Agreed 100% with @Kees and @John. I would say "if you have to ask the question then you should not be using BSAM."
I did not read the RDW thread but consider that if your block descriptor word is mucked up when using QSAM all you have to do is open a problem with IBM. If your block descriptor is screwed up with BSAM -- well, get out the old debugging hat, and good luck! Charles -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Vernooij, CP (ITOPT1) - KLM Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 7:37 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Bsam VS Qsam for VB records I wonder what application it is that justifies considering this. It is not the 80's anymore. And even with QSAM you have the BUFNO parameter. If you really want to go down to the details, consider EXCP (I did, 35 years ago). Kees. -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of John McKown Sent: 19 July, 2016 16:24 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Bsam VS Qsam for VB records IOW - unless you are very clever and you have a real need for I/O overlap performance, and you don't mind the maintenance programmer cussing you out, then I'd just go with QSAM. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
