Hi John,
it's the same for me.
Sometimes I get the right behaviour and other times no !
The COBOL program does the OPEN I-O and the SMF64 states the step did both
READ and UPDATE (the flag in the SMF64 is coherently incoherent).
Look at the SMF64 record below.
In my understanding, if at CLOSE
On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 10:55:27 +0100, Massimo Biancucci wrote:
Hi all,
we started analyzing SMF62 to trace which A.S. use VSAM datasets and their
intent (Read or Update).
To do the task we analyze the SMF62MC1 flag (zOS 1.13).
So, a Cobol program does the following:
..
SELECT
Is this [SMF record] flags byte recording behavior? Or is it
recording [only] open option(s) specified?
If the latter, should not opening for update set both the IN and the
OUT bits? How otherwise is the specification of update reflected in
this byte?
I think Massimo has an adequate basis for
On Fri, 14 Feb 2014 07:39:24 -0500, John Gilmore wrote:
Is this [SMF record] flags byte recording behavior? Or is it
recording [only] open option(s) specified?
If the latter, should not opening for update set both the IN and the
OUT bits? How otherwise is the specification of update reflected
Thanks to Bill for his update.
I agree with John that IBM should better explain the meaning of the byte
and, furthermore, the Cobol behaviour.
In my opinion, from version to version (or single PTF) the Cobol Behaviour
could had been changing. Puzzling !
Thanks to everybody, of course I'll give
:Re: SMF record 62 and SMF62MC1 byte meaning.
Sent by:IBM Mainframe Discussion List IBM-MAIN@listserv.ua.edu
On Fri, 14 Feb 2014 07:39:24 -0500, John Gilmore wrote:
Is this [SMF record] flags byte recording behavior? Or is it
recording [only] open option(s) specified?
If the latter
Bill,
I value your contributions here. They are always appropriately
informed, as was your last post in this thread.
That said, it seems clear to me beyond argument that the appropriate
way to record an open-for-update macro instruction is to set BOTH the
in and the out bits, which is not being
On Fri, 14 Feb 2014 09:43:28 -0500, John Gilmore jwgli...@gmail.com wrote:
Bill,
I value your contributions here. They are always appropriately
informed, as was your last post in this thread.
That said, it seems clear to me beyond argument that the appropriate
way to record an open-for-update
Bill Godfrey wrote:
Are you saying that the IN bit should be set for updates, and not for writing
new records, as a way of distinguishing between the two?
[... snipped ...]
I think the documentation about those SMF records are somewhat not clear. I
really wish someone from IBM Storage would
Bill,
The 'compatibility problem' you mention is not obvious to me.
Currently--I have tested all of the permutations---either the IN bit
is set or the OUT bit is set. Both are never set.
My view is, yes, that both the IN bit and the OUT bit should be set in
the ACB at open time when the file is
On Fri, 14 Feb 2014 14:33:03 -0500, John Gilmore jwgli...@gmail.com wrote:
Bill,
The 'compatibility problem' you mention is not obvious to me.
Currently--I have tested all of the permutations---either the IN bit
is set or the OUT bit is set. Both are never set.
My view is, yes, that both the
Does this existing code do updates only after checking to ensure
that the In bit is not set (off)?
I doubt that. Compatibility arguments are certainly not dismissible;
some, even many, of them are substantive; but they are too often
advanced as a convenient, not at all substantive rationale for
On Fri, 14 Feb 2014 22:36:37 -0500, John Gilmore wrote:
Does this existing code do updates only after checking to ensure
that the In bit is not set (off)?
I doubt that. Compatibility arguments are certainly not dismissible;
some, even many, of them are substantive; but they are too often
Hi all,
we started analyzing SMF62 to trace which A.S. use VSAM datasets and their
intent (Read or Update).
To do the task we analyze the SMF62MC1 flag (zOS 1.13).
So, a Cobol program does the following:
..
SELECT ARCAPPU ASSIGN TOTITAR02U
Massimo,
I have not been able to reproduce your problem, but I am almost
certainly not doing exactly what you are doing.
When I open a COBOL 2.1 [INDEXED DYNAMIC] file for input, I get input
processing 1, output processing 0; when I open it for output, I get
input processing 0, output
The COBOL is Enterprise Version 5 under z/OS 2.1. My apologies for
appearing to confound operating system and compiler version numbers.
John Gilmore, Ashland, MA 01721 - USA
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access
16 matches
Mail list logo
