TSMODEL EXPIRYINTMIN different when running DFHCSDUP to upgrade to CICS TS 5.4
Why do I get different results for TSMODEL expiry values ( EXPIRYINT and EXPIRYINTMIN ) when running DFHCSDUP to upgrade to CICS Transaction Server for z/OS (CICS TS) V5.4 than I did when upgrading to CICS TS V5.3?
I have a shared CSD for multiple CICS regions that are operating at different release levels of CICS TS. I have specified an EXPIRYINT value of '1' under a TSMODEL definition. Several years ago, I used DFHCSDUP to upgrade some regions to CICS TS 5.3, while others were running with CICS TS 5.1. After the upgrade, both CICS TS 5.1 regions and CICS TS 5.3 regions were both honoring a 1 hour (60 minute) expiry interval for the TSMODEL.
When I recently upgraded all of these regions to CICS TS 5.4, I found that the formerly CICS TS 5.1 regions showed EXPIRYINT=1, but the formerly CICS TS 5.3 regions showed EXPIRYINTMIN=0.
I would like to understand why DFHCSDUP treated these upgrades differently.
The EXPIRYINT keyword (expressed in hours) was replaced with EXPIRYINTMIN (expressed in minutes) starting at CICS TS 5.2. The EXPIRYINT keyword was retained for compatibility.
When you upgraded from CICS TS 5.1 to CICS TS 5.3, the FROM release only had the EXPIRYINT value. Special case code was in place that detected that EXPIRYINTMIN was not set, but EXPIRYINT was. A dynamic RDO entry was created using the EXPIRYINT value, converting the hours expressed into minutes, and then this value was used operationally in your CICS TS 5.3 regions. The CSD still only specified the value EXPIRYINT.
When you later used the same CSD to upgrade to CICS TS 5.4, there could be no special case code that converted the EXPIRYINT value into EXPIRYINTMIN, as there may have also been an EXPIRYINTMIN specification in the CSD by the time of that release. Since the 5.3 regions had no specification for EXPIRYINTMIN on the TSMODEL, the default value of zero was used for EXPIRYINTMIN.
It is a good idea, if you have existing resource definitions that were created before new attributes were available, to check those resource definitions after you upgrade to a CICS release. I have requested updates to our publications to highlight that while DFHCSDUP may provide compatibility between releases when new keywords are initially available, later uses of the utility for future upgrades may expect the newer specification of the keyword to be present.
Sue DeMarrais
IBM CICS Level2 Support
Actually for us, after we upgraded from 5.1 to 5.3, TSQ was not auto deleted anymore with the TSMODEL we set in 5.1.