On 3/11/2013 9:55 AM, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 10:44:59 -0500, David Devine wrote:
I think DanD hit it on the head with his suggestion about using infile & outfile dd
statements instead of ids & ods.
Ids & Ods use a disp of "old" during dynamic allocation.
IDS, even? I'd expect SHR to suffice for IDS.
Yes, one would. But OLD is used even for ids.
I have a sneaky feeling that your job is contending with itself because grs or
mim can't always see quickly enough that the dataset is free'd after the
del/def.
As the message is an IKJ its implying that its all done within a TSO rexx
routine and rexx is quite well know for erratic behaviour.
I believe Rexx messages are IRX; TSO are IKJ.
The news of Rexx's "erratic behavior" hadn't reached me. Can you
cite an example?
Do you have explicit close & free's coded in your rexx for the dataset prior to
the final repro?
Can contention occur within a single address space?
In any event, I'd suggest changing your repro to hardcoded infile outfile dd's
with a disp of shr.
Wouldn't EXC be safer for OUTFILE?
The Info cited earlier says that VSAM ENQs on QNAME VSAM; allocation
ENOs on SYSDSN. Does VSAM additionally ENQ on SYSDSN? Which
does REPRO use?
-- gil
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
--
Kind regards,
-Steve Comstock
The Trainer's Friend, Inc.
303-355-2752
http://www.trainersfriend.com
* To get a good Return on your Investment, first make an investment!
+ Training your people is an excellent investment
* Try our tool for calculating your Return On Investment
for training dollars at
http://www.trainersfriend.com/ROI/roi.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
