On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 02:39:34 -0500, Gerhard Postpischil <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Paul Gilmartin wrote:
>> And all the discussion of 800-byte blocks seems to miss the mark.
>> Shouldn't we be concerned, rather, with multiples of 172?
>
> From existing data, we know that the usual space needed is more
>than 720 bytes, and no more than 800. The same data with
>LRECL=172 would occupy 860 byte blocks, taking more DASD space
>and more processing time and storage.
>
Mystifying. The manual cited avers:
4.2.2.1 Allocating a new UADS
...
Figure 25 shows an example of using a batch job to allocate the new UADS. A
logical
record length (LRECL) of 172 is suggested but not required.
Are you saying that the "suggested" logical record is BS, and should
be ignored? And the manual gives no help with the allowable limits
on LRECL. You favor LRECL=80, but would LRECL=9999 be a workable
alternative? Would LRECL=1 work? The manual doesn't prohibit it.
What's the motivation for 172, anywway?
--gil
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
