Peter, I accept the fact that VLF would not be involved. I'm primarily interested in improving the performance of the directory of a large PDS. I know that this library is only updated by one job each day and I'd put an LLA REFRESH of that library as part of that job.
Is this a situation where results may become "unpredictable" in the future? Thanks for the reply, and also many thanks for the module fetch monitor. Tom From: Peter Relson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: LLA and Cobol copybook library Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII I don't know anything about "Cobol copybook libraries", but... >My first question, is this a valid/acceptable use of LLA to manage >non-loadlibraries? Assuming this is truly not a load library, then in a word, No. LLA might manage the directory entries for you but LLA caching of members is only done with respect to loading of modules (or program objects). If that is not how the members of this library are used, then LLA is not involved with tracking usage of the members. VLF can cache any type of data but needs to have an exploiter giving it the data. Here it sounds like nothing is giving VLF data to cache. Peter Relson z/OS Core Technology Design ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
