Believe it or not, there are many systems out there that do not have
multiple terabytes of data and stopping at MB is just fine for those small
systems.
I can see a configurable option there but do I want IBM to spend development
time and money on that, or maybe other things (like ciphers from recent
posts) that are more useful?
-----Original Message-----
From: MIDRANGE-L [mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Justin Taylor
Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2016 7:57 AM
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
Subject: RE: DSPSYSSTS ASTLVL(*BASIC) : Please stop showing disk in MB
True, I guess GB would be fine, but not TB.
-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Berendt [mailto:rob@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, December 19, 2016 1:44 PM
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: DSPSYSSTS ASTLVL(*BASIC) : Please stop showing disk in MB
What actions do you perform differently if it was only 558005 MB vs 558746
MB?
Or is this one of those "Hey, I'm sporting 152,400 microns!" kind of
things? It really doesn't help.
Rob Berendt
--
IBM Certified System Administrator - IBM i 6.1 Group Dekko Dept 1600 Mail
to: 2505 Dekko Drive
Garrett, IN 46738
Ship to: Dock 108
6928N 400E
Kendallville, IN 46755
http://www.dekko.com
midrange.com
