In p06240801c7a3a3a52...@[192.168.1.11], on 02/18/2010
at 09:23 PM, Robert A. Rosenberg hal9...@panix.com said:
There is print server support where individual machines on the network
send their program's output to a Print Server which stores the printout
and then sends it to printers.
The
I posted the original question on behalf of a colleague who was
curious about customer views; I've been forwarding comments to him.
John Ehrman
(-- Referenced Note Follows )
Date:Mon, 22 Feb 2010 07:21:05 -0600
From:Barbara Nitz nitz-...@gmx.net
Barbara Nitz nitz-...@gmx.net wrote in message
news:listserv%201002220047263437.0...@bama.ua.edu...
Well, I can add another problem to the list: since 2 days we have a
ghost connection to a PDSE directory. We can't delete the PDSE
because
someone has a connection to the directory, but we have
Well, I can add another problem to the list: since 2 days we have a
ghost connection to a PDSE directory. We can't delete the PDSE because
someone has a connection to the directory, but we have no idea who and
there is no Enq for the PDSE, which is the way to find the holder of the
connection
John R. Ehrman , 408-463-3543 T/543- ehr...@vnet.ibm.com wrote in
message news:vnetibm.20100210195847.3...@bldgate.vnet.ibm.com...
PDSEs have been available for a long time, and provide many
advantages over PDSs. Why are people reluctant to use PDSEs?
John Ehrman
Well, I can add another
: +1.508.341.1715
Email: bi...@mainstar.com
Web: www.rocketsoftware.com
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of
R.S.
Sent: Friday, February 12, 2010 1:39 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: PDS vs. PDSE
In PDS you can have many
W dniu 2010-02-18 15:35, Bill Fairchild pisze:
A PDS can have many small members occupying a single track, but not a single
block, unless the many members are all aliases that resolve into the same
member.
Yes, I know that, thank you for the correction. This third or fourth
correction to
In o0bon5h4d3r16fiel1o42dsqo865m3k...@4ax.com, on 02/17/2010
at 01:54 PM, Clark Morris cfmpub...@ns.sympatico.ca said:
Since executables can exist in zFS, would the smarter long term strategy
be to migrate PDSE to zFS and dead end PDSE?
How about stealing some ideas from TSS?
pecialized
At 16:31 -0500 on 02/17/2010, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote about
Re: PDS vs. PDSE:
I don't see that. The printer support in windoze and *ix is quite ad hoc.
In the case of *ix it's hard to say what the SPOOL support is? I'm tempted
to say cups, but that's questionable.
There is print
Hello John,
there have been many responses.some positive some negative...this is
another negative I am sorry!
1. Our developers still regularly break PDSEand we are still getting new
APARs assigned as a result.
2. With CICS regions always UP! and connected, the PDSE's do not do
Bruce Hewson of the IBM Mainframe Discussion List IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
wrote on 02/17/2010 04:09:59 AM:
Hello John,
there have been many responses.some positive some negative...this is
another negative I am sorry!
1. Our developers still regularly break PDSEand we are still getting
On 17 Feb 2010 05:39:17 -0800, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
Bruce Hewson of the IBM Mainframe Discussion List IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
wrote on 02/17/2010 04:09:59 AM:
Hello John,
there have been many responses.some positive some negative...this is
another negative I am sorry!
1.
On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 13:54:43 -0400, Clark Morris wrote:
Since executables can exist in zFS, would the smarter long term
strategy be to migrate PDSE to zFS and dead end PDSE? The PDSE
As soon as they allow Unix directories in my STEPLIB concatenation.
(And LINKLIST.)
But no aliases for program
Of
McKown, John
Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2010 7:37 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: PDS vs. PDSE
Does anything other than S/360 derived systems even use CKD type DASD? PDS
directories are built around CKD. And, in their day, moving the search logic
out to the peripheral was probably
snip--
The system structures designed into S/360 that turned into bottlenecks sooner than most others
did were built around the cKd architecture, in which the K is uppercased because it means KEY
(where KEY rhymes with bad, bad,
In 4b750586.5040...@bremultibank.com.pl, on 02/12/2010
at 08:38 AM, R.S. r.skoru...@bremultibank.com.pl said:
In PDS you can have many small member occupying
single block.
No way, Jos. The only ways that two members share a block are with an
alias or with a corrupted PDS.
--
Shmuel
On 02/12/2010 11:25 AM, Guy Gardoit wrote:
Does wasted space in PDSE's really matter all that much? I'll bet no
one has al their PDS data set compressed 100% of the time - that's called
wasted space not to mention the constant battle with directory blocks.
PDSE's are not perfect but this
On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 10:24:22 -0600, Joel C. Ewing wrote:
Using a PDS the physical size of the library stabilized at under 5
cylinders. We were surprised to find that as a PDSE the table grew to
many extents and over 100 cylinders before it stabilized! It appears
that ISPF leaves table library
On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 06:54:21 -0600, Elardus Engelbrecht wrote:
PDSE processing is planned to be changed to reduce delays that can occur
when two systems are accessing a PDSE concurrently while it is being
updated. PDSE will be designed to improve its cross-system sharing
capabilities, including
Speaking of PDSE... why does the z/OS 1.11 Serverpac require the SMPPTS
to be PDSE? The CH TYPE command doesn't let one change it to PDS.
Is there something new with z/OS 1.11 that requires the SMPPTS associated
with the z/OS zones to be PDSE that I missed hearing about?
Mark
--
Mark Zelden
On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 13:48:34 -0600, Mark Zelden mark.zel...@zurichna.com
wrote:
Speaking of PDSE... why does the z/OS 1.11 Serverpac require the SMPPTS
to be PDSE? The CH TYPE command doesn't let one change it to PDS.
Is there something new with z/OS 1.11 that requires the SMPPTS associated
On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 15:48:56 -0600, Mark Zelden wrote:
What IBM really really needs (hint!) is a tag for GIMUNZIP to control
the SYSUT1 dynamic allocation on a data set by data set basis if needed. I
could have then pointed SYSUT1 to a spare volume just for the SMPPTS
unzip instead of having the
. . .
2. In fact blocksize DOESN'T MATTER. What matters is the block cannot be
share between members. In PDS you can have many small member occupying
single block. In PDSE any member takes *at least* one block.
No block in a PDS can contain more than one member. In a PDS any member also
takes at
Barbara,
Puh, how do I go about finding this out? If any of this is specified in
the
IGDSMS member, then we take whatever default IBM set. And these things
apparently don't *have* storage class, management class or dataclass. I
just
tested, and they end up on hte volumes they do because I
And, HFS is a form of PDSE.
What does it mean exactly?
The internal structure is almost exactly the same as a PDSE.
The differences are subtle, such as supporting UNIX-style names.
-
Too busy driving to stop for gas!
--
For
. . .
In a PDS
any member also
takes at least one block, but there can be short blocks (less than BLKSIZE).
Well, to be precise, any non-empty member of a PDS takes at least one block
(and an EOF block). An empty member has only the
That's what I was wondering about. The default for
PDSE_HSP_SIZE|HSP_SIZE(nnn) is 0, and according to the Manual 0 disables
PDSE Member Caching.
I'll try to get this set for tomorrow's IPL on the second of the two systems
that are affected. I'll start with 500M. On the other, I will start my
And one (emulated) block gap.
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On
Behalf Of
Andy Wood
Sent: Friday, February 12, 2010 12:57 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: [IBM-MAIN] PDS vs. PDSE
On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 03:20:34 -0600, Barbara Nitz wrote:
That's what I was wondering about. The default for
PDSE_HSP_SIZE|HSP_SIZE(nnn) is 0, and according to the Manual 0 disables
PDSE Member Caching.
I'll try to get this set for tomorrow's IPL on the second of the two systems
that are affected.
In PDS you can have many small member occupying single block.
Not true! Each member has its own TTR.
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 08:38:46 +0100
From: r.skoru...@bremultibank.com.pl
Subject: Re: PDS vs. PDSE
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Eric Bielefeld pisze:
I just tried allocating
PDSEs without a storage class are not cached in hiperspace:
http://www.redbooks.ibm.com/abstracts/TIPS0567.html?Open
(Ensure that SMS-managed PDSEs are associated with storage classes that
have appropriate MSR settings. (Note that PDSE data sets shipped as part of
the operating system are
12, 2010 1:21 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: [IBM-MAIN] PDS vs. PDSE
That's what I was wondering about. The default for
PDSE_HSP_SIZE|HSP_SIZE(nnn) is 0, and according to the Manual 0 disables
PDSE Member Caching.
I'll try to get this set for tomorrow's IPL on the second
] On
Behalf Of
Barbara Nitz
Sent: Friday, February 12, 2010 3:23 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: [IBM-MAIN] PDS vs. PDSE
PDSEs without a storage class are not cached in hiperspace:
http://www.redbooks.ibm.com/abstracts/TIPS0567.html?Open
(Ensure that SMS-managed PDSEs are associated
On 11 Feb 2010 20:44:37 -0800, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
No one seems to have pointed out that even for large members requiring
more than 4 KiB there is more wasted space for PDSE than for a PDS:
Since all space allocation is in 4KiB blocks, one should expect on
average 50% of the last
.
Peter
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Clark Morris
Sent: Friday, February 12, 2010 8:35 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: PDS vs. PDSE
Snipped
And all of the above is more painfully true because space
On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 00:52:02 -0800, Ron Hawkins
ron.hawkins1...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
Barbara,
Puh, how do I go about finding this out? If any of this is specified in
the
IGDSMS member, then we take whatever default IBM set. And these things
apparently don't *have* storage class, management
a z/OS successor will IPL from the /boot file system?
Wild and rampant speculation with just two chances of being right (slim
and none, and slim is out to lunch), but interesting thoughts
nonetheless.
re:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010d.html#0 PDS vs. PDSE
note that industry fixed-block has
Does wasted space in PDSE's really matter all that much? I'll bet no
one has al their PDS data set compressed 100% of the time - that's called
wasted space not to mention the constant battle with directory blocks.
PDSE's are not perfect but this stuff about wasted-space is just hot air
On 2/11/2010 at 5:54 AM, in message
listserv%201002110654218573.0...@bama.ua.edu, Elardus Engelbrecht
elardus.engelbre...@sita.co.za wrote:
No-one said anything about corrupt PDSE during IPL... (or I have missed it.)
In z/OS v1.12 Preview this snippet:
PDSE processing is planned to be
fields, etc.)
would exceed 50%.
re:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010d.html#0 PDS vs. PDSE
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010d.html#9 PDS vs. PDSE
DASD capacity forumulae ... from my conversion of gcard ios3720
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/gcard.html#26.3
DASD Capacity Formulae
Device Cyls Tracks
I dared to get all the objections together combined with some mines:
Disadvantages:
1. New feature - people still think that way vbg
2. Former requirement for SMS-management
3. New keyword to create PDSE (DSNTYPE)
4. Cross-sysplex sharing
5. Cannot hold both data and programs (and no visible
Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of
R.S.
Sent: 11 February 2010 09:44
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: PDS vs. PDSE
I dared to get all the objections together combined with some mines:
Disadvantages:
1. New feature - people still think
-MAIN] PDS vs. PDSE
PDSEs have been available for a long time, and provide many
advantages over PDSs. Why are people reluctant to use PDSEs?
In our case: Extremely bad performance on large datasets, as in a little
more
than 10.000 members in 101.000 tracks, lrecl=1562, recfm=vb,
blksize
Barbara,
The JCL Reference Manual still shows BUFNO and NCP as valid parameters for
BPAM.
Ron
You have me wondering if the block chaining strategy for PDSE is different
to
PDS, and that perhaps adding buffers to the Fault Analyzer's allocation
will
speed things up for you.
Ron,
The JCL Reference Manual still shows BUFNO and NCP as valid parameters for
BPAM.
Which doesn't help me. Let me elaborate:
I would not expect caching to help unless the member was already opened, or
it had been used less than 15 minutes ago.
When I talk about 'caching', I don't mean hardware
Ron Hawkins of the IBM Mainframe Discussion List IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
wrote on 02/11/2010 04:28:45 AM:
Barbara,
The JCL Reference Manual still shows BUFNO and NCP as valid parameters
for
BPAM.
Ron
You have me wondering if the block chaining strategy for PDSE is
different
to
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of R.S.
I dared to get all the objections together combined with some mines:
Disadvantages:
1. New feature - people still think that way vbg
2. Former requirement for SMS-management
3. New keyword to create PDSE
No-one said anything about corrupt PDSE during IPL... (or I have missed it.)
In z/OS v1.12 Preview this snippet:
When a corrupt PDSE is detected in the link list during IPL, the system enters
a wait state. In z/OS V1.12, the system will be designed to issue a message
identifying the corrupt
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Howard Brazee
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 7:29 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: PDS vs. PDSE
On 10 Feb 2010 12:09:58 -0800, hmerr...@jackhenry.com (Hal Merritt)
wrote
On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 06:34:50 -0600, John P Kalinich wrote:
I think that BUFNO and NCP are ignored for PDSE's. Let me check the doc
for sure.
But you might improve performance by overriding to a larger (or
smaller) BLKSIZE in JCL, something no effective for PDS.
-- gil
Barbara,
I'm not trying to teach you how to suck eggs. I know you've had this problem
for a few years now.
I would not expect caching to help unless the member was already opened,
or
it had been used less than 15 minutes ago.
When I talk about 'caching', I don't mean hardware chaching (you
The following message is a courtesy copy of an article
that has been posted to bit.listserv.ibm-main,alt.folklore.computers as well.
john.mck...@healthmarkets.com (McKown, John) writes:
Does anything other than S/360 derived systems even use CKD type DASD?
PDS directories are built around CKD.
On 11 Feb 2010 05:37:17 -0800, john.mck...@healthmarkets.com (McKown,
John) wrote:
Other computers didn't need the advantages of PDS's. Nor the
disadvantages.
Does anything other than S/360 derived systems even use CKD type DASD? PDS
directories are built around CKD.
And, in their day,
McKown, John pisze:
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Howard Brazee
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 7:29 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: PDS vs. PDSE
On 10 Feb 2010 12:09:58 -0800, hmerr...@jackhenry.com (Hal
I just discovered something about PDS/Es that I don't remember being discussed.
This discussion inspired me to copy my JCL PDS to a PDS/E on one of my
accounts. Notice that the % full went from 62 to 95%. I used the same
blksize. I figured that since the PDS was 62% full, I'd make the PDS/E
Skickat: den 11 februari 2010 16:39
Till: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Ämne: Re: PDS vs. PDSE
I just discovered something about PDS/Es that I don't remember being
discussed. This discussion inspired me to copy my JCL PDS to a PDS/E on
one of my accounts. Notice that the % full went from 62 to 95%. I
(AT)us.ibm.com
===
From:
Eric Bielefeld eric-ibmm...@wi.rr.com
To:
IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Date:
02/11/2010 09:40 AM
Subject:
Re: PDS vs. PDSE
Sent by:
IBM Mainframe Discussion List IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
I just discovered something about PDS/Es that I don't
Eric Bielefeld pisze:
I just discovered something about PDS/Es that I don't remember being discussed.
This discussion inspired me to copy my JCL PDS to a PDS/E on one of my
accounts. Notice that the % full went from 62 to 95%. I used the same
blksize. I figured that since the PDS was 62%
production library.
Adauto
-Mensagem original-
De: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] Em nome de
Chase, John
Enviada em: quinta-feira, 11 de fevereiro de 2010 10:53
Para: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Assunto: Re: PDS vs. PDSE
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe
I was just thinking - I wonder if the blocksize I used is bad for PDS/E, givin
the 4096 page six. Will it write blocks at 7520, or just write 4K blocks?
Should I make the blocksize something with a closer multiple of 4096?
Eric
--
Eric Bielefeld
Systems Programmer
IBM MVS Technical Services
Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of
Eric Bielefeld
Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2010 11:21 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: PDS vs. PDSE
I was just thinking - I wonder if the blocksize I used is bad for PDS/E, givin
the 4096 page six
I just tried allocating the ds as 4080 for the blocksize, and used the same
95%, so apparently the blocksize doesn't matter. As a few have pointed out,
the smaller members that take less than a full 4K page waste a lot of space.
So, does PDS/E write out 4K blocks regardless of what you
I was just thinking - I wonder if the blocksize I used is bad for PDS/E, givin
the 4096 page six.
The 'logical' blocksize really doesn't matter.
All data is stored in 'physical' blocks of 4096, regardless of the blocksize
specified.
Will it write blocks at 7520, or just write 4K blocks?
So, does PDS/E write out 4K blocks regardless of what you specify?
Yes.
Think of it as a string of bytes per member, written out in multiple 4K chunks
(minimum size).
-
Too busy driving to stop for gas!
--
For IBM-MAIN
...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Eric Bielefeld
Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2010 11:21 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: PDS vs. PDSE
I was just thinking - I wonder if the blocksize I used is bad
for PDS/E, givin the 4096 page six. Will it write blocks at
7520, or just write 4K blocks? Should I
Like zFS, HFS, and some other things, PDSE seems to have been influenced by
LINEAR VSAM in its choice to do physical DASD in 4K pages.
When they first came out, I was told that PDSE are linear VSAM.
And, HFS is a form of PDSE.
-
Too busy driving to stop for gas!
No one seems to have pointed out that even for large members requiring
more than 4 KiB there is more wasted space for PDSE than for a PDS:
Since all space allocation is in 4KiB blocks, one should expect on
average 50% of the last block or 2 KiB per member to be wasted for all
members, not just the
I'm not trying to teach you how to suck eggs. I know you've had this problem
for a few years now.
I didn't think you were. :-) But since I am kinda in awe of anyone who
understands hardware (which I don't), I just wanted to make sure were talking
about the same thing.
The BLKSIZE shown is not the physical block size. It is the __emulated__
blocksize which your normal BPAM program would use. I am fairly sure that
the actual PDSE is physically blocked at 4K pages on the device itself. Like
zFS, HFS, and some other things, PDSE seems to have been influenced by
Eric Bielefeld pisze:
I just tried allocating the ds as 4080 for the blocksize, and used the same 95%, so apparently the blocksize doesn't matter. As a few have pointed out, the smaller members that take less than a full 4K page waste a lot of space.
So, does PDS/E write out 4K blocks
Ted MacNEIL pisze:
[...]
When they first came out, I was told that PDSE are linear VSAM.
And, HFS is a form of PDSE.
What does it mean exactly?
I can say that PS is a form of dataset, or PDSE is a form of PDS - but
this is not very informative. No irony intended, just curious.
--
Radoslaw
PDSEs have been available for a long time, and provide many
advantages over PDSs. Why are people reluctant to use PDSEs?
John Ehrman
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to
On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 11:46:57 -0800, John R. Ehrman (408-463-3543 T/543-
) ehr...@vnet.ibm.com wrote:
PDSEs have been available for a long time, and provide many
advantages over PDSs. Why are people reluctant to use PDSEs?
John Ehrman
@bama.ua.edu
Subject: PDS vs. PDSE
PDSEs have been available for a long time, and provide many
advantages over PDSs. Why are people reluctant to use PDSEs?
John Ehrman
NOTICE: This electronic mail message and any files transmitted with it are
intended
exclusively for the individual or entity
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of John R. Ehrman
(408-463-3543 T/543-)
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 1:47 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: PDS vs. PDSE
PDSEs have been available for a long time
- Original Message -
From: John R. Ehrman , 408-463-3543 T/543- ehr...@vnet.ibm.com
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 2:59 PM
Subject: PDS vs. PDSE
PDSEs have been available for a long time, and provide many
advantages over PDSs. Why are people
John Ehrman of the IBM Mainframe Discussion List IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
wrote on 02/10/2010 01:46:57 PM:
PDSEs have been available for a long time, and provide many
advantages over PDSs. Why are people reluctant to use PDSEs?
I think of a few...
1. Lack of internal documentation.
2. Former
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On
Behalf Of John R. Ehrman (408-463-3543 T/543-)
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 1:47 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: PDS vs. PDSE
PDSEs have been available for a long time, and provide many
I'll take the reliability (of PDS's) any day of the week
I prefer PDSs as well, but the irony is that the unreliability of PDSs lead to
the PDSPAIN White Paper which (in part) lead to PDSEs.
Bob Shannon
Rocket Software
--
For
I'll take the reliability (of PDS's) any day of the week
Where were you guys when I carped abouit PDSE's last week? (Or, the week
before?)
I prefer PDSs as well, but the irony is that the unreliability of PDSs lead to
the PDSPAIN White Paper which (in part) lead to PDSEs.
A 'fix' that is
Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of
John P Kalinich
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 3:17 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: PDS vs. PDSE
John Ehrman of the IBM Mainframe Discussion List IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
wrote on 02/10/2010 01:46
-snip---
John Ehrman of the IBM Mainframe Discussion List IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
wrote on 02/10/2010 01:46:57 PM:
PDSEs have been available for a long time, and provide many
advantages over PDSs. Why are people reluctant to use
On 10 Feb 2010 11:59:39 -0800, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
PDSEs have been available for a long time, and provide many
advantages over PDSs. Why are people reluctant to use PDSEs?
John Ehrman
One of the things that I have against the PDSE is the same thing that
I had against SNA attached
On 10 February 2010 14:46, John R. Ehrman (408-463-3543 T/543-)
ehr...@vnet.ibm.com wrote:
PDSEs have been available for a long time, and provide many
advantages over PDSs. Why are people reluctant to use PDSEs?
It's a lot like VSAM catalogues 30-something years ago: There was a
lot of
cards that I
can't recall at the moment.
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf
Of Thompson, Steve
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 2:18 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: PDS vs. PDSE
-Original Message-
From
. . .
PDSEs are ill-documented (not just proprietary code, but proprietary
data formats!)
Add to that, secret/restricted APIs (the infamous DFSMSdfp Advanced
Customization Guide).
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive
by a fair
margin.
Chris Blaicher
Phone: 512-340-6154
Mobile: 512-627-3803
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of
Tony B.
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 4:04 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: PDS vs. PDSE
A few years ago
On 10 Feb 2010 12:09:58 -0800, hmerr...@jackhenry.com (Hal Merritt)
wrote:
PDSE's are very useful, as are PDS's. If you don't need the PDSE features then
why bother? You don't see many compelling business/technical cases to convert
PDS's to PDSE's.
My $0.02
Other computers didn't need the
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 1:46 PM, John R. Ehrman (408-463-3543 T/543-)
ehr...@vnet.ibm.com wrote:
PDSEs have been available for a long time, and provide many
advantages over PDSs. Why are people reluctant to use PDSEs?
As others have pointed out, PDSEs have a (justifiably) bad reputation for
] On
Behalf Of
Chris Craddock
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 6:44 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: [IBM-MAIN] PDS vs. PDSE
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 1:46 PM, John R. Ehrman (408-463-3543 T/543-)
ehr...@vnet.ibm.com wrote:
PDSEs have been available for a long time, and provide
PDSEs have been available for a long time, and provide many
advantages over PDSs. Why are people reluctant to use PDSEs?
In our case: Extremely bad performance on large datasets, as in a little more
than 10.000 members in 101.000 tracks, lrecl=1562, recfm=vb, blksize=32760.
In ISPF 3.4, despite
91 matches
Mail list logo
