I made a stupid mistake
Joe Reichman
Joe Reichman
IT Specialist
Master Files Division
New Carrollton Federal Building, B7-182
OS:IT:AD:CP:I:IB
Flex M,T,Th,F
Home office (240) 863 - 3965
Office (240) 613-4350
Cell (917) 748-9693
TOD M - F 7:30 am - 4:00 pm
-Original Message-
Thanks
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@listserv.ua.edu] On Behalf
Of Charles Mills
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2017 10:39 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@listserv.ua.edu
Subject: Re: QSAM using DCBE macro
At its core, yes.
CharlesSent from a mobile; please
?
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@listserv.ua.edu] On Behalf
Of Steve Smith
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2017 10:27 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@listserv.ua.edu
Subject: Re: QSAM using DCBE macro
Is this supposed to be a poem?
sas
On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at
Hi
If I use GetPool macro for lets say 10,32000, does that mean every time I do a
QSAM GET in locate mode the pointer to the record is 320,000 bytes long ?
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
to have more information on what process you are trying to
do?
That way the answer can be more targeted.
Lizette
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU]
> On Behalf Of Reichman Joseph
> Sent: Monday, August 22, 2016 9:51
Hi
I am searching a large number of datasets which is the reason I asked my first
question, when I find what I am looking can the RDJFCB macro point me to the 44
bytes dataset name in that concatenation
Thanks
Joe Reichman
Joe Reichman
IT Specialist
Master Files Division
New Carrollton
A.EDU
> Subject: Re: Limit on the number of concatenated datasets
>
> Joe,
>
> There is one, yes. I believe it is 256. Advice from everyone else?
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Mitch McCluhan
> mitc...@aol.com
>
>
>
>
>
> -Original Mes
McCluhan
mitc...@aol.com
-Original Message-
From: Reichman Joseph <joseph.reich...@irs.gov>
To: IBM-MAIN <IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU>
Sent: Mon, Aug 22, 2016 10:38 am
Subject: Limit on the number of concatenated datasets
Hi
I looked in the JCL reference and DFSMS books
Hi
I looked in the JCL reference and DFSMS bookshelf and did not see a limit on
the number of concatenated datasets
Would anybody know if there is one ?
Thanks
Joe Reichman
Joe Reichman
IT Specialist
Master Files Division
New Carrollton Federal Building, B7-182
OS:IT:AD:CP:I:IB
Flex
It has been over a day does anybody know when It will be back up ?
Joe Reichman
Joe Reichman
IT Specialist
Master Files Division
New Carrollton Federal Building, B7-182
OS:IT:AD:CP:I:IB
Flex M,T,Th,F
Home office (240) 863 - 3965
Office (240) 613-4350
Cell (917) 748-9693
TOD M - F 7:30 am -
First I want to make clear this posting contains nothing but general code
(nothing to do with taxpayer code) there isn’t any IRS tax payer info in this
post
L 11R?+106 L(30) XC
0002CFEC. FFF0 000F F000 01000800 *...00...*
To: IBM-MAIN@listserv.ua.edu
Subject: Re: DEVTYPE INFO=DASD
Well, yes, but we should get the book right. So do you mind telling me what
the actual volume size is, just to confirm?
Reichman Joseph wrote:
> It is the first half word of each has to be
>
> Joe Reichman
> Joe Reichman
>
use "V" on ISPF
OPT3.4 to see VTOC information, including the volume size in tracks under
"Volume data" on the left. Divide by 15 to get cylinders. What do you see?
It's likely RCF time...
Reichman Joseph wrote:
> 7.2.15 Marked DEVTYPE- info form from DFSMSdfp &q
) 748-9693
TOD M - F 7:30 am - 4:00 pm
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@listserv.ua.edu] On Behalf
Of Elardus Engelbrecht
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2016 12:52 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@listserv.ua.edu
Subject: Re: DEVTYPE INFO=DASD
Reichman Joseph wrote:
Subject: Re: DEVTYPE INFO=DASD
> FFF0 000FF000 0100 0800
x'FFF0' would be 65520 cylinders. x'000F' would be 15 tracks per cylinder.
Reasonable for a 3390-54.
On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 9:00 AM, Reichman Joseph <joseph.reich...@irs.gov>
wrote:
> Hi
>
> I was looking
Hi
I was looking for the capability on a dasd device
DEVTYPE (R6),(AREA,L'AREA),INFOLIST=ILIST2
ILIST2 DEVTYPE INFO=DASD
AREA DSXL16
This was the data returned in area R15 = 0
FFF0 000FF000 0100 0800
DASD Returns 16 bytes as follows:
Bytes 0-3 Number of cylinders
Thanks for all your help I really understand the problem thing is the file is
huge and I don’t know by what factor DFSMS blocked and if the blocking is
consistent meaning always by the same factor
Joe Reichman
Joe Reichman
IT Specialist
Master Files Division
New Carrollton Federal
IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Reichman Joseph
Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 1:31 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Bsam VS Qsam for VB records
The problem is not the RDW it’s the BDW with QSAM that’s somewhere inside DFSMS
code it doe
u can find the start of the
next record (next RDW) though some simple maths (adding).
On Tuesday, 19 July 2016 17:15:53 UTC+2, Reichman Joseph wrote:
> With RECFM=U there is 1 record per block and the BDW is RDW + 4 ?
>
tis@austin.utexas.edu
> wrote:
> On Jul 19, 2016, at 9:39 AM, Reichman Joseph <joseph.reich...@irs.gov>
> wrote:
> >
> > I am not thinking of moving this in production it may help me track
> > down
> a problem
>
> If your motivation is to examine t
I am not thinking of moving this in production it may help me track down a
problem
Joe Reichman
Joe Reichman
IT Specialist
Master Files Division
New Carrollton Federal Building, B7-182
OS:CTO:AD:CP:I:IB
Flex M,T,Th,F
Home office (240) 863 - 3965
Office (240) 613-4350
Cell (917) 748-9693
: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Reichman Joseph
Sent: 19 July, 2016 16:33
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Bsam VS Qsam for VB records
As Far as I can see all the I/O we do here is qsam There was an issue here as
Jay Campbell pointed out
Subject: Re: Bsam VS Qsam for VB records
On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 9:02 AM, Reichman Joseph <joseph.reich...@irs.gov>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Would anyone know the plus and or minus for using BSAM as opposed to
> QSAM for VB records. It seems with BSAM there is more control e.g.
> speci
Hi,
Would anyone know the plus and or minus for using BSAM as opposed to QSAM for
VB records. It seems with BSAM there is more control e.g. specifying the BDW as
well as the RDW. Wondering about performance.
I am guessing if you know what you are doing BSAM would be faster. If anyone
could
24 matches
Mail list logo
