John, Sometimes it is possible to use INREC to reduce the size of the record that gets sorted and written to SORTWK. If this is possible, you may be able to complete your sort with your existing SORTWK allocations.
John Reda Software Services Manager Syncsort Inc. 201-930-8260 -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of McKown, John Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 9:30 AM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: DFSORT question 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. -- John McKown Senior Systems Programmer HealthMarkets Keeping the Promise of Affordable Coverage Administrative Services Group Information Technology ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
