On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 21:34:53 +0000, Ted MacNEIL <eamacn...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>>>Also, there are many issues with non-SMS PDSE's. > >>Care to elaborate on what you think those issues are? > > >There is the buffering/potential corruption of shared PDSE's. Nothing to do with SMS vs. NON-SMS PDSE. >The 100's of PTF's that came out a few years ago. Nothing to do with SMS vs. NON-SMS PDSE. There have been many PTFS, but you can say that for any component (how about SMSVSAM for example). The actual support for non-SMS PDSE was only a few PTFs. >And, the separate code streams to manage them within and without SMS. > Only IBM can answer that, if there is some specific dual path code for PDSE to check if it is SMS managed or not, I still don't see that as an issue. The OS is full of dual code paths for various reasons and that doesn't make it a "issue". Large parts of the OS are delivered and run from non-SMS PDSE these days. How much of an issue can it be? Mark -- Mark Zelden Sr. Software and Systems Architect - z/OS Team Lead Zurich North America / Farmers Insurance Group - ZFUS G-ITO mailto:mark.zel...@zurichna.com z/OS Systems Programming expert at http://expertanswercenter.techtarget.com/ Mark's MVS Utilities: http://home.flash.net/~mzelden/mvsutil.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
