S000TBE DSLIST Data Set Information
Command ===>
Data Set Name . . . . : S000TBE.NITZ
General Data Current Allocation
Management class . . : TSOUSR02 Allocated tracks . : 1
Storage class . . . : STANDARD Allocated extents . : 1
Volume serial . . . : TSO009 Maximum dir. blocks : 5
Device type . . . . : 3390
Data class . . . . . : STANDARD
Organization . . . : PO Current Utilization
Record format . . . : F Used tracks . . . . : 0
Record length . . . : 20 Used extents . . . : 0
Block size . . . . : 20 Used dir. blocks . : 1
1st extent tracks . : 1 Number of members . : 1
Secondary tracks . : 0
Data set name type : PDS Dates
Creation date . . . : 2013/09/19
Referenced date . . : ***None***
Expiration date . . : ***None***
Med Vänlig Hälsning
Thomas Berg
___________________________________________________________________
Thomas Berg Specialist zOS\RQM\IT Delivery SWEDBANK AB (Publ)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On
> Behalf Of [email protected]
> Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 10:33 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Allocation test
>
> Can someone please run this iefbr14 job and tell me what the space
> allocation is (number of directory blocks) on your system?
>
> // EXEC PGM=IEFBR14
> //DD1 DD DISP=(,CATLG),DSN=TEST,
> // SPACE=(TRK,(1,0,0)),RECFM=F,LRECL=20,DSORG=PO
>
> Note that I deliberately request DSORG=PO but do not provide a directory
> space number.
> In my case the job ends with rc=0, the data set is allocated, but ISPF
> gets an I/O error when I use an "i" line command in front of it. The
> data set is allocated as PDS.
>
> When I change the space allocation to (TRK,(10000,0,0)), the job still
> ends with rc=0, the data set is still a PDS, but now it is allocated
> with 66000 "maximum directory blocks" displayed using the ISPF line
> command "i". In case you're wondering, the last PO data set allocated
> successfully using a batch job had 66000 directory blocks, and in my
> opinion that number is (invalidly) used for this batch job. Certainly
> the allocation behaviour is not consistent.
>
> Can anyone confirm the same behaviour or is this just another quirk on
> our system?
>
> Thanks in advance, Barbara
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
