PMFJI also, but I totally disagree with what you said, Peter. All of what is being said *does not* assume anything. Mark should know; he coded it for a specific reason so that others, attempting to use the stats, would know they were inaccurate and that *they not assume* any information there as being relevant to reality.
Making any decision knowing that the information is inaccurate is, at best, foolish. At worst, possibly harmful to response time, wall clock time, CPU time, necessary/unnecessary REORG time, space calculations, performance indications, etc. The list is not endless, but you get my point. And if this foolishness is extended to thousands of VSAM datasets through automated processes, the costs of those *inaccurate decisions* could be very significant indeed. Mentioning the ones with stats that are fine in the context of this thread is irrelevant. Analyze those to your heart's content. Your paragraph: "Just because they are not written when something BAD happens is NOT a reason to see them as invalid or useless. Like anything else in this business (or life, for that matter), you need to know what you are talking about when you use statistics to justify a decision." If these statistics were being inspected one-by-one, I might concede that last half of the second sentence. In my experience though, decisions of this sort are being made in an automated fashion without consideration for "knowing what you are talking about". They are being made under *the assumption that the statistics are accurate*, a point that has clearly been demonstrated as wrong! Urgent or critical? Without empirical evidence to the contrary, how can *you assume* that it is neither/nor? I raise your two cents and make it my $.04 cents. <grin> Bob -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Farley, Peter x23353 Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2005 5:52 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: IBM VSAM Statistics are often Bogus PMFJI here, but I cannot hold my (virtual) tongue any longer. ALL of what is being argued about here ASSuMEs that somthing BAD has happened. Either an ABEND or a CICS IMMediate shutdown or some other ABNORMAL event. ISTM that for the vast majority of programmers who might use those VSAM statistics, there are LONG stretches of time where their VSAM files are JUST FINE, with no abends or other "bad" events to disturb the statistics. In those cases, the stats are just what they say they are, and can reasonably be used to make decisions (like when to reorganize or review performance, etc.). Just because they are not written when something BAD happens is NOT a reason to see them as invalid or useless. Like anything else in this business (or life, for that matter), you need to know what you are talking about when you use statistics to justify a decision. Mark, I think your view might be warped by only getting involved from the IBM side when "something BAD" has already happened to the hapless user. Lighten up guys. It's not that urgent or critical, really. It's only stats, after all. Just my USD$0.02 worth. Peter LEGAL DISCLAIMER The information transmitted is intended solely for the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of or taking action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this email in error please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. Seeing Beyond Money is a service mark of SunTrust Banks, Inc. [ST:XCL] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
