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 who would reflexively set DYNAMNBR to the max value? If Rexx under z/OS UNIX invokes its idiosyncratic "address TSO", is there a way to specify DYNAMNBR? On Wed, 14 Jan 2015 17:29:25 -0500, michelbutz wrote: >Thanks I thought DYNAMBR was for IKJEFT01 > Isn't that the same thing? But, ISTR reading long ago that DYNAMNBR is policed by the TSO ALLOCATE command and that BPXWDYN is exempt from the limit. -- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
