Page 1 of 1
Question about dataset allocations
![Post Post](./styles/prosilver/imageset/icon_post_target.gif)
Posted:
Tue 15 Aug 2017, 04:22
by axdmlm
When I logon to TSO I see an admonition about proper blocksizes for the system.
When I allocate data sets via ISPF the defaults differ from those specified in the logon message the logon messages:
RECFM=FB,LRECL=80 datasets with a BLKSIZE other than 27920
RECFM=VB,LRECL=ANY datasets with a BLKSIZE other than 27998
ISPF:
Record format . . . . FB
Record length . . . . 80
Block size . . . . . 32000
Are the ISPF defaults legal?
Re: Question about dataset allocations
![Post Post](./styles/prosilver/imageset/icon_post_target.gif)
Posted:
Tue 15 Aug 2017, 07:06
by steve-myers
Yes, but they are not optimal. If you are using ISPF 3.2 to allocate data sets, leave the BLKSIZE area blank and ISPF (well, the system, not ISPF) will create a more "optimal" BLKSIZE.
In JCL, if you are allocating a sequential data set, specify DCB=(RECFM=FB,LRECL=80,DSORG=PS) to achieve a similar effect
BLKSIZE=32000 in RECFM=FB,LRECL=80,BLKSIZE=32000 is nearly as bad as BLKSIZE=80 or BLKSIZE=800, which gets the admins in a dither and often prompts them to "ban" the userid as being that of a trainee when they see them. They tolerate BLKSIZE=32760 (the default) for load module data sets because the Binder rarely, if ever, writes real records that big.
Re: Question about dataset allocations
![Post Post](./styles/prosilver/imageset/icon_post_target.gif)
Posted:
Tue 15 Aug 2017, 14:25
by prino
axdmlm wrote:When I logon to TSO I see an admonition about proper blocksizes for the system.
Which really shows you're a real z/OS user (which I already guessed from your name, it's very familiar, but I don't remember from where). Just use the system, and if you screw up occasionally, don't worry (too) much.
Re: Question about dataset allocations
![Post Post](./styles/prosilver/imageset/icon_post_target.gif)
Posted:
Wed 16 Aug 2017, 00:18
by axdmlm
I do not wish to belabor the point, but the logon messages suggested using the DCOPYD command from option 3.4 to create a Library with a more optimal blocksize. When I did that, option I for that Library showed the blocksize as
AXDMLM.MACLIB.S00.COPY
Record length . . . : 80
Block size . . . . : 32720
1st extent tracks . : 63
Secondary tracks . : 63
Data set name type : LIBRARY
I also tried to allocte a Library by clearing the blocksize field from option 3.2.
That resulted the following:
AXDMLM.MACLIB4
Record format . . . : FB
Record length . . . : 80
Block size . . . . : 32720
1st extent tracks . : 63
Secondary tracks . : 63
Data set name type : LIBRARY
I certainly know how to correct these matters, but I thought you might like to know my experience.
Re: Question about dataset allocations
![Post Post](./styles/prosilver/imageset/icon_post_target.gif)
Posted:
Wed 16 Aug 2017, 03:43
by steve-myers
For PDSE type data sets, the BLKSIZE is essentially immaterial. The actual data is mapped over real 4K records.
Re: Question about dataset allocations
![Post Post](./styles/prosilver/imageset/icon_post_target.gif)
Posted:
Wed 16 Aug 2017, 04:23
by axdmlm
I had forgotten that.
Thanks for the reminder.
I suppose that is why the default is Library.
Re: Question about dataset allocations
![Post Post](./styles/prosilver/imageset/icon_post_target.gif)
Posted:
Wed 16 Aug 2017, 04:36
by steve-myers
axdmlm wrote:... I suppose that is why the default is Library.
Actually, no. If you use ISPF 3.2 to obtain a prototype the type of the prototype is retained for the real allocation.
Personally, I rarely use PDSE unless I need its data management capabilities. It almost always requires more real disk space than PDS, and requires more CPU to process.
Re: Question about dataset allocations
![Post Post](./styles/prosilver/imageset/icon_post_target.gif)
Posted:
Wed 16 Aug 2017, 07:25
by prino
I've changed DCOPY(D) to actually reblock datasets to half-track blocking, they're in 'sysfan.user.rexxlib', which has RACF update access so if you feel like sharing some of your code, feel free to do so there. I've also put both under the provisions of the GPL V3.