You may be right. Trying to make complete sense of D SMF,O output may be the death of me yet. Also on the ACF2 list Tony Harminc points out the 36 (24) return code from SMF(E)WTM. I will investigate further when I have time.
Charles -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Mark Zelden Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2013 11:14 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Need to include ACF2 SMF 230 in SMFPRMxx? On Tue, 8 Oct 2013 10:52:36 -0700, Charles Mills <charl...@mcn.org> wrote: >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 > This is news to me. I can't speak to the validity without writing my own program, but on the surface doesn't seem to agree with the description for SMFRTEST in the SMF manual. Pay attention to the wording in the last sentence. 5.8 SMFRTEST -- Testing record recording The SMFRTEST macro allows you to determine if a particular type, or subtype, of a record is being recorded. Issue this macro before collecting data for a particular record or subtype to avoid the overhead of data collection if it is not written. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
