The choices (most mentioned by one or more posts) for the current IPL are among delete the check (usually a bad choice) deactivating the check changing the check parameters changing the frequency at which the check runs (many checks support something like this, I did not try to see if the check in question does) acknowledging that you have seen the exception so that subsequent checks are based on that acknowledged state rather than the state from the previous IPL, precisely to avoid reporting on situations that you are aware of starting a new "persistent data" data set (highly discouraged -- that history can be valuable just not for the OP's specific case) And re-IPL will base its new reporting on the previous IPL (which in this case will be the larger size).
Peter Relson z/OS Core Technology Design ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
