On 25 Jul 2010 18:42:52 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote: >Some months ago, John Ehrman posted asking why we don't like PDSE's. I just >found somehting that blows my mind, a ridiculous limitation in PDSE's that >all by itself militates against their usage. > >I'm running a utility that outputs IEBUPDTE cards to create a PDS. When >running the cards, we hit the maximum size of a PDS, 65535 tracks. Any >attempt to go beyond that gets us an E37 abend. > >So simple solution, right? We just go PDSE. 19 members into the IEBUPDTE >cards is a member with 68,994,447 records. This member causes an IEC036I >002-A8 abend, Looking that up says that the maximum number of lines that >can be held in a PDSE member is exceeded. > >Let that sink in a little. That 68M line member was easily stored in the >PDS before the E37, but PDSE can't handle it. PDSE can't support members as >big as PDS. Are you #$%ing kidding me? > >PDSE's are a joke. They've been around for over 20 years, and they still >don't have all the bugs out. This limitation is ridiculous, considering >that PDSE's were supposed to address all the shortcomings of PDS. GUESS >THEY MISSED THIS SHORTCOMING OF PDSE's!!!!!!!!!! WAY TO GO IBM!!!!!!!
Could Unix directories handle all of the functions of PDSE? When I read that we would still need PDSs, I wondered what pointy haired idiot designed the PDSE where one needed a started address space even to read it. Clark Morris > >Sheesh, >Tom Conley > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
