-----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of John R. Ehrman (408-463-3543 T/543-) Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 1:47 PM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: PDS vs. PDSE
PDSEs have been available for a long time, and provide many advantages over PDSs. Why are people reluctant to use PDSEs? John Ehrman ----- >From my experience, it is a time bomb waiting for the "directory" to get "fragmented". And if you are using objects, lots of luck. If you want to recreate the situation of which I refer, build a "listing" PDS/E and run your HLASM Listings out to it. In my experience you will possibly work OK with this for about 3 months (I was doing 3-20 assembles per work day) and then things stop working. The only way out is to delete it and rebuild it. I went back to PDSes and defrag/degas (at short intervals). The SYSLMOD output from BINDER gets even more screwed up. And the only way out was delete and rebuild. And unless you have them backed up, you just lost the contents. Now maybe the problem is, I set them up with a SINGLE extent (about 75 CYLINDERS). But this is why I don't use them in development. For a relatively static (from my perspective) file, works OK. Regards, Steve Thompson ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
