First was that the efficient access methods built into the product were not as effective when using VIO.
Second was that the decision to place the temporary dsn in VIO was based only on the primary allocation and that if the sortwork used a number of secondary allocations, it could cause a resource availability problem. I was not looking to spend a good deal of time on the phone with them and hardly have to the knowledge to argue the points well, no simply nodded my head (sort to speak). But now that I'm thinking about it, neither sounds completely valid. Isn't VIO simply storage of another sort and the access methods used to get there are the same as those that get to my disk? And couldn't all temporary datasets use secondary allocations within VIO? In the end, I'm going to leave it excluded from VIO because 1) its what the vendor suggests, 2) its already excluded, and 3)its working fine. (be kind in response to that, please ;-) >Jeffrey. > >Well it is good to have strong convictions, but what were his reasons >exactly? > >Ron Jeffrey Deaver, Senior Analyst, Systems Engineering 651-665-4231 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
