BLKSIZE is intended for writing new datasets. If you're reading an existing dataset then SDB isn't applicable.
-- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 ________________________________________ From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <[email protected]> on behalf of Paul Gilmartin <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, May 6, 2019 2:07 PM To: [email protected] Subject: BLKSIZE=0 (was: Crazy ...) On Mon, 6 May 2019 16:44:47 +0000, Seymour J Metz wrote: >Not that I know of, other then the SMF records for the input and output. >________________________________________ >From: Paul Gilmartin >Sent: Friday, May 3, 2019 1:42 PM > >When IEBCOPY reblocks a module, does it leave any audit trail? That >might be of interest in case of the OP's problem. > Amidst the nattering about 32760 vs. half-track vs. 4KiB vs. ... I suggested coding BLKSIZE=0. That received neither support nor opposition. So, I wonder: Does coding BLKSIZE=0 ever lead to complete failure of a utility or product? I encountered one many years ago. It was promptly fixed by APAR. Does BLKSIZE=0 ever lead to suboptimum performance? There might be trivial exceptions for unlabelled tapes with DISP=MOD or for IEBGENER where SYSUT1 is already adversely blocked. -- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
