Hello listers,
I want to thank everyone who replied, either privately or via the list.
It turns out that, yes, macro ASAXWC is what I needed (and forgot about).
I have written code to do this before (twice!) but both times I got 'let
go'. I wasn't looking forward to designing and
Yes I just starting using the CA service. It’s weird I never had to learn
SMP/E per se. I guess you can teach old dawgs new tricks.
Scott
On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 9:16 AM John Eells wrote:
> Longabaugh, Robert E wrote:
> > CA has offered Internet Service Retrieval (RECEIVE ORDER) since January
Sorts today are designed to minimize elapsed time, at least Syncsort's MFX
sort, is by default. As with EQUALS there are ways to tell the sorts what to
prioritize on, TIME, EXCPS, MEMORY.
In making optimization decisions, we tend to go by the rule of, you can buy
more CPU or memory or DASD,
BDAM implies DSORG DA, but can use any RECFM. However, DSORG DA files are
usually physically equivalent to DSORG PS, and often are so designated.
However, most DA files I've seen are indeed RECFM=F.
sas
On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 11:40 AM Tom Sims wrote:
> Datacom may use some method of "direct
[Default] On 26 Oct 2018 09:45:46 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main
jesse1.robin...@sce.com (Jesse 1 Robinson) wrote:
>My first job in IT had me working on a fairly new application that was
>designed around an ISAM master file. Shortly before going live, it was
>discovered that the data center
My first job in IT had me working on a fairly new application that was designed
around an ISAM master file. Shortly before going live, it was discovered that
the data center billed application business units for I/O but not for memory
usage. So a quick change was instituted to read the entire
About a hundred years ago I ran into a similar sort issue.
Parallel runs in our pre-production environment did not have sequence matched
sort outputs. I chased several threads. EQUALS made things match but there is a
cost. Apparently it was related to sort work DASD. Knowing I could make it
Datacom may use some method of "direct access," but the datasets
themselves are RECFM=F.
Disclaimer, not a Datacom expert, more of a Datacom victim, by way of
other CA program products.
Tom Sims
On 10/26/2018 8:11 AM, Rob Schramm wrote:
I think I have seen it work for DSNTYPE=LARGE instead
Be careful what you measure; people will optimize in ways that you didn't
anticipate and don't want. What affects perfolrmance is the working set, and a
large region is not synonymous with a large working set.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
Well I'll BDAM
Chris Hoelscher
Technology Architect, Database Infrastructure Services
Technology Solution Services
Humana Inc.
123 East Main Street
Louisville, KY 40202
Humana.com
(502) 476-2538 or 407-7266
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Tom
On Wed, 24 Oct 2018 18:22:04 +, Frank M. Ramaekers wrote:
>want to know if BDAM can be larger than 65535 tracks. Is this limitation per
>extent or entire file size.
It seems to depend on how you want to access it.
CBT321 (member COBANALZ) has sample code that uses SYS1.MODGEN(ASAXWC). The
macro is not GUPI but is used in several places in JES2, which can be seen in
SYS1.HASPSRC members for further examples.
HTH
Peter
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
I think I have seen it work for DSNTYPE=LARGE instead of extended format.
Aren't CA Datacom files bdam? I say that because.. last time i interacted
with Datacom it was only able to use DSNTYPE=LARGE.
Rob Schramm
On Thu, Oct 25, 2018, 11:18 PM Farley, Peter x23353 <
peter.far...@broadridge.com>
That should fulfill the OP's request.
It does not look like what I recall, but it might be the same thing. I think
I saw an example of calling the routine directly, not using an executable
macro.
Was perhaps using
https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/SSLTBW_2.3.0/com.ibm.zos.v2r3.ia
SYS1.MODGEN(ASAXWC)?
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
Behalf Of Charles Mills
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2018 6:29 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Comparison Routine - take 2
I am racking my brain. I think perhaps I
I am racking my brain. I think perhaps I saw the reference in some SSI
program, either an IBM sample or something from the CBT.
Charles
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
Behalf Of Charles Mills
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2018 9:07
There is a routine as you describe and I am trying to remember where I saw a
reference to it, a couple of months ago. I considered using it but ended up
rolling my own. You can specify the wildcard characters so you could use %
instead of ? a la SQL. I will keep trying to remember.
Charles
On Thu, 25 Oct 2018 17:51:47 -0500, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
>"Machine independent". The data type was not "halfword", but "int", defined
>as [-32768,32767] and stated that the effect of assigning a larger value was
>undefined. Debugger should have enforced.
It should have enforced that the
Hello listers.
The answers to my original question were interesting, but not close to what
I am looking for.
(By the way, in the original question I scanned for typos before I hit
'send', but of course (good one, Murphy) missed one. SQU should have been
SQL, of course).
The answers
19 matches
Mail list logo
