Re: DSORG=IS

2006-08-30 Thread Ted MacNEIL
>But you mentioned virtual tape. That's a perfact example of "indirect" use. Good point. But, from a user perspective, it's still tape. I used to work in a shop that had the following use for tape: Data interchange: with today's security issues, I would switch to SFTP. Back-Up/DR: still a valid

Re: DSORG=IS

2006-08-30 Thread R.S.
Patrick O'Keefe wrote: On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 09:58:29 +, Ted MacNEIL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ... I don't know what you mean. I will re-state my assertion. Using 'direct' tape, IE: a batch job writing to a tape, ... But you mentioned virtual tape. That's a perfact example of "indirec

Re: DSORG=IS

2006-08-30 Thread Patrick O'Keefe
On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 09:58:29 +, Ted MacNEIL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >... >I don't know what you mean. > >I will re-state my assertion. >Using 'direct' tape, IE: a batch job writing to a tape, ... But you mentioned virtual tape. That's a perfact example of "indirect" use. By the time it g

Re: DSORG=IS

2006-08-30 Thread Ted MacNEIL
>I'm not talking about tapes as a media, I'm talking about how the tapes are >recorded. Especially real carts are written "indirectly". I don't know what you mean. I will re-state my assertion. Using 'direct' tape, IE: a batch job writing to a tape, is what I have seen as still growing. Along w

Re: DSORG=IS

2006-08-30 Thread R.S.
Ted MacNEIL wrote: But seriously (my observation): more and more data on tape is recorded "indirectly" - using tools like HSM, and less tapes are used directly, i.e. in batch flow. I find the opposite. In the last two shops I worked at, tape (virtual and reel) was/is growing at a fast rate

Re: DSORG=IS

2006-08-30 Thread Ted MacNEIL
>But seriously (my observation): more and more data on tape is recorded >"indirectly" - using tools like HSM, and less tapes are used directly, i.e. in >batch flow. I find the opposite. In the last two shops I worked at, tape (virtual and reel) was/is growing at a fast rate. [PS: Yes! The p

Re: DSORG=IS

2006-08-30 Thread R.S.
Ted MacNEIL wrote: of course the corollaries UNIT=AFF and AFF= (Sorry about the previous blank post. Something about fat fingers and a BlackBerry keyboard). I use UNIT=AFF all the time dumping SMF from multiple archive tapes. So you use tape datasets in your DD - that's also obsolete But

Re: DSORG=IS

2006-08-29 Thread Ted MacNEIL
>of course the corollaries UNIT=AFF and AFF= (Sorry about the previous blank post. Something about fat fingers and a BlackBerry keyboard). I use UNIT=AFF all the time dumping SMF from multiple archive tapes. When in doubt. PANIC!! ---

Re: DSORG=IS

2006-08-29 Thread Ted MacNEIL
> When in doubt. PANIC!! -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

DSORG=IS

2006-08-29 Thread Phil Payne
I shall mourn its passing, but not for long. There was a very good article in Datamation more years ago than I like to remember entitled: "The hidden speed of ISAM". In the late days of MVT, someone collected around forty different ways of breaking into key 0. When MVS came out I got regular re

Re: DSORG=IS

2006-08-28 Thread Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 08/28/2006 at 08:28 PM, "R.S." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > From the other hand, DISP=SHARE (do not confuse with SHR) You're the one who is confused; they're synonymous. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT ISO position; see

Re: DSORG=IS

2006-08-28 Thread Ted MacNEIL
>> From the other hand, DISP=SHARE (do not confuse with SHR) is still >>supported and documented. >> >Never heard of it, and it's not in the z/OS 1.8 JCL Reference. When I was taught JCl, in an earlier aeon, I was taught DISP=SHARE and DSNAME= ... I now use SHR and DSN because I moved to a site

Re: DSORG=IS

2006-08-28 Thread Tom Marchant
Thanks. The thing that confused me was Radoslaw's comment, "do not confuse with SHR." On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 13:56:44 -0500, John P Kalinich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >From the z/OS 1.7 JCL Reference... > >SHR Indicates that the data set exists before this step and that other jobs >can share it,

Re: DSORG=IS

2006-08-28 Thread John P Kalinich
MA.UA.EDU Mainframe cc Discussion List <[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject .EDU>

Re: DSORG=IS

2006-08-28 Thread Tom Marchant
On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 20:28:16 +0200, R.S. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From the other hand, DISP=SHARE (do not confuse with SHR) is still >supported and documented. > Never heard of it, and it's not in the z/OS 1.8 JCL Reference. ---

Re: DSORG=IS

2006-08-28 Thread R.S.
Jim Beck wrote: Hey all, Does anyone know for certain if leaving DSORG=IS in a DD statemen will/will not cause a JCL error in z/OS 1.7? It's been said for some time that this release will no longer support ISAM, but IBM's Online Library has conflictin information (JCL Reference

Re: DSORG=IS

2006-08-21 Thread Scott Barry
Batch job-execution on z/OS 1.7 system generates a JCL ERROR with the message below when DSORG=IS is coded on the DD allocation. Scott Barry SBBWorks, Inc. IEF344I JOBNAME STEP1 STEP1 OUT - ALLOCATION FAILED DUE TO DATA FACILITY SYSTEM IGD17039I ALLOCATION FAILED FOR DATA SET

DSORG=IS

2006-08-21 Thread Jim Beck
Hey all, Does anyone know for certain if leaving DSORG=IS in a DD statemen will/will not cause a JCL error in z/OS 1.7? It's been said for some time that this release will no longer support ISAM, but IBM's Online Library has conflictin information (JCL Reference says it's good