If you have to unload to 3330, then use BLKSIZE=13030 for SYSLMOD; IEBCOPY doesn't support COPYMOD reblocking for load/unload.
-- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 עַם יִשְׂרָאֵל חַי נֵ֣צַח יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל לֹ֥א יְשַׁקֵּ֖ר ________________________________________ From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <[email protected]> on behalf of Paul Edwards <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2024 8:11 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: iewl/iebcopy device options On Sun, 16 Jun 2024 23:48:56 +0000, Seymour J Metz <[email protected]> wrote: > What's wrong with using 3330 or 3350? I didn't say there was something wrong with them - that's basically my question. > Both have track sizes less than 32KiB. I wasn't aware that that was even an issue. But yes - the answer may well be to select 3330. Maybe I can ask my question a different way to try to get a handle on the problem. Is there an advantage of using 3330 over 3390 (to put a load module on with the intention of doing an IEBCOPY unload)? e.g. will 3330 work on an unmodified MVS 3.8J while 3390 will not? And the reverse - is there an advantage of using 3390 over 3330? Note that in 99% of cases, I will be loading to a 3390, not 3330 or 3350 - so do I lose something by choosing 3330? Like gross wastage of space on a 3390 during the load process. Up till now I have always used 3390, but now I am looking closer at that choice. Thanks. Paul. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
