Vernooy, C.P. - SPLXM wrote:
"R.S." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
David Andrews wrote:
On Mon, 2005-08-01 at 10:49 -0400, Jousma, David wrote:
Did you leave SORTWKxx allocations on mod-9's?
I left SORTWKxx allocations on unmanaged public -9s. Didn't see any
good reason for managing them.
Maybe except:
- possibility to keep work datasets on dedicated volumes
- keeping 'accidental' allocations of small permanent datasets away from
work volumes. These datasets can exhaust work space or at least
fragmentarize it
- automatization of VIO selection.
Radoslaw,
it is highly recommended to exclude SORTWK's from VIO.
Vernooy,
I didn't recommend it. ACS routines allows you to exclude SORTWK's from VIO.
I just enumerated few advantages of having work volumes SMS-managed, not
assuming that all of them apply concurrently.
BTW: As Ron mentioned, it seems it is not so highly recommended <g>
However I have no opinion in this topic, just listen what others have to
say.
To John:
AFAIK new DFSORT for z/OS 1.5 uses 64-bit memory objects instead of
hiperspaces. Previous version (rel. 14) liked Expanded memory very much
and missed it in z/Architecture.
Regards
--
Radoslaw Skorupka
Lodz, Poland
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
