> If there are any restrictions, they should be APAR'ed. 3120, 6160, > 6144, etc. is SO 20th century. It's amazing to me how many IBM and OEM > products still ship these crappy blocksizes. It's why I submitted a > SHARE requirement to have AMATERSE support SDB. Isn't it ironic that a > utility designed to save DASD space uses a 6144 blocksize and actually > wastes DASD?
I have seen an AMATERSE requirement that was submitted for this and we did investigate the AMATERSE code. AMATERSE doesn't require the blocksize of the output data set for a pack operation to be 6144. If a blocksize has not already been determined before AMATERSE tries to OPEN the data set, then AMATERSE assigns a blocksize of 6144, which was a reasonable thing to do when AMATERSE was designed (before the existence of SDB). If you explicitly assign a blocksize when you allocate the data set, AMATERSE will use your blocksize. Changing AMATERSE to avoid assigning a blocksize of 6144, so that SDB can to its thing, appears to be a fairly easy code change, and I do anticipate that it will get done at some point in the future. Jim Mulder z/OS System Test IBM Corp. Poughkeepsie, NY ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
