Jesse 1 Robinson wrote: >This is almost nutty enough to be a weekend post, but it's a live production >environment, so here goes. We have a prod job (batch Db2) that has run daily >for years. Suddenly on 14 April it started abending with this message from >Fault Analyzer:
>IEW2541S 471A MEMBER CUA625 IDENTIFIED BY DDNAME JOBLIB WITH CONCATENATION > NUMBER 1 CONTAINS A BLOCK OF SIZE 32760 WHICH IS LONGER THAN THE > DATA SET BLKSIZE. >IDI0010E IEWBIND error INCLUDE CUA625 rc=83000507 >IDI0002I Module CUA625, program CUA625, offset X'7712': Abend U3003 >So this is all absolutely true. The module *is* 32760 while the PDS *is* >19069-the ancient 3350 track size that was fairly standard for load libraries >in the Dark Ages. I have seen all these replies and have RTFM those messages. Ok, on what z/OS and DB2 versions are you? What have changed? From replies I see possibilities and guesses: FA suddenly decides to do investigation. First time combination of all these loadlibs in JOBLIB (or STEPLIB or LINKLIST)? JCL Change? Blocksize of first loadlib in JOBLIB changed? WHAT Changed? APF, LLA, LPALIST LINKLST, CSV, Extents, Exits....? Fetch from APF and a copy is obtained somewhere? You said: No IPL, no z/OS maintenance, but were there any maintanance or application (DB2?) changes done? You also said about recovering from HSM, good, that is one culprit which is weeded out. I would also do that immediately. My guess: Are there other modules with the same name hidden in the JOBLIB (or STEPLIB or LINKLIST)? What happens if you turn OFF the FA during that batch job run? >It should have failed eons ago. Indeed - "The module *is* 32760 while the PDS *is* 19069" will certainly break your things. Can you perhaps do a IEBCOPY with reblocking? Groete / Greetings Elardus Engelbrecht ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
