I am now convinced that I was confused in my early experiment. The SMF record
that I wrote was in fact "allowed" by SMFPRMxx.
So I have no proof that my earlier assertion is correct.
OTOH, I have not, and probably will not take the time to, run an experiment to
see if the assertion of most of the posters here is correct: that a specified
or implied permission in SMFPRMxx is a necessary condition for writing SMF
records of a particular type number.
I guess a well-behaved and "efficient" program would check SMFRTEST at startup
to avoid the overhead of constructing unwanted SMF records, but if it did not,
I now suspect it would be prevented from writing them, and would in fact
receive a 36 (24) from SMF(E)WTM.
My apologies for the confusion.
BTW, I agree with Robert A. Rosenberg. The documentation is less than clear.
You can IMHO read it either way, and nowhere does it say "SMF(E)WTM *will* fail
if the indicated record type is not permitted by SMFPRMxx.
Charles
-----Original Message-----
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Charles Mills
Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2013 11:40 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Need to include ACF2 SMF 230 in SMFPRMxx?
You may be right. Trying to make complete sense of D SMF,O output may be the
death of me yet. Also on the ACF2 list Tony Harminc points out the 36 (24)
return code from SMF(E)WTM. I will investigate further when I have time.
Charles
-----Original Message-----
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Mark Zelden
Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2013 11:14 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Need to include ACF2 SMF 230 in SMFPRMxx?
On Tue, 8 Oct 2013 10:52:36 -0700, Charles Mills <charl...@mcn.org> wrote:
>Closing the loop, I have now gotten a reply on the ACF2 list from CA
>support. (Thanks Ross!)
>
>FWIW, here is my model of how this all works.
>
>SMFPRMxx is a "suggestion" to SMF-record-writing components. SMF itself
>does not filter based on SMFPRMxx. You can code SYS(NOTYPE(199)) and I
>can still write a program that uses SMF(E)WTM to write type 199 records
>and they will end up in your SMF datasets and/or logstream (subject to any
>IEFU8x exit).
>What a well-behaved program *should* do, apparently (although this does
>not seem to be well-documented) and apparently what ACF2 and every IBM
>product do is query SMFRTEST to determine whether the shop wants its
>record type, and adjust its logic accordingly.
>
>Charles
>
This is news to me. I can't speak to the validity without writing my own
program, but on the surface doesn't seem to agree with the description for
SMFRTEST in the SMF manual. Pay attention to the wording in the last sentence.
5.8 SMFRTEST -- Testing record recording
The SMFRTEST macro allows you to determine if a particular type, or subtype, of
a record is being recorded. Issue this macro before collecting data for a
particular record or subtype to avoid the overhead of data collection if it is
not written.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
