I'm all for dynamic SORTWK, but we recently hit a problem that I posted to the List for help. Our installation default number for SORTWK is 3. An application did such a large sort that the work files came out to be >64K tracks. The sort operation was generated by ICETOOL, so we had to figure out how to tell ICETOOL to request a larger SORTWK number. Of course Frank Y replied within minutes. ;-)
. . . JO.Skip Robinson Southern California Edison Company SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager 626-302-7535 Office 323-715-0595 Mobile [EMAIL PROTECTED] IBM Mainframe Discussion List <[email protected]> wrote on 11/10/2005 09:27:39 AM: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Farley, Peter x23353 > > Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 11:21 AM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: SORTWKnn question > > > > > > Question: Why are you still coding SORTWKnn statements at all? Modern > > versions of SORT (whether DFSORT or SYNCSORT) will > > automatically dynamically > > allocate whatever SORTWK's they need whenever they need them > > (which isn't > > nearly as often as in prior eras). And they do a much better > > job than we > > ever could in deciding how many SORTWK's and how much space > > for each SORTWK > > they need to sort or merge your data. > > > > Just Say No. Remove all SORTWKnn stetements whenever you > > touch the JCL > > and/or the PROC, and make your life simpler. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
