On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 3:16 PM, Bill Woodger <[email protected]> wrote:
> A quote from 2009: > > "In fact, the fact that it is rare and should not happen for 'normal' > processing tells me that you perhaps *shouldn't* just treat '97' as > "everything is ok" and ignore it. Seems to me that even if you elect to > continue processing it would be nice to know that the 97 status occured." > We have had the 97 happen to us too. Most of the time it is due to the data set not being CLOSEd, usually due to an ABEND. However, in the past, we ran two z/OS images with shared DASD. And shared data sets. But not in a sysplex (long ago). What the 97 _could_ mean is "the VSAM file is currently OPEN to a job on the other system". If you just "go ahead" in this case, and are doing updates on both sides, you are just begging for a corrupted file. Especially if one of the jobs causes a CA split. Real fun (not) recovering from that mess. > > I agree with you. > > I surely don't give Operations a defence of Justifiable Homicide. > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
