Re: Virtual tape optimal image catalog entry size(s). -- MIDRANGE-L

Good News Everybody!

The new search engine is LIVE!

Please report any problems to david (at) midrange.com.

Subject: Re: Virtual tape optimal image catalog entry size(s).
From: rob@xxxxxxxxx
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 15:45:14 -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/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l>, <mailto:midrange-l-request@midrange.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l>, <mailto:midrange-l-request@midrange.com?subject=unsubscribe>

I can respect leaving the disk 'allocated'. We have a horrific
application that does millions of I/O's to a work file to generate a
report. I use the database tools to sort by number of deleted records
times row size to calculate wasted space and this puppy tops the list.
Problem is, you do a RGZPFM on it and the you have the crap back the next
day.
Still small potatoes to these stream file virtual tape images though.

Rob Berendt

Follow-Ups:

Re: Virtual tape optimal image catalog entry size(s). , Luis Rodriguez

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2026 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.