On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 17:28:55 -0600, David Speake wrote:
>I have a customer with what they perceive as a memory problem, Reviewing
>their JCL I feel otherwise. There are some VSAM BLSR values that I
>seriously question. I have written a response but am now having insecurity
>issues - its been a while and although "VSAM Demystified" and "DFSMS Using
>Data Sets" seem to confirm most of my material, I'd sure like to see a z/OS
>R1.9 VSAM PLM for a few hours.
>
>I have my beach towel handy in case the egg on my face get real deep.
>Comments and pointers appreciated.
>
>Cut/Paste
>
> 90 XXH99NMODF DD SUBSYS=('BLSR','DDNAME=BLSRMODF', *MOD FILE *
> XX 'BUFSI=4096,BUFSD=8192',
> CISIZES --------------1536 ------4096
> DATA CI/CA----------------180
> KEYLEN---------------------14
> XX 'BUFNI=7972,BUFND=272',
> XX 'RMODE31=ALL','MSG=I',
> XX 'SHRPOOL=01')
> 91 XXBLSRMODF DD DSN=&V1..HBBMA.YW&PL.MODS, * MODIFIER FILE *
> XX DISP=(SHR,KEEP,KEEP)
> IEFC653I SUBSTITUTION JCL -
[email protected],DISP=(
> 92 XXH99NPFLG DD SUBSYS=('BLSR','DDNAME=BLSRPFLG', *PFLG FILE *
> XX 'BUFSI=4096,BUFSD=8192',
> CISIZES --------------1536 ------4096
> DATA CI/CA----------------180
> KEYLEN-----------------8
> XX 'BUFNI=4070,BUFND=532',
> XX 'RMODE31=ALL','MSG=I',
> XX 'SHRPOOL=01')
> 93 XXBLSRPFLG DD DSN=&V1..HBBMA.MW&PL.PFLG&NODE, *PROC STUB
FILE*
> XX DISP=(SHR,KEEP,KEEP)
> IEFC653I SUBSTITUTION JCL - [email protected],
I assume you're perceiving a performance problem with this. Personally, I
wouldn't specify BUFSI, BUFSD, BUFNI nor BUFND. Let BLSR figure it out for
itself.
It is my experience that a micromanaged specification is obsoleted soon after
it's made. But if you must, use BUFNI and BUFND only.
I limit my interference with BLSR to one specification; DEFERW=YES
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
