-----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gerhard Adam Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 7:56 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Each CPU usage
<SNIP> Since the conclusion was that they didn't even require a 4-way after the problem was "solved", it is clear that the utilization of the processor was driven by the spin loops which leads one to conclude that there could have been no other running work on the system beyond four transactions. As I indicated, this stretches the bounds of even anectodal evidence and would require a much more detailed explanation to approach plausibility. <SNIP> So much for plausibility. The original poster is not the only one to have hit that problem (CPU soaker code). I am aware of two other entities that went through upgrades and were still at 100% CPU. The computer manufacturers that sold those machines were a bit busy justifying how they came up with the "CPU needs" once the reason was uncovered. This was back in the '80s. Imagine, you have a 3081 at 100% and you upgraded to a 3084 (basically you added the other 3081) and you are still at 100%. Or you have a 3033 and you went to a 470/V8. [I'm not saying these were the systems, just using them as examples.] In both those cases it was some problematic design in "applications" code or an exit that was behaving as a CPU soaker. Regards, Steve Thompson Opinions expressed are those of the poster and not necessarily the poster's employer. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
