On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 3:16 AM, Elardus Engelbrecht < [email protected]> 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 and it would > make no sense to put a restriction there. Most allocations are done via > DAIR or directly via DYNALLOC. > > Indeed. Plus ISPF services which use IEBCOPY and friends under the covers. > ALLOCATE or its variants are also 'customer' of DYNALLOC service. > > I agree that it makes no sense to put a restriction, but there is a max > [combined] size of things like TIOT, DCB, etc in your address space for > example. > > Groete / Greetings > Elardus Engelbrecht > > ​As best as I understand it, the DYNAMNBR causes the initiator(?) to get a larger than needed TIOT. Once the TIOT is "full", you can't dynamically expand its allocation. I don't know how it is done, but there is a new facility called the XTIOT which some code can use which can bypass the DYNAMNBR limitation. However, this requires that the access method(?) support an XTIOT entry. A search will show up some hits on "xtiot +site: ibm.com". One that I find useful is: http://www-01.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/SSLTBW_1.13.0/com.ibm.zos.r13.idak100/bam12spl.htm%23bam12spl ​ -- ​ While a transcendent vocabulary is laudable, one must be eternally careful so that the calculated objective of communication does not become ensconced in obscurity. In other words, eschew obfuscation. 111,111,111 x 111,111,111 = 12,345,678,987,654,321 Maranatha! <>< John McKown ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
