2 threads going here. IBM is investigating. IBM has a dump of the bad block. Length is 31373. BDW good in the buffer. Bad when written. Ongoing.
Jay Campbell IBM OS Support Section -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@listserv.ua.edu] On Behalf Of retired mainframer Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 7:44 PM To: IBM-MAIN@listserv.ua.edu Subject: Re: Bsam VS Qsam for VB records > -----Original Message----- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] > On Behalf Of Reichman Joseph > Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 11:48 AM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: Re: Bsam VS Qsam for VB records > > Thanks for all your help I really understand the problem thing is the > file is huge and I don’t know by what factor DFSMS blocked and if the > blocking is consistent meaning always by the same factor Since you already posted that you have no data class active and a null SMS configuration, it is unlikely that DFSMS has any effect on block size. If the data was written with QSAM, then QSAM performed the blocking (per the DCB parameters specified on the DD statement used to identify the output dataset) as well as constructing the RDWs and BDW. You also posted that the problem was with the BDW and not the RDWs. What do you think the problem is? How did you determine that? Can you post the first 8 bytes of the block in question (BDW+RDW, no proprietary data)? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
