ISPF 3.2 (allocate) does not honor SDB

2015-09-07 Thread Peter Hunkeler
It seems I'm having a senior moment. For years, I used to allocate data sets in ISPF 3.2, leaving the block size field empty. The system then calculated the block size based on RECFM anf LRECL. The result was half track blocking. At my new employer, I get the block size set to maximum (for

Re: IPCS Magicians (was: Smaller Private Area in DR)

2015-09-07 Thread nitz-...@gmx.net
> I know, but how do you go back to where you were? Say you're following a > chain of linked addresses and you want to go back. Typing in stuff to > remember the addresses would be a pain. Web browsers give you all that for > free. As far as I am concerned, one works differently in the z/OS

Re: ISPF 3.2 (allocate) does not honor SDB

2015-09-07 Thread Vernooij, CP (ITOPT1) - KLM
Here, under V2.1 FB 80 with empty blocksize still gives 27920. It must be something in ACS routines or SDB settings(?). Kees. -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Peter Hunkeler Sent: 07 September, 2015 11:15 To:

Re: ISPF 3.2 (allocate) does not honor SDB

2015-09-07 Thread Norbert Friemel
On Mon, 7 Sep 2015 11:15:01 +0200, Peter Hunkeler wrote: >It seems I'm having a senior moment. > > >For years, I used to allocate data sets in ISPF 3.2, leaving the block size >field empty. The system then calculated the block size based on RECFM anf >LRECL. The result was half track blocking.

Re: IPCS Magicians (was: Smaller Private Area in DR)

2015-09-07 Thread David Griffiths1
IBM Mainframe Discussion List wrote on 06/09/2015 07:26:21: > From: "nitz-...@gmx.net" > > Plus when you're displaying register contents or stack traces, the > > addresses are displayed as links. > IPCS has been doing that since I started working

Setting up Sublime Text to edit PDS members

2015-09-07 Thread Martin Packer
Has anyone got Sublime Text's SFTP plugin to accept anything other than a HFS path? Most of my editing is REXX and Assembler in PDS(E)s. Alternatively - opening a can of worms :-) - recommendations for good text editors for the same that run on RHEL? Thanks, Martin Martin Packer, zChampion,

Re: Setting up Sublime Text to edit PDS members

2015-09-07 Thread Paul Gilmartin
On Mon, 7 Sep 2015 15:59:30 +0100, Martin Packer wrote: >Well I was really hoping for a "keep the data in the PDS, edit it on RHEL" >answer. > NFS? Subject to finding an acceptable editor on RHEL. -- gil -- For IBM-MAIN

AW: Re: ISPF 3.2 (allocate) does not honor SDB

2015-09-07 Thread Peter Hunkeler
>What type of dataset? PS, PO, PDSE, ...? The optimal block size for PDSE >(FB-80, DSNTYPE=LIBRARY) is 32720. Yes, its about PDSEs. Kind a makes sense, sure. However I have been using PDSEs for a long time and don't seem to remeber to have seen this. Must have been blind (meaning I didn't

Re: Setting up Sublime Text to edit PDS members

2015-09-07 Thread Paul Gilmartin
On 2015-09-07, at 04:21, Martin Packer wrote: > Has anyone got Sublime Text's SFTP plugin to accept anything other than a > HFS path? > I understand that Dovetailed's Co:Z deals with legacy data sets and performs ASCII<->EBCDIC conversion optionally. > Most of my editing is REXX and Assembler

Re: Setting up Sublime Text to edit PDS members

2015-09-07 Thread Martin Packer
Well I was really hoping for a "keep the data in the PDS, edit it on RHEL" answer. Cheers, Martin Martin Packer, zChampion, Principal Systems Investigator, Worldwide Banking Center of Excellence, IBM +44-7802-245-584 email: martin_pac...@uk.ibm.com Twitter / Facebook IDs: MartinPacker Blog:

Re: IPCS Magicians

2015-09-07 Thread Don Poitras
In article you wrote: > IBM Mainframe Discussion List wrote on > 06/09/2015 07:26:21: > > From: "nitz-...@gmx.net" > > > Plus when you're displaying register contents or stack

Re: AW: Re: ISPF 3.2 (allocate) does not honor SDB

2015-09-07 Thread Norbert Friemel
On Mon, 7 Sep 2015 17:59:22 +0200, Peter Hunkeler wrote: >>What type of dataset? PS, PO, PDSE, ...? The optimal block size for PDSE >>(FB-80, DSNTYPE=LIBRARY) is 32720. > >Yes, its about PDSEs. Kind a makes sense, sure. However I have been using >PDSEs for a long time and don't seem to remeber

Re: AW: Re: ISPF 3.2 (allocate) does not honor SDB

2015-09-07 Thread Paul Gilmartin
On Mon, 7 Sep 2015 17:59:22 +0200, Peter Hunkeler wrote: >>What type of dataset? PS, PO, PDSE, ...? The optimal block size for PDSE >>(FB-80, DSNTYPE=LIBRARY) is 32720. > >Yes, its about PDSEs. Kind a makes sense, sure. However I have been using >PDSEs for a long time and don't seem to remeber

Re: ISPF 3.2 (allocate) does not honor SDB

2015-09-07 Thread Thomas Conley
On 9/7/2015 5:15 AM, Peter Hunkeler wrote: It seems I'm having a senior moment. For years, I used to allocate data sets in ISPF 3.2, leaving the block size field empty. The system then calculated the block size based on RECFM anf LRECL. The result was half track blocking. At my new

Re: ISPF 3.2 (allocate) does not honor SDB

2015-09-07 Thread J O Skip Robinson
I had not noticed this behavior for PDSEs. Tried allocating FB-80 PDSE with no blocksize specified. Got 32720 under both R13 and 2.1. . . . J.O.Skip Robinson Southern California Edison Company Electric Dragon Team Paddler SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager 626-302-7535 Office 323-715-0595 Mobile

AW: Re: AW: Re: ISPF 3.2 (allocate) does not honor SDB

2015-09-07 Thread Peter Hunkeler
>No. >Check the archives ("Default System BLKSIZE for PDSE" in Oct 2006) >"Partitioned Data Set Extended Usage Guide" ( >http://www.redbooks.ibm.com/abstracts/sg246106.html?Open ) Figure 10-32 shows >a PDSE created 2004-11-04 with SMS.IND=R (SDB) and block size 32720. How embarrassing. I