On 26 Mar 2015 03:33:25 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote: >**************************************************************** >* USERS AFFECTED: IEBCOPY of a RECFM=F or RECFM=FB PDSE >* results in a broken PDSE. The only members >* which can be accessed in the target PDSE >* are the empty members. >**************************************************************** > >Well that should restore everybodys faith in the robustness of PDSE. Version 2 >co-incidence ?. My complaint about PDSE is that in their infinite lack of wisdom (probably in response to some bean counter) PDSE can't be a complete replacement for PDS. The idea that a supposedly basic access method isn't available at NIP and requires a started address space has aways seem wacky to me. The failure also precludes the idea that FBA access methods can be used for all work thus allowing z/OS to finally use FBA disks also shows lack of strategic thinking. Overall what is the ration of PDS APARs to PDSE APARs?
Clark Morris > >Shane ... > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, >send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
