In
<985915eee6984740ae93f8495c624c6c21e5c49...@jscpcwexmaa1.bsg.ad.adp.com>,
on 07/17/2012
at 12:04 PM, "Farley, Peter x23353" <peter.far...@broadridge.com>
said:
>t SHOULD NOT be necessary to have "considerable statistical prowess"
>or have access to DCOLLECT output (which most normal application
>programmers DO NOT HAVE) or to have access to a statistical package
>like MXG or any other such beast in order to answer simple questions
>like "does machine X have enough CPU horsepower to run YYY instances
>of program ZZZ at the same time?" or "how much CPU and elapsed time
>will the new changes in program ZZZ consume when moved into
>production?". These are questions that a normally skilled
>professional application programmer ought to be able to provide a
>reasonable answer to -- but we cannot, because "it depends...".
Yes, and the second law of thermodynamics is unfair. The universe is
what it is.
>I'm not advocating a return to the single-non-pipelined CPU days
>of yore, just for SOMEONE (not me since I am obviously not
>qualified) to come up with a REPEATABLE way to measure a
>program's real performance with only one or two
>production-level test runs.
You may not be advocating it, but that's what it would take.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
Atid/2 <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
