Re: ACCPTHSIZ perfomance - *MAX1TB vs *MAX4GB -- MIDRANGE-L

× The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.

Subject: Re: ACCPTHSIZ perfomance - *MAX1TB vs *MAX4GB
From: "Steve Richter" <srichter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 10:40:50 -0500
List-archive: <http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l/>
List-help: <mailto:midrange-l-request@midrange.com?subject=help>
List-id: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion <midrange-l.midrange.com>
List-post: <mailto:midrange-l@midrange.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.midrange.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/midrange-l>,<mailto:midrange-l-request@midrange.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.midrange.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/midrange-l>,<mailto:midrange-l-request@midrange.com?subject=unsubscribe>

I dont see the ACCPTHSIZ attribute reported in any of the DSPFD outfiles.
Is it there ?

Are we saying, is IBM saying, that *MAX1TB is a better performer on a
standalone basis, not just because of ACCPTH sharing ?

Thanks,

Steve Richter

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

Follow-Ups:

Re: ACCPTHSIZ perfomance - *MAX1TB vs *MAX4GB , David & Eileen Keck

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.