You know, while on the subject of VMARC, I wonder how many times I've wished that I could:
PIPE < HUGE VMARC * | VMARC UNPK | loads of filters or whatever... | Output stage It's still hard to believe that I have no choice but to VMARC UNPK a file to a disk (sometimes really large, 2-5K cylinders), before the second pass read using Pipes with all the filtering options. John -----Original Message----- From: CMSTSO Pipelines Discussion List [mailto:cms-pipeli...@vm.marist.edu] On Behalf Of Schuh, Richard Sent: Monday, December 06, 2010 3:28 PM To: CMS-PIPELINES@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: Reblocking a binary file I do not currently have one; however, a VMARC packed dump file that I sent to CA about 6 months ago had the problem. They said that the unpack failed, so I sent it a second time. When they could not unpack the second copy, I had them try the fblock 80 00. That worked - the unpacked record and byte counts were correct. I had no problem unpacking the file at my end. I will try to remember that you would like to see one of the failing files the next time I run into it. Regards, Richard Schuh > -----Original Message----- > From: CMSTSO Pipelines Discussion List > [mailto:cms-pipeli...@vm.marist.edu] On Behalf Of Paul Gilmartin > Sent: Monday, December 06, 2010 1:34 PM > To: CMS-PIPELINES@VM.MARIST.EDU > Subject: Re: Reblocking a binary file > > On 2010-12-06 13:52, Schuh, Richard wrote: > > I generally try VMARC UNPACK first. If it fails, I try the > 'fblock 80 00' approach. It usually does solve the problem. I have had > infrequent cases where dumps that I have packed using VMARC could not > be unpacked by the vendor without using 'FBLOCK 80 00'. It may or may > not be a horrid practice; however, it is sometimes a necessity, > whether horrid or not. > > > Have you a test case that fails without the '00' but succeeds with the > '00'? I'd be interested in seeing it. > > -- gil >
