Portal | Manuals | References | Downloads | Info | Programs | JCLs | Master the Mainframes
IBM Mainframe Computers Forums Index
 
Register
 
IBM Mainframe Computers Forums Index Mainframe: Search IBM Mainframe Forum: FAQ Memberlist Usergroups Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in
 

 

IMS and PDSE

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    IBMMAINFRAMES.com Support Forums -> IMS DB/DC
View previous topic :: :: View next topic  
Author Message
Willem Vermeer

New User


Joined: 31 Oct 2007
Posts: 38
Location: Amsterdam, the Netherlands

PostPosted: Mon Mar 14, 2011 6:39 pm    Post subject: IMS and PDSE
Reply with quote

Greetings.

It's documented that IMS does not accept PDSE for any library except PGMLIB.

One of the reasons mentioned is:

"The main reason is that IMS branch enters FETCH for loading its code and control blocks. IMS "GETMAINs" storage from specific subpools, and loads these control blocks into that storage."

Why should a Branch-entry into FETCH + a Getmain in specific subpools prevent the use of PDSE?

Another reason seems to be:

"The second reason is that IMS maintains BLDL information in storage for a period of time and cannot tolerate reorganization of the partitioned dataset(s) while holding this information internally. Both of these techniques enhance the performance of IMS. "

I realise that PDSE does not provide you with BLDL-info (TTR) similar to that in a PDSE and that IMS maintains this info for performance reasons. However, if [1] the PDSE is NOT reorganized and [2] IMS would maintain an active connection to every module in such a PDSE, would that really hurt performance that much? And, after all, you could still reach that module, even if somebody else would delete it.

Willem Vermeer
ING, Amsterdam
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

dbzTHEdinosauer

Global Moderator


Joined: 20 Oct 2006
Posts: 6968
Location: porcelain throne

PostPosted: Mon Mar 14, 2011 7:04 pm    Post subject:
Reply with quote

1. neither pdse or pds undergo 'reorginization'.

2. pds undergoes compression, upon demand.

3. pdse automatically performs 'internal' compression.

here is a list of manuals you can read IBM Redbooks about PDSE
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Willem Vermeer

New User


Joined: 31 Oct 2007
Posts: 38
Location: Amsterdam, the Netherlands

PostPosted: Mon Mar 14, 2011 7:53 pm    Post subject:
Reply with quote

Dick,

1. What I mean with "reorganization" is: "compression".
2. True.
3. I'm not sure that's quite true. PDSE does not - to my knowledge - move data around to get rid of any "gas"/"dead space" (whatever). It does, however, reuse space that's become available when one deletes a member.

Anyway, I still don't understand IBM's reasons for not having IMS fully support PDSE. I'm not aware of any such restriction for DB2 and, surely, a good performance is important for any DB2-system also? These IMS performance-techniques sound a lot like something from the olden days.

Willem Vermeer.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Peter Nancollis

New User


Joined: 15 Mar 2011
Posts: 47
Location: UK

PostPosted: Tue Mar 15, 2011 2:28 am    Post subject:
Reply with quote

Willem
A lot is "from the olden days"
Times are changing :
DFSESL datasets can be PDSE (eg SDSNLOAD )
z/OS now supports direct fetch (which was waht IMS exploited)
- so maybe more PDSE supprt in IMS will emerge for things like MODBLKs
MATRIXn are or (should be) a thing of the past

ACBLIBx and the various flavours of the FORMAT libs dont play by the usual rules so are more problematic

But one has to ask the question with the possible exceptions of PROCLIB (and JCLPDS in DBRC task) what do you get by having libs as PDSE ?

From my experience they offer alot more pain, than gain (yuk!)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dick scherrer

Site Director


Joined: 23 Nov 2006
Posts: 19270
Location: Inside the Matrix

PostPosted: Tue Mar 15, 2011 2:44 am    Post subject:
Reply with quote

Hello and welcome to the forum,

Quote:
what do you get by having libs as PDSE ?
Don't know about "get" but the dreaded o'dark:30 compress is avoided icon_smile.gif

Critical Production job dies. Someone makes the fix. Can't promote due to "library full" - it needs compression as there is a lot of free space (just not usable until after the compress).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Willem Vermeer

New User


Joined: 31 Oct 2007
Posts: 38
Location: Amsterdam, the Netherlands

PostPosted: Tue Mar 15, 2011 12:55 pm    Post subject:
Reply with quote

Dick,

you're right! A much better handling of space was/is our main reason to convert many of our (production)libraries to PDSE. We also have some libraries that are positively HUGE and offer a much better performance (as PDSE).

Peter,

You're not the only one I've heard complaining about PDSE and, frankly, I still don't quite understand why. I'm sure you must have very good reasons to be sceptical about PDSE, but we've never had any major problems with it. True, there were some issues during the conversion from PDS to PDSE, but we've been using them for some time now, and on a fairly large scale too, without any problems.

Willem Vermeer
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Peter Nancollis

New User


Joined: 15 Mar 2011
Posts: 47
Location: UK

PostPosted: Tue Mar 15, 2011 5:49 pm    Post subject:
Reply with quote

Hello there
I dont disagree (double negative??) that PSDEs offer potential benefits [space management, though I did read of tales of excessive allocations for dsets with small members - control decks , some JCL etc. ], or that they are becoming a more viable option with the removal of some of the early restrictions [SMS required!] and are now being retrofitted to be more seamless ...shame the effort wasnt expended at their conception

Anyway I was responding to their use in an IMS environment - and even there support if creeping in. With my caveats [or as Willem said for PGM libs ] they either cant be used [ACB FMT MOD] or if they could provide little benefit - not having to compress isnt an issue

My view is if you need them use them, but [for me] they do have a bad reputation to overcome. Such as shared library updates providing IPL opportunities

Performance - we currently have issues with a product - that looks like it may be PDSE related ...[PDS - OK ... PDSE - Slooooooww ] but the jury is still out and it all may just be a spooky coincidence
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
View previous topic :: :: View next topic  
Post new topic   Reply to topic    IBMMAINFRAMES.com Support Forums -> IMS DB/DC All times are GMT + 6 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 

Search our Forum:

Similar Topics
Topic Author Forum Replies Posted
No new posts Editing "member generations"... Ricardo Viegas TSO/ISPF 1 Tue Dec 29, 2015 7:27 pm
No new posts Changing dataset from PDSE to PDS PokerGuru All Other Mainframe Topics 13 Tue Jan 20, 2015 9:01 pm
No new posts Copy PDSE to Unix System Services checky76 JCL & VSAM 4 Thu Sep 06, 2012 2:10 pm
No new posts Is there a way to change the RECFM va... Dave Kartzman JCL & VSAM 5 Tue Aug 14, 2012 10:21 pm
No new posts Renaming Members of a PDS/PDSE with W... fesar JCL & VSAM 10 Fri Jan 27, 2012 4:34 pm


Facebook
Back to Top
 
Mainframe Wiki | Forum Rules | Bookmarks | Subscriptions | FAQ | Tutorials | Contact Us