In 6483038090933465.wa.paulgboulderaim@listserv.ua.edu, on
01/15/2015
at 09:31 AM, Paul Gilmartin
000433f07816-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu said:
It's more complicated than that.
To begin wth, well coded assembler routines will use DYNALLOC
directly.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.)
On Thu, 15 Jan 2015 12:19:46 -0500, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote:
It's more complicated than that.
To begin wth, well coded assembler routines will use DYNALLOC
directly.
Correctness is in the eye of the beholder. Which do you consider
correct, to DALPERM or not to DALPERM, or should
On Wed, 14 Jan 2015 22:11:35 -0500, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote:
But, ISTR reading long ago that DYNAMNBR is policed by the TSO
ALLOCATE command and that BPXWDYN is exempt from the limit.
The ALLOCATE command is jusy another customer of DYNALLOC and it would
make no sense to put a restriction
On Wed, 14 Jan 2015 22:11:35 -0500, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote:
The ALLOCATE command is jusy another customer of DYNALLOC and it would
make no sense to put a restriction there. Most allocations are done
via DAIR or directly via DYNALLOC.
It's more complicated than that. Another opinion:
that help?
Lizette
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Paul Gilmartin
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 7:47 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: IKJ56220I max # of datasets reached
On Wed, 14 Jan 2015 22:11:35 -0500
On Wed, 14 Jan 2015 22:11:35 -0500, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote:
But, ISTR reading long ago that DYNAMNBR is policed by the TSO
ALLOCATE command and that BPXWDYN is exempt from the limit.
The ALLOCATE command is jusy another customer of DYNALLOC and it would
make no sense to put a restriction
In 2185420056656673.wa.paulgboulderaim@listserv.ua.edu, on
01/15/2015
at 11:53 AM, Paul Gilmartin
000433f07816-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu said:
Correctness is in the eye of the beholder. Which do you consider
correct, to DALPERM or not to DALPERM,
Both.
--
Shmuel (Seymour
In 0193913060908138.wa.paulgboulderaim@listserv.ua.edu, on
01/14/2015
at 04:46 PM, Paul Gilmartin
000433f07816-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu said:
But, ISTR reading long ago that DYNAMNBR is policed by the TSO
ALLOCATE command and that BPXWDYN is exempt from the limit.
The ALLOCATE
Paul Gilmartin wrote:
... and that BPXWDYN is exempt from the limit.
Where is that exemption documented?
Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote:
The ALLOCATE command is jusy another customer of DYNALLOC and it would make no
sense to put a restriction there. Most allocations are done via DAIR or
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 3:16 AM, Elardus Engelbrecht
elardus.engelbre...@sita.co.za wrote:
Paul Gilmartin wrote:
... and that BPXWDYN is exempt from the limit.
Where is that exemption documented?
Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote:
The ALLOCATE command is jusy another customer of DYNALLOC
Hi
Would anyone know if there is a way to increase the number of datasets
dynamically allocated using
IKJTSOEV/IKJEFTSR to execute a clist
Sent from my iPhone
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU]
On Behalf Of Paul Gilmartin
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 5:16 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: IKJ56220I max # of datasets reached
On Wed, 14 Jan 2015 18:30:16 -0500, Tony
On Wed, 14 Jan 2015 16:14:44 -0600, John McKown wrote:
DYNAMNBR= on the EXEC card.
ref:
http://publibz.boulder.ibm.com/cgi-bin/bookmgr_OS390/BOOKS/iea2b6a0/16.6
Why is there even such a parameter?
Why is its default not infinity?
-- gil
DYNAMNBR= on the EXEC card.
ref:
http://publibz.boulder.ibm.com/cgi-bin/bookmgr_OS390/BOOKS/iea2b6a0/16.6
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 4:11 PM, michelbutz michealb...@comcast.net wrote:
Hi
Would anyone know if there is a way to increase the number of datasets
dynamically allocated using
Thanks I thought DYNAMBR was for IKJEFT01
Thanks
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 14, 2015, at 5:18 PM, Paul Gilmartin
000433f07816-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jan 2015 16:14:44 -0600, John McKown wrote:
DYNAMNBR= on the EXEC card.
ref:
On 14 January 2015 at 17:18, Paul Gilmartin
000433f07816-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu wrote:
DYNAMNBR= on the EXEC card.
ref:
http://publibz.boulder.ibm.com/cgi-bin/bookmgr_OS390/BOOKS/iea2b6a0/16.6
Why is there even such a parameter?
Why is its default not infinity?
It used to be
On Wed, 14 Jan 2015 17:31:04 -0500, Mark Jacobs - Listserv wrote:
My first guess is that it's related to system resources needed to
support dynamic allocation in a 24-bit address space of the time.
What century is this?
Is there a way for administrators to further restrict troublesome users
My first guess is that it's related to system resources needed to
support dynamic allocation in a 24-bit address space of the time.
Mark Jacobs
Paul Gilmartin wrote:
My first guess is that it's related to system resources needed to
support dynamic allocation in a 24-bit address space of the
On Wed, 14 Jan 2015 18:30:16 -0500, Tony Harminc wrote:
On 14 January 2015 at 17:18, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
DYNAMNBR= on the EXEC card.
ref:
http://publibz.boulder.ibm.com/cgi-bin/bookmgr_OS390/BOOKS/iea2b6a0/16.6
Why is there even such a parameter?
Why is its default not infinity?
(Of
19 matches
Mail list logo
