|Date: ||Wed, 10 Mar 1999 09:13:25 -0500|
|Reply-To: ||RAITHEM <RAITHEM@WESTAT.COM>|
|Sender: ||"SAS(r) Discussion" <SAS-L@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU>|
|From: ||RAITHEM <RAITHEM@WESTAT.COM>|
|Subject: ||Re: Inquiry on mvs|
|Content-Type: ||text/plain; charset=US-ASCII|
Andre Wielki posted the following:
>In our organization, there is a discussion about the size by default we >must
put for the saswork on mvs with disks 3390. I think most of you will >be
curious to know the usage of the length for the sas609 version
> in the others mvs places. If the users send to me the information, i >promise
to make a little tabulate on the answers. The information needed >are type of
disk , some indication about the datasets (many little, big >one , large or
narrow observations) and lrecl and blocksize of your sas >609 call procedure
(6144 , 27648 or other).
>In a second time, one of the specialist in mvs (Raithel for example and
>others) will make comments on the results in term of performances.
Bonjours, Andre! I would definitely like to participate in your survey. For my
part, I always block the SAS Work data set, on 3390 DASD, at 27648 bytes. This
ensures that I get two physical blocks per track and that I am using 98.8% of
the track area. (This is wildly opposed to the 6144-byte block size that puts 8
physical blocks on each track and uses 92% of the track area). I use the 27648
block size for both my batch and my interactive SAS tasks.
Good luck in your survey; I will look forward to reading the results!
Michael A. Raithel
"The man who wrote the book on performance."
Author: Tuning SAS Applications in the MVS Environment
...everywhere you go you see them searching; everywhere you go you feel their
pain; everyone is looking for the answer; well, look again...
---The Moody Blues