-----------------------------------------<snip>--------------------------
I'm almost hesitant to ask this, as this is something that should have
been dealt with over a decade ago, but is there any difference in having
SYS1.UADS as 80 byte records or 172 byte records? Any real advantages?
Peformance issues? I noticed that the system distributed in ServerPac
for 1.9 allocates UADS with an 80 byte lrecl, and our UADS is still at 80.
I remember converting to the 172 byte lrecl probably in the early 90s at
P&H Mining. When I briefly read some of the doc a few weeks ago, I
didn't see anything that you couldn't do with the 80 byte records.
I know - this should all be in RACF. I agree, but management doesn't
want to change things, and as a contracter, I can't really do anything
about it.
-----------------------------------<unsnip>--------------------------------------
Sam Golob is your best source of information on this subject. He's done
extensive research in this area. You can drop him a line via the
CBTTAPE.ORG web site.
--
Rick
--
Remember that if you’re not the lead dog, the view never changes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
