Well, if this was StackOverflow, I'd vote this answer up.  Also, I think
the U3003 may be what instigated the problem, as opposed to being one FA
issued.

sas

On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 4:41 AM Greg Price <[email protected]>
wrote:

> On 2019-05-02 9:51 AM, 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. So what's the mystery? How on earth did the 13
> April and*all previous*  runs work OK?
>
> Here's my theory...
>
> So you have this set up all ticking over nicely, and it works for years.
>
> And then one day the application has a problem (an abend?) which causes
> Fault Analyzer to wake up and think: "I better look into this!"
>
> So then FA decides to make some Binder API calls to get the low-down on
> this application program, and it is this I/O which does not work
> properly because of the block size in the data set label being smaller
> than an actual block in the program.
>
> Of course, program fetch does not care about such niceties because he
> makes his own channel programs with numbers from control information and
> therefore ignores DCB attributes in the VTOC entry.
>
> So, no application problems means that the block size mismatch is not
> exposed.  Application problems means that the automatic application
> problem looker-at-er tries to do "normal" I/O to the library which
> exposes the block size mismatch.
>
> Cheers,
> Greg
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>


-- 
sas

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Reply via email to