|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
abhijit.nayak01
Active User
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 161
Location: South Africa
|
|
|
|
Actually from the callout prospective we use DISP=OLD as the dataset is created in one cycle job which gets refreshed everyday after the batch run. We keep it DISP=OLD because if the job abends and when we ask the operator to rerun then we should not face the JCL error for dataset already present.
After every step we check the RC and if the RC is expected then we proceed to next step else abend the job.
But for the above scenario it is my mistake while testing. The input dataset in production is a GDG version and the output dataset is a temp and then the temp dataset goes to next step for creation of report. So, when I started testing I converted it to normal dataset and did the testing and I forgot and argued for LREC=250. Sorry for that. It was my mistake for misunderstanding. If everybody agrees then we can close this topic.
| Code: |
DSN=&&MARKOFF,DISP=(NEW,PASS),
DCB=(RECFM=FB,LRECL=250),
SPACE=(CYL,(2,5)),UNIT=SYSDA |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
dick scherrer
Moderator Emeritus
Joined: 23 Nov 2006
Posts: 19244
Location: Inside the Matrix
|
|
|
|
Hello,
| Quote: |
| when we ask the operator to rerun then we should not face the JCL error for dataset already present. |
Exactly a situation that demonstrates poor process design.
Well-implemented batch jobs ALWAYS cleanup before and/or after they run. There would be NO WAY to have problems if these jobs were properly implemented. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Akatsukami
Global Moderator
Joined: 03 Oct 2009
Posts: 1788
Location: Bloomington, IL
|
|
|
|
| dick scherrer wrote: |
| Quote: |
| when we ask the operator to rerun then we should not face the JCL error for dataset already present. |
Exactly a situation that demonstrates poor process design. |
Or lack of knowledge; I'd be willing to bet a decent sum that Abhijit-kun is misusing "abend" to mean "the job doesn't run entirely as expected". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bill Woodger
Moderator Emeritus
Joined: 09 Mar 2011
Posts: 7309
Location: Inside the Matrix
|
|
|
|
I've never heard of doing it that way :-)
That's definitely a "not fixing the brakes but making the horn louder".
I don't suppose you use RLSE? Client overpaying for DASD? Or have to have secondary allocation taking on the role of primary, so overallocation during the run, no "warning" of unexpected extensions in file sizes, blah, blah.
I'd suggest getting it fixed before the client finds out. Unless it was their idea in the first place, in which case give me their contact details, please, as I've got a bridge I'd like to sell to them :-) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
abhijit.nayak01
Active User
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 161
Location: South Africa
|
|
|
|
| Well the processes are already there from past. Which I can't change but I will keep in mind whenever I will put my changes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
