Frankly, most are stupid. Many are just some programmer's bright but thoughtless idea. The "standard" SMF timestamp (seconds * 100)||0cyydddF takes up just as much room as an STCK, has much less precision, and as originally designed (with no 'c'), less range.
Charles -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Paul Gilmartin Sent: Tuesday, November 6, 2018 12:37 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Speaking of time change... On Tue, 6 Nov 2018 11:47:53 -0800, Charles Mills wrote: >Yeah John, "standard" SMF timestamps are in local time. Sigh. > So the last possible value before midnight last Sunday would have been 8999999 (25 hours minus 0.01 seconds)? Can anyone verify? >I have documented TWENTY-FIVE (really!) different date, time or date-and-time >formats used in SMF records, although to be fair, perhaps a quarter or so of >those are for non-IBM SMF records. > John Gilmore once argued that some require greater precision; others greater range; all need storage economy, so variant formats. >-----Original Message----- >From: Christopher Y. Blaicher >Sent: Tuesday, November 6, 2018 10:51 AM > >John, >Where does SMF use UTC? Most times are recorded as 'TIME SINCE MIDNIGHT IN >HUNDREDTHS OF A SECOND'. ... -- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
