On 2016-12-31, at 09:54, Jesse 1 Robinson wrote:
> Sorry for not following this thread properly. I don't know why OP wants a PDS
> dataset. Nothing wrong with that; it just puts the user in charge of getting
> the right attributes.
>
> Suggestion: Use XDC to create a brand new sequential dataset with SDSF's
> preferred attributes. Then use ISPF 3.2 to create a PDS with same DCB
> attributes. As others have said, let SDB optimize block size. Fastest,
> cleanest way I can think to do it.
>
But if it's NEW, why go to a PDS at all? Just keep the PS data set.
It ain't clean. Alas, the XDC display, ISFPNO41 seems not to copy
attributes from the spool file. It reports INVALID VALUE and the
user must supply the attributes.
But beware. I vaguely understand that JES2 doesn't use the standard
representation with RDWs and carriage control characters. JES2
(sometimes) believes that LRECL is the data length, excluding the
RDW, and carriage control for each record is indicated outside the
data. (Might it be possible to mix A, M, and none in the same spool
data set? How? Why!?)
For example for my JOB02946 the JDS display shows SYSTSPRT with LRECL=133:
SDSF JOB DATA SET DISPLAY - JOB LONGOUT5 (JOB02946) LINE 10-11 (11)
COMMAND INPUT ===> SCROLL ===> CSR
NP DDNAME StepName RecFM LRecL ProcStep DSID Owner C Dest
SYSTSPRT SETUP VBA 133 104 User R LOCAL
PF 1=HELP 2=SPLIT 3=END 4=RETURN 5=IFIND 6=BOOK
PF 7=UP 8=DOWN 9=SWAP 10=LEFT 11=RIGHT 12=RETRIEVE
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
... but if I browse ("S") the SYSTSPRT and enter the "?" (info?) command,
I see LRECL=137:
Display Filter View Print Options Search Help
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SDSF OUTPUT DISPLAY LONGOUT5 JOB02946 DSID 104 LINE 0 COLUMNS 02- 81
COMMAND INPUT ===> SCROLL ===> CSR
FORMS FCB UCS WTR FLASH C CPY REC-CNT LRECL CCTL DEST
STD **** **** **** R 1 123 137 ASA LOCAL
... JESMSGLG, however, shows VA,133 for both. Might VBA vs. VA cause the
difference? It shouldn't; both have the same RDW and BDW overhead.
I've learned more than I like to know about this by gathering information
IBM has requested for an SR I have open.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: venkat kulkarni
> Sent: Friday, December 30, 2016 10:33 PM
>
> Sorry for delay. I think the issue was, somebody defined PDS with record
> length of only 80 and and then when we were doing XDC and trying to put
> report into PDS member even by specifying bigger record length but its report
> was not able to fit because PDS was only defined with 80 length.
>
You're lucky. Too many programmers have corrupted their PDS by doing
this. PDSE may be safer.
-- gil
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
