On Mon, 22 Jul 2013 15:32:37 -0400, Jim Mulder wrote: >> If there are any restrictions, they should be APAR'ed. 3120, 6160, >> 6144, etc. is SO 20th century. It's amazing to me how many IBM and OEM >> products still ship these crappy blocksizes. It's why I submitted a >> SHARE requirement to have AMATERSE support SDB. Isn't it ironic that a >> utility designed to save DASD space uses a 6144 blocksize and actually >> wastes DASD? > > Changing AMATERSE to avoid assigning a blocksize of 6144, so >that SDB can to its thing, appears to be a fairly easy code >change, and I do anticipate that it will get done at some point in >the future. > There's a precedent for IBM's accepting APARs against products that thwart SDB. From OW43702:
PROBLEM CONCLUSION: Module IRXIOLAR has been changed to allow the specification of BLKSIZE=0 for the TSO/E REXX command EXECIO in order to allow the user to specify system determined block size. I don't know how much a precedent is worth, nor what IBM's policy is in such cases. And it did break things, incidentally fixed by OW46399: ERROR DESCRIPTION: ABEND013-20 opening subsystem dataset. The blksize passed to open was 0. The lrecl was other than 80. Open processing does not select a proper default. RC20 MSGIEC141I IGG0199G PROBLEM CONCLUSION: Code modified to change the default blksize calculation to take into account the lrecl specified. I asked IBM to mark OW43702 PE, fixed by OW46399. IBM declined, calling OW43702 WAD. I saved the entire ugly transcript. -- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
