I do not know for sure what they did. Times were hectic.
Regards,
Richard Schuh
> -Original Message-
> From: CMSTSO Pipelines Discussion List
> [mailto:cms-pipeli...@vm.marist.edu] On Behalf Of Paul Gilmartin
> Sent: Monday, December 06, 2010 6:54 PM
> To: CMS-PIPELINES@VM.MARIST.E
On Dec 6, 2010, at 16:28, Schuh, Richard wrote:
> I do not currently have one; however, a VMARC packed dump file that I sent to
> CA about 6 months ago had the problem. They said that the unpack failed, so I
> sent it a second time. When they could not unpack the second copy, I had them
> try t
You know, while on the subject of VMARC, I wonder how many times I've wished
that I could:
PIPE < HUGE VMARC * | VMARC UNPK | loads of filters or whatever... | Output
stage
It's still hard to believe that I have no choice but to VMARC UNPK a file to a
disk (sometimes really large, 2-5K cylind
I do not currently have one; however, a VMARC packed dump file that I sent to
CA about 6 months ago had the problem. They said that the unpack failed, so I
sent it a second time. When they could not unpack the second copy, I had them
try the fblock 80 00. That worked - the unpacked record and by
On 2010-12-06 13:52, Schuh, Richard wrote:
I generally try VMARC UNPACK first. If it fails, I try the 'fblock 80 00'
approach. It usually does solve the problem. I have had infrequent cases where
dumps that I have packed using VMARC could not be unpacked by the vendor
without using 'FBLOCK 80
I generally try VMARC UNPACK first. If it fails, I try the 'fblock 80 00'
approach. It usually does solve the problem. I have had infrequent cases where
dumps that I have packed using VMARC could not be unpacked by the vendor
without using 'FBLOCK 80 00'. It may or may not be a horrid practice;
On Dec 6, 2010, at 09:47, Schuh, Richard wrote:
> If you want the last block to be padded with binary 0s, make that
>
> ... | Fblock 100 00 | ...
>
I rarely want the last block to be padded. I consider this a
practice that conceals failures that should be discovered as
early as possible. I s
If you want the last block to be padded with binary 0s, make that
... | Fblock 100 00 | ...
Regards,
Richard Schuh
> -Original Message-
> From: CMSTSO Pipelines Discussion List
> [mailto:cms-pipeli...@vm.marist.edu] On Behalf Of Paul Gilmartin
> Sent: Sunday, December 05,
On Dec 4, 2010, at 22:11, Glenn Knickerbocker wrote:
> Paul Gilmartin wrote:
>>pipe < / | deblock fixed 1 | block 100 fixed | > img2 /tm
>>
>> It took a long time. I washed my hands afterward. Is there a
>> better way?
>
> ... | fblock 100 | ...
>
Thanks. I think I used to know that.
> (I
Paul Gilmartin wrote:
> pipe < / | deblock fixed 1 | block 100 fixed | > img2 /tm
>
> It took a long time. I washed my hands afterward. Is there a
> better way?
... | fblock 100 | ...
(I never quite understood why this was a separate stage and not an
option of BLOCK.)
¬R
On Dec 4, 2010, at 12:19, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
> I have V 8192 file containing binary data. The last record
> may be short (it was created by FTP BINARY). I want to reblock
> it to V 100 with the last record possibly short. I want the
> output file to contain the same total number of character
I have V 8192 file containing binary data. The last record
may be short (it was created by FTP BINARY). I want to reblock
it to V 100 with the last record possibly short. I want the
output file to contain the same total number of characters as
the input file: no separators, terminators, delimite
12 matches
Mail list logo
