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

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

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

Follow-Ups:

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

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2025 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.