As always "EXCP" counts in SMF records are a "movable feast": They are what the access method wants them to be. :-)
Type 42-6 is probably a better bet - and will give a guesstimate of bufferability from the cache statistics. Cheers, Martin Martin Packer, zChampion, Principal Systems Investigator, Worldwide Banking Center of Excellence, IBM +44-7802-245-584 email: martin_pac...@uk.ibm.com Twitter / Facebook IDs: MartinPacker Blog: https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/mydeveloperworks/blogs/MartinPacker From: Ed Gould <edgould1...@comcast.net> To: IBM-MAIN@listserv.ua.edu, Date: 02/19/2013 05:12 AM Subject: Re: Improve LLA/VLF usage Sent by: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <IBM-MAIN@listserv.ua.edu> Skip: I think you are on the money. From 30 years of looking at SMF records the excp counts for load libraries are notoriously under reported. Ed On Feb 18, 2013, at 6:44 PM, Skip Robinson wrote: > FREEZE is indeed the 'culprit' that complicates content management > of LLA > libraries. I honestly don't know what SMF data, if any, would suggest > likely candidates. Historically the low hanging fruit has included > Clist, > Rexx, and STEPLIB libraries allocated to a large number of TSO > users. But > Clist/Rexx libraries are just those most likely to confound a variety > folks who update them. Everything on the mainframe is so much > faster than > it used to be, from processor to DASD, that the improvement derived > from > LLA is harder than ever to measure. Or to even perceive. > > On the other hand, the time it takes a programmer to solve a > confounding > mystery has been fairly constant over time. As Shmuel would say, > it's your > dog. > > . > . > JO.Skip Robinson > Southern California Edison Company > Electric Dragon Team Paddler > SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager > 626-302-7535 Office > 323-715-0595 Mobile > jo.skip.robin...@sce.com > > > > From: Leonardo Vaz <leonardo....@cn.ca> > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU, > Date: 02/18/2013 06:06 AM > Subject: Re: Improve LLA/VLF usage > Sent by: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <IBM- > m...@listserv.ua.edu> > > > > Thank you very much for expressing your opinion Skip, I am aware and I > agree that LLA can be a pain to manage, maybe even worse than a > linklist > dataset, because you also have to remember to freeze the library in > LLA. > In my search for good candidates I plan to exclude libraries that are > updates regularly. > > I am not even sure if I will find any good candidates at all, but > do you > think SMF records type 14 is the way to go? > > Thanks again, > Leonardo Vaz > > -----Original Message----- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM- > m...@listserv.ua.edu] On > Behalf Of Skip Robinson > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 5:20 PM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: Re: Improve LLA/VLF usage > > However you finally select candidates, be aware of some behavior > changes > that *other* folks in your shop may find disturbing. Not to mention > *yourself* later on down the road. > > A library managed by LLA will not show updated contents until after > an LLA > REFRESH. For example, if you update a member via IEBCOPY, you will > continue to observe the old data via Browse. If you add a net new > member, > you will get 'not found' when trying to browse or get attributes > for that > specific member by name. You will see the member when you display the > entire member list but get 'not found' when trying to select the > specific > member. > > In other words, give some thought to whether a smidgeon of performance > improvement here and there is worth the larger hassle in managing > library > contents. We've resisted the urge to include new libraries in LLA/ > VLF for > that reason. The more people in your shop who might need to manage > these > libraries, the wider and deeper the confusion factor. Just sayin'. > > . > . > JO.Skip Robinson > Southern California Edison Company > Electric Dragon Team Paddler > SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager > 626-302-7535 Office > 323-715-0595 Mobile > jo.skip.robin...@sce.com > > > > From: Leonardo Vaz <leonardo....@cn.ca> > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU, > Date: 02/15/2013 01:13 PM > Subject: Improve LLA/VLF usage > Sent by: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <IBM- > m...@listserv.ua.edu> > > > > Hello All, > > I was looking into improving performance by placing load libraries > that > have a high quantity of fetches in LLA/VLF. > I was thinking on using SMF type 14 records to find out the good > candidates. Is that a good idea? Any other ideas on how I could > find out > the most used load libraries? > > Thank you! > Leonardo Vaz > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN Unless stated otherwise above: IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
