In
<CA+Myz1UtXC6V0JafV+knTiN8wi1uMNSDF5sb6SHk=bfbclb...@mail.gmail.com>,
on 11/19/2012
at 03:58 PM, Quasar Chunawala <[email protected]> said:
>1. Weren't SSS, MSS and MPS later known as PCP, MFT and MVT?
There was significant redesign and a name change[1] between the
original MPS and MVT.
>3. Your lines '*I've never seen a system running TSO where there
>were as many processors as there were TSO regions.*' Is that
>mentioned directly or implied in my post?
Your post implied that you have a CPU as soon as your time slice
starts and that you retain it until the time slice ends. In fact, each
of your tasks is competing for the CPU with other tasks, and may be
eligible even outside of your time slices.
>5. SPF is the predecessor to ISPF. But Shmuel, I am trying to keep
>it brief and concise.
Brief and concise is good; ahistorical is not. If you want to avoid
mentioning the SPF timeline, mention the original SPF and drop mention
of ISPF, with the possible exception of including "and successors".
>8. It puzzles me, when you said, *Time-sharing* need not involve *
>time-slicing*. Could you elaborate?
In many environments time-sharing users are I/O bound. If you just let
them compete for CPU time, they will all run at an acceptable speed.
Time slicing is needed to temporarily reduce the priority of CPU-bound
tasks in order to let I/O bound tasks proceed at an acceptable rate;
that is true whether they are foreground or background.
[1] Including the ill-fated VMS.
--
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 [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
