On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 18:29:26 -0400, Dave Barry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>You're right, the numbers do add up, they just don't add up to 45M or 400M. The I&T reference clearly says that the amount of ESQA will likely be more than you specify, and that ECSA will be rounded up so that it will end on a segment boundary. You didn't say how your common storage is being used. You had your ECSA specified at a value just a little less than what was allocated. Then all it took was a small increase in the size of your ESQA to cause the extended common to increase by 1M. -- Tom Marchant > >-----Original Message----- >From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom Marchant >Sent: Friday, September 19, 2008 8:08 AM >To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: Size Of SQA At Next IPL > >On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 16:59:04 -0400, Dave Barry wrote: >> >>In PARMLIB, we have SQA=(600K,45M) and CSA=(3200K,400M). After a >>recent >IPL, our ESQA went from 69,120K to 69,152 K. Our ECSA jumped from 409,616K to 410,608K while EPVT was reduced from 1,526,784K to 1,525,760K. >> >>So I lost one Meg of extended private area. The problem is getting the >numbers to add up. > >It seems to me that the numbers add up just fine. ESQA increased by 32K. >Your specification for ECSA is 409,600K and when your ESQA increased by 32K, your ECSA could not be reduced by 32K, so it was increased by 992K, for a total ECSA+ESQA increase of 1024K, or 1M That equals your 1M decrease in EPVT. > >-- >Tom Marchant ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
