On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 08:30:08 -0600, McKown, John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>This just came up. Which is better: to allocate more, smaller, SORTWKnn >DD statements, or fewer, larger, SORTWKnn DD statements, or does it not >really matter. By "better", I mean: "Which will result in a shorter run >time?". > >The question came up due to a huge sort this weekend. DFSORT wanted to >allocate the SORTWKnn space > 3390-3 volume. We only have 3390-3 >volumes. So the question is, do I update defaults to have more than 32 >volumes or do we consider creating 3390-9 volumes for SORTWKnn? > >This is IBM's DFSORT on z/OS 1.8. Yes, I am aware of Syncsort's MAXSORT >capability. No, it will not be considered. End of discussion on that >point, please. > Mostly, it doesn't matter... but as usual - it depends, YMMV, etc. How many control units / storage subsystems do you have? How many paths? Is there enough contiguous space for a large sort (there is still a 16 extent limit per SORKWKxx AFAIK). I'm pretty sure there have been some posts in the archive about this. Have you reviewed the DFSORT tuning manual (I have know idea it if answers your specific question)? Mark -- Mark Zelden Sr. Software and Systems Architect - z/OS Team Lead Zurich North America / Farmers Insurance Group - ZFUS G-ITO mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
