On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 10:44:59 -0500, David Devine wrote: > >I think DanD hit it on the head with his suggestion about using infile & >outfile dd statements instead of ids & ods. >Ids & Ods use a disp of "old" during dynamic allocation. > IDS, even? I'd expect SHR to suffice for IDS.
>I have a sneaky feeling that your job is contending with itself because grs or >mim can't always see quickly enough that the dataset is free'd after the >del/def. >As the message is an IKJ its implying that its all done within a TSO rexx >routine and rexx is quite well know for erratic behaviour. > I believe Rexx messages are IRX; TSO are IKJ. The news of Rexx's "erratic behavior" hadn't reached me. Can you cite an example? >Do you have explicit close & free's coded in your rexx for the dataset prior >to the final repro? > Can contention occur within a single address space? >In any event, I'd suggest changing your repro to hardcoded infile outfile dd's >with a disp of shr. > Wouldn't EXC be safer for OUTFILE? The Info cited earlier says that VSAM ENQs on QNAME VSAM; allocation ENOs on SYSDSN. Does VSAM additionally ENQ on SYSDSN? Which does REPRO use? -- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
