On 3 Sep 2013 06:21:34 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote: >W dniu 2013-09-03 14:17, Russell Witt pisze: >> Roger, >> >> In addition to reviewing your SMF14/15 records; you might also check what >> information might be available from your Tape Management System. Many record >> creating-program; and even better would be creating-DDNAME. I would do a >> test using TAPE as your SORTWK01; find the records created in your TMS >> system and then analyze any audit records you might have. Of course, the >> possibility always exists that you have a production job that is only run >> once-a-year using TAPE as SORTWK; and this hasn't been run for many months. >> But that would be a very rare situation. >IMHO it's better to have control of production jobs. Such jobs, run >daily, monthly or yearly, should reside in designated JCL libraries, not >user PDSes, or just everywhere. >Having the above implemented it's piece of cake to check and change such >thing like SORTWK DDnames. BTDT. >The rest of jobs should be considered as "private" jobs or ad-hoc tools >and such jobs are usually submitted by folks who understand its >structure and are qualified enough to modify DDnames. > >Some remarks >1. AFAIK sort on tape is considered obsolete for many years, isn't it? >2. AFAIK both Syncsort and DFSort do manage sort works dynamically, so >(in most cases at least) the best idea is just to omit SORTWK ddnames. > Syncsort 1.4 seems very old since I recall using 3.7 back in 2006 (and that may be fuzzy and really be the 1990s). Syncsort MFX seems to be the current offering.
Clark Morris >-- >Radoslaw Skorupka >Lodz, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
