Closing the loop, I have now gotten a reply on the ACF2 list from CA support. (Thanks Ross!)
FWIW, here is my model of how this all works. SMFPRMxx is a "suggestion" to SMF-record-writing components. SMF itself does not filter based on SMFPRMxx. You can code SYS(NOTYPE(199)) and I can still write a program that uses SMF(E)WTM to write type 199 records and they will end up in your SMF datasets and/or logstream (subject to any IEFU8x exit). What a well-behaved program *should* do, apparently (although this does not seem to be well-documented) and apparently what ACF2 and every IBM product do is query SMFRTEST to determine whether the shop wants its record type, and adjust its logic accordingly. Charles -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Charles Mills Sent: Saturday, October 05, 2013 7:47 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Need to include ACF2 SMF 230 in SMFPRMxx? I asked this question on the ACF2 list. The only answer I got was from the always-helpful Lizette who indicated a low degree of certainty in her answer and suggested that I ask here. I am trying to clarify some product documentation and clean up some internal logic - I don't have an actual "problem." Question: Assuming an ACF2 shop wants to cut SMF 230 (or other as configured) records, is it sufficient to specify ACF2=230 on the @SMF macro of the ACFFDR in UM99901, or is it also necessary that the shop specify SYS(TYPE(230)) or the equivalent in the SMFPRMxx member of the SYS1.PARMLIB concatenation? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
