>>My advice (as I told Noel) would be to work on improving the
>>performance of #5, which is suboptimal by default on VM as a large
>>increase in VMSIZE is required,
>
>I assume that you mean you advise L-Soft to work on improving the
>performance of #5.

I meant I advised Noel Hart to consider tuning changes that would
improve the performance of #5 at MIT :-) These changes would
require an increase in VMSIZE, so they cannot be enabled by default
on VM, where people traditionally run a thousand lists with 16-32M of
virtual storage :-)

>How would L-Soft's support be affected by our modifying some REXX
>code to disable #4?

We can't support modified components but I don't see how this kind of
change would have an impact on the rest of the server, if done properly.
And it's not very difficult, if so and so then tell the user sorry and exit.

>>#5 is a legitimate requirement, although on most systems it is not
>>an issue. Of course, on time-sharing systems there is always the
>>issue of limited resources at peak hours.
>
>I'm not sure whether you are agreeing that it is legitimate to want
>to disable #5 without disabling the retrieval mechanisms (items 1,
>2, and 3)

Yes.

  Eric