I think it is well known and probably documented (perhaps not with stunning clarity) that you cannot write to two members of a PDS (non-E) at once.
Charles -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Paul Gilmartin Sent: Saturday, December 10, 2016 12:13 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: FTP serialization when writing PDS/PDSE members On Tue, 6 Dec 2016 18:27:58 -0600, Kirk Wolf wrote: >There are two SPFEDIT enqs required to follow the protocol. The data set >one (without member) is used to serialize during actual I/O. You aren't >seeing that while transferring with FTP, which is why I believe that >the actual I/O is being deferred. > Now this is interesting. I have an EXEC using LM services that LMOPENs several DCBs on the same DDNAME; writes several lines with LMPUT to each, interleaved, then does LMMREP (STOW?) on each. If the data set is a PDSE, each LMMREP creates a directory entry for the corresponding member and the content of each member is what I apparently wrote to it. Excellent exploitation of the ability, new with PDSE to write seveal members concurrently. If the data set is a PDS, no error is reported I get the same several directory entries. The content of all members is identical, matching the last member I LMMREPed. (Is there an easy way (i.e. without assembler) to see theTTRs?) Ouch! WAD? Caveat emptor, I guess. LM services requires EXC ENQ on SYSDSN to do this, whether PDS or PDSE, thereby prohibiting cross-job exploitation of PDSE capability. So with SPFEDIT ENQ FTP might write directly to PDSE members, but deferring the I/O would be needed for PDS. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
