|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
vasanthz
Global Moderator
Joined: 28 Aug 2007
Posts: 1744
Location: Tirupur, India
|
|
|
|
Hi,
Could you pls say why RECOVERY ON option is not default while editing datasets, This may be site specific question but I worked on two sites and both have RECOVERY OFF as default.
I mean its good to have RECOVERY ON as default since it allows some flexibility to commit & correct errors. 
Does it consume space or resorce of some sort? 
Just a curiosity.
Thanks, |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Pedro
Global Moderator
Joined: 01 Sep 2006
Posts: 2594
Location: Silicon Valley
|
|
|
|
I agree it should be on.
Sorry, I do not know the details, but there is a dataset involved. It contains recovery information for each dataset you are editing. Any unsaved editing changes can be recovered if your userid is cancelled or something. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
prino
Senior Member
Joined: 07 Feb 2009
Posts: 1315
Location: Vilnius, Lithuania
|
|
|
|
| vasanthz wrote: |
| Could you pls say why RECOVERY ON option is not default while editing datasets, This may be site specific question but I worked on two sites and both have RECOVERY OFF as default. |
It is site-specific and is set up in the ISPF configuration table
If you want, you can create a private version of it in a load library allocated to ISPLLIB. Give the command "TSO ISPCCONF" and you are on your way. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Terry Heinze
JCL Moderator
Joined: 14 Jul 2008
Posts: 1248
Location: Richfield, MN, USA
|
|
|
|
| I think every place I've ever worked at had RECOVERY OFF as the default, but I've not had a problem keying RECOV ON;AUTOSAVE OFF every time I define a new PDS. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MBabu
Active User
Joined: 03 Aug 2008
Posts: 400
Location: Mumbai
|
|
|
|
It is off because of performance. It isn't significant on current machines but was on older machines. Apparently that is the same reason HILITE is off by default. Your site can change the defaults for everyone or you can do it for yourself several ways. The easiest way is by a session macro. See the EDSET command. If RECOVERY is the only command you want to run in a session macro, you can even just use REC or RECOVERY as the session macro (not recommended because you probably will want to do more). There are other ways to do it but that is the easiest.
By the way, you should not create your own ISPCCONF table. You will lose site updates and debugging problems with your helpdesk or IBM will be nearly impossible because you will forget that you have a private copy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
prino
Senior Member
Joined: 07 Feb 2009
Posts: 1315
Location: Vilnius, Lithuania
|
|
|
|
| MBabu wrote: |
| By the way, you should not create your own ISPCCONF table. You will lose site updates and debugging problems with your helpdesk or IBM will be nearly impossible because you will forget that you have a private copy. |
If the site you worked at would be using a command-table that was up-to-date three releases of z/OS ago, and you get a comment like "... it is not interesting to check if there are new commands with every release of z/OS...", then you have little choice and must take things in your own hands.
As for "forgetting", it's very unlikely that someone who is capable of setting up their own ISPF configuration table will forget that they have done so when there is a problem. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dbzTHEdinosauer
Global Moderator
Joined: 20 Oct 2006
Posts: 6966
Location: porcelain throne
|
|
|
|
| MBabu wrote: |
| It is off because of performance. It isn't significant on current machines but was on older machines. |
I agree that current machines are faster,
but,
so many tso/ispf users have a very low skill level
and all the extras - recovery, hilite - have a resource cost.
If you know what you are doing, 'low level defaults' are of no consequence.
I don't always agree with the don't provide it until someone asks for it
attitude of sys-pgmrs, but in this case I agree.
Many sites now, individually, have the processing equal to the world's processing power of 10 years ago, but they still often have their slow-go periods. why, because instead of 100 users, they have 10,000 - with about as many skilled users as 10 years ago. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Robert Sample
Global Moderator
Joined: 06 Jun 2008
Posts: 8700
Location: Dubuque, Iowa, USA
|
|
|
|
Considered at the proper time, performance is always an issue. No matter how fast the hardware is, somebody will write software that slows it down to a crawl because they don't understand the architecture.
However, performance should be the last thing considered after the software has been verified to be working correctly -- and only if there appear to be performance issues. Of course, performance issues are sometimes inherent in the design -- but that should be addressed as part of the design review.
And performance tuning is not saying a batch job runs for six hours and has to be done in two -- that's poor specifications! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pedro
Global Moderator
Joined: 01 Sep 2006
Posts: 2594
Location: Silicon Valley
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
I don't always agree with the don't provide it until someone asks for it
attitude of sys-pgmrs, but in this case I agree. |
But for less skilled users, that is exactly when you need recovery / hilite. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dick scherrer
Moderator Emeritus
Joined: 23 Nov 2006
Posts: 19243
Location: Inside the Matrix
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
| because instead of 100 users, they have 10,000 - with about as many skilled users as 10 years ago. |
The total amount of knowldege/skill is constant - the population is increasing 
In our lifetime, there will not be a machine created with enough power that it can't be sent down the toilet. . .
imho,
d |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MBabu
Active User
Joined: 03 Aug 2008
Posts: 400
Location: Mumbai
|
|
|
|
| prino wrote: |
| As for "forgetting", it's very unlikely that someone who is capable of setting up their own ISPF configuration table will forget that they have done so when there is a problem. |
I worked a helpdesk problem that took several weeks to resolve because someone had not only created a private ISPF config table, but gave a copy of it to a colleague. Either neither one of them remembered, or neither thought it important enough to mention that they'd completely changed their environment away from site specs. The problem, if I recall, was that site exits weren't being invoked for them and they couldn't figure out why and since it is so unusual for a user to do such a modification, it took a while to find the problem and it had to be tracked down with IBM's help through some tracing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dbzTHEdinosauer
Global Moderator
Joined: 20 Oct 2006
Posts: 6966
Location: porcelain throne
|
|
|
|
| MBabu wrote: |
| it took a while to find the problem |
Mbabu, bet it does not take long now, does it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
