On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 08:13:05 -0500, Mark Zelden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>>On the question on HSP_SIZE (PDSE_HSP_SIZE), this relates to
>>caching PDSE member pages. The index pages would still be cached
>>so it looks like specifying PDSE_BUFFER_BEYOND_CLOSE(YES)
>>would still be valid
>>(or PDSE1_BUFFER_BEYOND_CLOSE(YES) with PDSE1_HSP_SIZE=0).
>>
>>Looks like you need to discuss this with L2 PDSE support...
>
>>Regards,
>>George Kozakos
>>z/OS Function Test/Level 3 Supervisor
>>
>
>I agree with what you are saying based on what I have read, but was hoping
>for more information from someone who may have already researched this.
>
>It's not a support issue - it's a usage issue. But we pay for that so
>I will open a PMR. I'll also bring up OA21934 and ask that the APAR text
>be updated to include PDSE1 if appropriate.
>
I did open an ETR
My question:
"is there is no benefit or some benefit in using buffer beyond close
if HSP_SIZE is 0?"
and the z bottom line is...
"yes, for the directory, assuming PDSE(1)_DIRECTORY_STORAGE
isn't 0."
They also pointed me to this technote which discusses some of the
history / problems of PDSE caching and the change to HSP_SIZE of 0
via APAR OA11068. However, the technote (nor the PDSE Usage
Guide redbook) hasn't been updated since PDSE buffer beyond close
came into existence.
http://www.redbooks.ibm.com/abstracts/TIPS0567.html?Open
--
Mark Zelden
Sr. Software and Systems Architect - z/OS Team Lead
Zurich North America / Farmers Insurance Group - ZFUS G-ITO
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
z/OS Systems Programming expert at http://expertanswercenter.techtarget.com/
Mark's MVS Utilities: http://home.flash.net/~mzelden/mvsutil.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
