There is no IPL requirement to switch from recording to MANx to recording to 
z/OS Logger.   

This is an option that not only would improve performance could save general 
purpose CPU if you modify your processing.  As an example.
Typically shops record to MANx, then immediately dump to a temporary GDG, then 
daily consolidate the temporary GDG to a daily GDG, etc.
You can record to z/OS Logger and even if you do nothing else skip the dumps 
from MANx to temporary data set which usually occurs at least one or more times 
during a peak CPU period.  

So if IBM had only a limited amount of time to invest in improvements in SMF 
logging would it be better long term to invest in relieving the constraint on 
SMF asid data set recording supporting multiple MANx files with different 
CISIZEs or feature, function, and performance enhancements in SMF logging to 
z/OS Logger?   I think it makes sense they don't invest a lot of time to 
improve MANx support.

As an aside Barry Merrill has written about this on a recurring basis and 
supplies SAS code with MXG (ANALSMF) to let you take a detailed look at how SMF 
is written at your site.  If you have SAS and z/OS MXG still is priceless 
http://www.mxg.com/news/news25.asp  http://www.mxg.com/ 

If you want to put some time into updating your SMF recording consider whether 
you might get more bang for your buck migrating to Logger rather than 
reallocating all your MANx data sets.

http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/zos/v1r13/index.jsp?topic=/com.ibm.zos.r13.ieag200/clorox.htm
 

        Best Regards, 

                Sam Knutson, GEICO 
                System z Team Leader 
                mailto:[email protected] 
                (office)  301.986.3574 
                (cell) 301.996.1318    
          
"Think big, act bold, start simple, grow fast..." 

-----Original Message-----
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf 
Of Elardus Engelbrecht
Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2012 5:56 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Change MANx CISIZE on the fly

Walter Marguccio wrote:

>I tried myself on ours, and when tried to add a brand new MANx with a bigger 
>CISIZE using the T SMF=xx, the system issues IEE396I.

IEE396I. Yes, now that message text makes sense to me. :-(

That IPL requirement is utter <censored>!!!

Thanks Walter for sparing me unneeded trouble. ;-D

I see all my MANx are all too small... I now wonder what was the rationale for 
such small CI sizes of those MANx I inhereted... Backward compatibility was one 
bad excuse I read somewhere...

Groete / Greetings
Elardus Engelbrecht
====================
This email/fax message is for the sole use of the intended
recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information.
Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution of this
email/fax is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please
destroy all paper and electronic copies of the original message.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Reply via email to