> -----Original Message----- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Craddock, Chris > Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 2:34 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: REGION=0M and LSQA > > > <rant>
<snip> > And what about the poor old JCL programmer who has to guess what each > program is going to need ahead of time, without knowing anything about > data volume, or workload... And let's not forget everyone > else who gets > woken at o-dark thirty when things go bump in the night and > then has to > second guess the first two without the aid of a crystal ball or even a > bowl of chicken entrails. Fact: Region related problems > happen hundreds > of times more often in the wild than runaway storage users filling up > AUX. > > So why do we meekly accept it? This is really just a stupid, > antiquated, > design (or lack of design) that had questionable merit in the first > place. If you want it "fixed", the only thing you can do is > lean on IBM > for improvements. Arguably the combination of VSM, RSM and ASM could > observe the runaway and take action to slow it down, perhaps even to > cancel it, but it doesn't do anything like that. You have to guess for > yourself. > </rant> > > CC > (expecting a flame or two :-) Now that sounds interesting. Have basically "unlimited" virtual memory available (well, only limited by addressing considerations). Now, have REGION= be a "warning threshold" so that when a step exceeded their REGION allocation, an WTO would be issued, or some system default action (such as doing the equivalent of a "E jobname,QUIESCE" would occur) would be performed. The operator (hum, we don't really have any operators here any more - but we do have some Production Control people who might be able to do something) would then do something such as call the responsible party (on call support). Of course, stupid old me expects a programmer to have some idea of how much storage his program should require. I just had to kill a number of CICS transactions due to the region going Short-On-Storage (really had to cancel the region becuause it was "locked up" with no 31 bit storage left). Why? The transaction took up 80Mb of memory. Why? Because it used a subroutine repeatedly which did a GETMAIN but never bothered to do a FREEMAIN because the original programmer knew that it would only be called once per transaction and the memory would magically go away when the transaction ended. Oh, and these transactions are now being run via MQ and somebody decided to "stress test". BOOM! -- John McKown Senior Systems Programmer HealthMarkets Keeping the Promise of Affordable Coverage Administrative Services Group Information Technology The information contained in this e-mail message may be privileged and/or confidential. It is for intended addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, reproduction, distribution or other use of this communication is strictly prohibited and could, in certain circumstances, be a criminal offense. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by reply and delete this message without copying or disclosing it. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
