Why would you hope that production libraries are not typically modified frequently? Our production application libraries are modified on a daily basis, with one or more business application programs updated daily as the business requires.
Frank >________________________________ > From: Peter Relson <[email protected]> >To: [email protected] >Sent: Saturday, January 11, 2014 2:07 PM >Subject: Re: LLA/VLF -- NAMED LNKLST? > > >>you have the choice to either cache the directory or cache often >>used loadmodules or do both. So if you have a number of >>frequently modified members and a number of static and heavily >>used modules, you could get the best of both worlds by not >>caching the directory and caching frequently used load modules. > >Frequently modified production libraries is, I hope, somewhat atypical. >Nevertheless, I would have said >-- you can cache the directory or not >Regardless, you get caching of often-used modules. > >And if you're willing to participate, you can get the best of both worlds >by asking to cache the directory but notifying LLA when you have updated >members. Refreshing all of LLA could be done; updating the entire library >could be done. But both of those are overkill and will negatively affect >performance. Best is to use LLACOPY or MODIFY LLA to update its >information about the specific updated modules. > >Note that it is intentional that LLA does not attempt to track >automatically what has been updated and do something about it. Doing so >could potentially cause application failures due to mismatched levels of >modules. > >Peter Relson >z/OS Core Technology Design > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, >send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
