390-3 and 3390-1 for JES checkpoint and catalogs, but with
the current GDPS requirement to eliminate all Reserves, I think it would not be
a problem to comb
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
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
nimum Volume Sizes in the Wild
I use 3390-27 for z/OS and other software installation, but I also use other
sizes (3390-1, 3390-3, 3390-9, 3390-54) for operational and user datasets.
Al Loeffler
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On B
I use 3390-27 for z/OS and other software installation, but I also use other
sizes (3390-1, 3390-3, 3390-9, 3390-54) for operational and user datasets.
Al Loeffler
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of John Eells
Sent: Tues
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
[Default] On 28 Jun 2016 11:31:30 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main
gib...@wsu.edu (Gibney, Dave) wrote:
>Mostly Mod-3s, some smaller and mostly special uses. Enough Mod-9 and Mod-27
>to do Serverpac.
Given that my netbook has a 320 GB drive, most notebook solid state
drives are over 100 GB, the s
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).
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). z/OS 2.2 installer wants Mod 40s, don't
have uncarved space. S
Primarily -3 and -9, nothing larger, a few smaller @ 503 CYLs
>
CIT | Ken Porowski | VP Mainframe Engineering | Information Technology | +1 973
740 5459 (tel) | ken.porow...@cit.com
This email message and any accompanying materials may contain proprietary,
privileged and confidential inform
Mostly Mod-3s, some smaller and mostly special uses. Enough Mod-9 and Mod-27 to
do Serverpac.
> -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
> Subj
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
We are actively eliminating mod-3's and mod-9's from our environment. Next
DASD refresh will only have 27's and 54's.
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of John Eells
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 10:19 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LIS
I have 3390 mod3s running around still.
Lizette
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
> Behalf Of Richards, Robert B.
> Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 9:24 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: Minim
Custom volumes at 100 cylinders and at 1113 cylinders
I would hope your second statement is true, but there 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
27 matches
Mail list logo
