On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 13:13:58 -0500, Chase, John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > And sysplex has nothing to do with this really. It thought this >> > needed to be done >> > since DF/EF in the 80's. I guess if you've run into >> > previous file status 97s, >> > someone must have run a VERIFY. >> > >> > Mark >> > -- >> >> I have NO idea about the VERIFY. And, of course, since the >> last thing that we did was convert to a sysplex, the first >> question out of the programmer's mouth was: "It has always >> worked before. Is the sysplex conversion the reason that it >> all of a sudden failed?" > >It's been many years, but ISTR (vaguely) that the 97 occurs at OPEN time >if an _implicit_ VERIFY was done (i.e., OPEN "discovered" that the >previous opener of the dataset did not close it "cleanly", so it invoked >VERIFY "under the covers"). The "fix" was (is?) to run an _explicit_ >IDCAMS VERIFY against the dataset. > >I don't believe sysplex has anything to do with it, but like I said, >it's been many years........ > You're right. There would be no reason to run the "manual" VERIFY after the file status 97. Just re-run the program and it will magically disappear. 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
