>you have the choice to either cache the directory or cache often >used loadmodules or do both. So if you have a number of >frequently modified members and a number of static and heavily >used modules, you could get the best of both worlds by not >caching the directory and caching frequently used load modules.
Frequently modified production libraries is, I hope, somewhat atypical. Nevertheless, I would have said -- you can cache the directory or not Regardless, you get caching of often-used modules. And if you're willing to participate, you can get the best of both worlds by asking to cache the directory but notifying LLA when you have updated members. Refreshing all of LLA could be done; updating the entire library could be done. But both of those are overkill and will negatively affect performance. Best is to use LLACOPY or MODIFY LLA to update its information about the specific updated modules. Note that it is intentional that LLA does not attempt to track automatically what has been updated and do something about it. Doing so could potentially cause application failures due to mismatched levels of modules. Peter Relson z/OS Core Technology Design ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
