MVSFORUMS.com :: View topic

through

[^/[Print]\]

MVSFORUMS.com -> Job Control Language(JCL)

#1: USE of PDSE's Author: BobGilbert,

Posted: Fri Aug 06, 2010 1:56 pm
—
Still a bit confused after reading manuals on PDSE, but did look first!

Can a PDSE be used for a loadlib, say for CICS regions Exclamation

Is there any reasons why it shouldn't be used? Exclamation

For example if other loadlibs are concatinated which are left as PDSs.

We are running into problems where application developers are making many changes and the loadlibs are allocated to the regions. This has lead to non compression on a regular basis. This of course has lead to other questions on compression, but I am asking why don't we convert them to PDSE libs. If it can be done this leads to the logical question why didn't we do it several years ago, but I have to ignore that for now.

Can the members of the current loadlibs be copied directly from the PDS to the PDSE or will this require them being recompiled into?

Thanks in advance!

Thanks!

#2: Author: taltyman, Location: Texas

Posted: Fri Aug 06, 2010 2:55 pm
—
I'm not an expert on this but when PDSEs first came out IBM had problems with them and so systems folks were shy about using them. As far as I know those problems have been corrected so I'm guessing it is now safe to use them. In fact now IBM ships a lot of serverpac PDSs as PDSEs now days.

#3: Author: BobGilbert,

Posted: Fri Aug 06, 2010 3:39 pm
—
thanks and understand. Hope someone has yes/no knowledge...make a lot of since and like you said lack of use could be just bad press.....

#4: Author: nevilh,

Posted: Sat Aug 07, 2010 2:42 am
—
We have been using PDSE's in our DFHRPL concatenation for at least 5 years without any problems. Our DFHRPLis a mix of PDS's and PDSE's. A copy from PDS to PDSE should be sufficient. We have only had to re-compile (and then only rarely) when copying PDSE to PDS and this was only because PDSE supports load module formats that PDS does not support.
I would agree with Taltyman the reason that PDSE's are not more widely used is that at the beginning (late 1990s) there were a lot of problems with Abend 0F4's and locking problems and this led to many unplanned IPL'S, and it seems to be that many people remember the initial problems and are loathe to try again.

#5: Author: dbzTHEdinosauer, Location: germany

Posted: Sat Aug 07, 2010 3:26 am
—
Nevilh,
great post.

Many of the 90's 'new inovations', unfortunately, suffered due to 'bugs'.
by 2000 and the release of virtually totally stable z/OS,
nearly all the old problems of basic ops-system
- pdse, i/o service activity during abend, to name a few -
were no more.
But the 'loathing to try it again' mentality that you mention,
has caused many sites to remain in the darkages.

it is good to see an experienced hand
supporting the use of facilities/resources that should be implemented
but are not, due to unfounded fear.

#6: Author: BobGilbert,

Posted: Sat Aug 07, 2010 12:31 pm
—
Thanks guys, will use to to foster the change.

#7: Author: warp5, Location: Germany

Posted: Tue Aug 10, 2010 4:41 am
—
One of the other old issues about PDSE was that they could only be used with SMS. Later, IBM expanded the system and then PDSE data sets did not have to be SMS anymore.

Specificaly to your questions:
Can a PDSE be used for a loadlib, say for CICS regions = Yes
Is there any reasons why it shouldn't be used? For example if other loadlibs are concatinated which are left as PDSs. = As far as I know the answer is No
Can the members of the current loadlibs be copied directly from the PDS to the PDSE or will this require them being recompiled into? = Yes, they can be directly copied.

P.S. We have been using PDSE data sets since MVS 4.3, well over a decade now.

#8: Author: BobGilbert,

Posted: Tue Aug 10, 2010 9:50 am
—
Thank you very much for your input. As we transform our enviornment into a managable one this info will go a long way.

#9: Author: semigeezer, Location: Atlantis

Posted: Tue Aug 10, 2010 4:39 pm
—
'directly copied' means by way of IEBCOPY, ISPF or the binder. IEBCOPY and ISPF invoke the binder under the covers. If you just do a byte-by-byte copy of load module from PDS to PDSE, the results will be unusable.

#10: Author: warp5, Location: Germany

Posted: Wed Aug 11, 2010 2:04 am
—
I know that under certain circumstances you may need to use COPYMOD instead of copy in your IEBCOPY, but I do not know when and why it is sometimes needed. Oh, and if copying, remember that you might have aliases. These need to be copied with the original. In your case you will probably define a PDSE and copy the entire PDS to the PDSE, which should cause no problems (I usually do this with 3.3 Menu in ISPF).

#11: Author: IEFBR14, Location: SYS1.LINKLIB

Posted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 5:56 am
—
Used to issues updating PDSEs that were shared across multiple systems - esp out side of a sysplex. Basic advice (at the time) DONT
May have been resolved, havent checked in a while, I just dont update shared PDSEs

MVSFORUMS.com -> Job Control Language(JCL)

output generated using printer-friendly topic mod. All times are GMT - 5 Hours

Page 1 of 1