On Monday, 03/21/2011 at 10:54 EDT, Les Koehler <vmr...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > Does FILE CONTROL thus have the same exposure to a file being changed 'under the > covers' as a minidisk has, possibly causing an error for the other users? > > Is there something similar to the minidisk trick of: > > copyfile new1 version a pseudo1 name k (noupdir > copyfile new2 version a pseudo2 name k (noupdir > rename old1 version k save1 version k (noupdir > rename old2 version k save2 version k (noupdir > rename pseudo1 name k old1 version k (noupdir > rename pseudo2 name k old2 version k > > (hope I got that right!) to avoid impacting other users?
You never get ERROR 3 READING FILE with SFS and you don't use the "copyfile twostep" with SFS. You just change the files. If someone accesses the directory while you're updating, then they will see changed files on for files that are closed when they access it. In that respect, DIRCONTROL directories are better than minidisks. FILECONTROL directories reveal file changes immediately. I.e. you can open a file and see one set of content, then close and re-open and see something new. But you never see a mix and you never see the file while it is open and being written to - you see the old version. And if you erase a file in a FILECONTROL directory, all authorizations are lost. Alan Altmark z/VM and Linux on System z Consultant IBM System Lab Services and Training ibm.com/systems/services/labservices office: 607.429.3323 mobile; 607.321.7556 alan_altm...@us.ibm.com IBM Endicott
