Re: AW: Re: AW: Re: ISPF 3.2 (allocate) does not honor SDB
On 7 Sep 2015 22:31:05 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
>>No.
>>Check the archives ("Default System BLKSIZE for PDSE" in Oct 2006)
>>"Partitioned Data Set Extended Usage Guide" (
>>http://www.redbooks.ibm.com/abstracts/sg246106.html?Open ) Figure 10-32 shows
>>a PDSE created 2004-11-04 with SMS.IND=R (SDB) and block size 32720.
>
>
>How embarrassing. I understand I'm at an age where one starts to forget.
>However, I don't understand I just never recognized this behaviour. Anyway,
>thanks for the pointer to that thread. Interesting reading.
What is the track utilization for a PDSE blocksize of 32760? What is
the physical blocksize (CISIZE)?
Clark Morris
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: AW: Re: ISPF 3.2 (allocate) does not honor SDB
On Mon, 7 Sep 2015 17:59:22 +0200, Peter Hunkeler wrote:
>>What type of dataset? PS, PO, PDSE, ...? The optimal block size for PDSE
>>(FB-80, DSNTYPE=LIBRARY) is 32720.
>
>Yes, its about PDSEs. Kind a makes sense, sure. However I have been using
>PDSEs for a long time and don't seem to remeber to have seen this. Must have
>been blind (meaning I didn't care to look to carefully), obviously.
>
>
>Did this change with z/OS V2.1?
>
No.
Check the archives ("Default System BLKSIZE for PDSE" in Oct 2006)
"Partitioned Data Set Extended Usage Guide" (
http://www.redbooks.ibm.com/abstracts/sg246106.html?Open ) Figure 10-32 shows a
PDSE created 2004-11-04 with SMS.IND=R (SDB) and block size 32720.
Norbert Friemel
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: AW: Re: ISPF 3.2 (allocate) does not honor SDB
On Mon, 7 Sep 2015 17:59:22 +0200, Peter Hunkeler wrote: >>What type of dataset? PS, PO, PDSE, ...? The optimal block size for PDSE >>(FB-80, DSNTYPE=LIBRARY) is 32720. > >Yes, its about PDSEs. Kind a makes sense, sure. However I have been using >PDSEs for a long time and don't seem to remeber to have seen this. Must have >been blind (meaning I didn't care to look to carefully), obviously. > And the BLKSIZE is largely fictitious: You can OPEN with any BLKSIZE that's a multiple of 80 and process members without error. I suspect it's saved only to appease legacy programs that require that it be supplied in the label. -- gil -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
AW: Re: AW: Re: ISPF 3.2 (allocate) does not honor SDB
>No.
>Check the archives ("Default System BLKSIZE for PDSE" in Oct 2006)
>"Partitioned Data Set Extended Usage Guide" (
>http://www.redbooks.ibm.com/abstracts/sg246106.html?Open ) Figure 10-32 shows
>a PDSE created 2004-11-04 with SMS.IND=R (SDB) and block size 32720.
How embarrassing. I understand I'm at an age where one starts to forget.
However, I don't understand I just never recognized this behaviour. Anyway,
thanks for the pointer to that thread. Interesting reading.
--
Peter Hunkeler
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
