In
<b870629719727b4ba82a6c06a31c291239b4fc3...@hqmailsvr01.voltage.com>,
on 04/18/2013
at 10:02 AM, Phil Smith <[email protected]> said:
>So the question is: What's the real cost of having a TCB sitting
>there idle?
Slightly more LSQA. Slightly longer queue length.
>To what extent is an idle TCB on z/OS impacting things?
A longer TCB queue slows dispatching, but not by that much.
>Are there system- and/or primary TCB-based limits on numbers of
>TCBs that we're pushing against?
How close are you to 256? Is that still the limit?
>Each TCB uses maybe 25K of memory in our address space, a
What kind of memory?
>and presumably some small amount of system memory.
LSQA is in your address space. Im not aware of any per TCB global
memory use.
--
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
