Yeah, the layout is complex and hard to fathom, but once you get your code right it is going to work every time. I am going to guess the BMC report falls into that category.
I am going to struggle to say this well: not trying to be insulting, but I would trust a report over the opinion of someone trying to decode the layout for the first time. If I had an established report program that said the field was blank and a novice SMF 101 person saying "no, look here, it says XXXX" I would tend to trust the report. Again, not trying to be insulting -- it is just a darned tricky layout. Charles -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Martin Packer Sent: Friday, September 3, 2021 9:05 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: SMF field data I very clearly don't work for BMC, either. :-) And it's not just professional courtesy that suggests they're almost certainly correct: 1) It's probably a more-or-less simple copy from the source to the destination - and would've been reported as a bug long ago. 2) As I indicated, the data makes sense. For example, what would the End User Workstation ID be for a batch job? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
