On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 15:41:18 -0600, Mark Zelden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 14:42:41 -0600, Steve Horein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >wrote: > >>Hi all! >>I'm looking for some advice: How best to order our LNKLST concatenation? Is >>there a measure of or statistics for datasets used in LNKLST? At present, >>the pecking order doesn't seem to have much of logical order at all! >> > >Order doesn't matter (except in the case of duplicate modules!). A hashing >technique is used for module lookup from the LLA directory. The only time >the libraries are searched one at a time is when LLA is inactive or >not managing the LNKLST (which it does by default). > >Mark >-- >Mark Zelden >Sr. Software and Systems Architect - z/OS Team Lead >Zurich North America / Farmers Insurance Group - GITO >mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >z/OS and OS390 expert at http://searchDataCenter.com/ateExperts/ >Systems Programming expert at http://expertanswercenter.techtarget.com/ >Mark's MVS Utilities: http://home.flash.net/~mzelden/mvsutil.html > Thanks - So there's no performance benefit having 'this' dataset concatenated ahead of 'that' dataset? I suppose that's what LLA/VLF/Cache (as pointed out) is for! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
