Why? As I said, in order to allow for "expansion" of the length of records without a requirement to take the file offline in order to alter it.
Does no one else run in to this issue? We generally have 'filler' space defined, but sometimes even that gets used up and you still have to 'expand' the record length. ________________________________ From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU> on behalf of CM Poncelet <ad...@poncelet-adsl.demon.co.uk> Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2017 6:07 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: VSAM: Why MAXLRECL? No problem provided you define 32K LSR pools (from memory, 3) in CICS and monitor their (E)DSA usage. But why define MAXLRECL=32760 at all? On 11/01/2017 22:53, Greg Dyck wrote: > On 1/11/2017 3:30 PM, Frank Swarbrick wrote: >> Is there a downside to always defining VSAM files with a MAXLRECL of >> 32761, which seems to be the largest value for this parm for an >> UNSPANNED dataset? > > I believe it will force your CI size to be 32K which is not something I > would want to do unless it was necessary. The CI size impacts the > amount of virtual storage that is allocated for buffers and the I/O > transfer times for each CI that must be read or written. > > Regards, > Greg > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > . > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
