Author: rajatbagga
Subject: Re: Reply to: compare 2 records in seq. file & report differences
Posted: Tue Sep 20, 2016 1:33 pm (GMT 5.5)
Hello Bill, Thanks, I did had a look at the error message, but interesting part is that the same job work perfectly well with 80 bytes of data. However when I used the data with 380 LRECL it failed. I compared the card which are generated in both the cases and they both appear to the same [just the offset values were adjusted accordingly]
I saw that there is a limitation of 9999 LRECL and the file must be FB but that doesn't seem to be true any more... based on the error i received.
Regards,
Rajat
Regards,
Rajat
Subject: Re: Reply to: compare 2 records in seq. file & report differences
Posted: Tue Sep 20, 2016 1:33 pm (GMT 5.5)
| Bill Woodger wrote: |
| Did you attempt to look at the diagnostic message, ICE221A? Poke that into a search and the first hit should be one at IBM, click and you should go to the Knowledgecentre and it should show the full explanation of the record. If you ignore the bits which are obviously, from the actual content of the message in your case, not relevant, then the first line you will come to describes your problem. |
Hello Bill, Thanks, I did had a look at the error message, but interesting part is that the same job work perfectly well with 80 bytes of data. However when I used the data with 380 LRECL it failed. I compared the card which are generated in both the cases and they both appear to the same [just the offset values were adjusted accordingly]
I saw that there is a limitation of 9999 LRECL and the file must be FB but that doesn't seem to be true any more... based on the error i received.
Regards,
Rajat
Regards,
Rajat