Re: ICF Catalog with lots of redundant datasets

Mike Baker wrote: Hi Ron, Thanks for your excellent explanation. (PS: I attended one of your VSAM courses in Wellington, New Zealand, back in the early 90s). Just to elaborate on the lots of redundant datasets and HLQ's... for example, we have a HLQ called BUS, and approx 9000 BUS.* datasets

Re: ICF Catalog with lots of redundant datasets

Hi Mike, Mike Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If we have lots of redundant datasets on the machine, and many HLQ (high level qualifiers) which could (also) be completely removed, but have not been removed / cleaned up, is this likely to have much of a performance degradation affect on the

Re: ICF Catalog with lots of redundant datasets

Hi Ron, Thanks for your excellent explanation. (PS: I attended one of your VSAM courses in Wellington, New Zealand, back in the early 90s). Just to elaborate on the lots of redundant datasets and HLQ's... for example, we have a HLQ called BUS, and approx 9000 BUS.* datasets of which about 95%

Re: ICF Catalog with lots of redundant datasets

Hi Mike, Mike Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just to elaborate on the lots of redundant datasets and HLQ's... for example, we have a HLQ called BUS, and approx 9000 BUS.* datasets of which about 95% of them have been migrated to tape. The remaining 5% which are still being used are

Re: ICF Catalog with lots of redundant datasets

called BUS, and approx 9000 BUS.* datasets of which about 95% of them have been migrated to tape. The remaining 5% which are still being used are because people have been to lazy(?) to change a few remaining jobs I think you missed Ron's point. At the risk of exagerating, you can have a

ICF Catalog with lots of redundant datasets

Hi all, If we have lots of redundant datasets on the machine, and many HLQ (high level qualifiers) which could (also) be completely removed, but have not been removed / cleaned up, is this likely to have much of a performance degradation affect on the Catalog / CAS. Thanks.