>> So the concept of a filesystem storing named files already existed at 
>> this time?
> 
> Generally, yes. But you usually wound up pre-allocating files, and they 
> were contiguous on disk.

OK.

Files only on disk? Or on tape too? (From what I've seen, punch cards 
didn't have this level of abstraction. It wouldn't be terribly necessary 
I guess...)

>> Interesting. So the system actually "knows" where each field of a 
>> record is then?
> 
> Records were fixed size, so it was trivial to calculate.

OK. But does the system know where the *fields* in a record are? Or just 
what size the records are?

>> Really? I didn't think anybody had mainframes any more... just big 
>> server farms.
> 
> The people who want to do lots of I/O have machines where instead of 
> GPUs they have IOPs.  A 800,000 line phone switch, for example, is 
> pretty much all IOP, with something like a 68000 running the actual 
> switching part.
> 
> Of course, what one might call a "PC" nowadays has a terabyte of RAM and 
> 96 quad-core processor chips, so the lines blur.

Yeah, I think the term "mainframe" is probably obsolete now. There are 
probably more exact ways to describe what type of computer you mean.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message