On 5/26/2016 10:29 AM, Jerry Callen wrote:
Here are the results:
Relative performance: total CPU
ECB 1.0
Pause/Resume 4.30
Transfer and Pause 3.25
Transfer with separate Pause 4.55
Relative performance: elapsed
ECB 1.0
Pause/Resume 6.06
Transfer and Pause 4.75
Transfer with separate Pause 6.28
Great benchmark! If you're ever looking for a job and we happen to have
an opening... ;-)
We ran a similar benchmark back in 2007 and discovered -- in addition to
the great info you've provided -- that suspending or pausing SRBs is
slower than suspending or pausing TCBs. We guessed the extra overhead
was due to the fact that SRBs, unlike TCBs, have no control block and
therefore must acquire an SSRB from ECSA, populate it with data from
LCCA, PSA or whatever before suspending, and return it upon waking up.
I agree the reference materials _imply_ that WAIT/POST are deprecated
and that Pause/Release/Transfer should be used when possible. I believe
that the issues surrounding ownership and management of the ECB storage
played a larger role in those recommendation than raw performance did.
--
Edward E Jaffe
Phoenix Software International, Inc
831 Parkview Drive North
El Segundo, CA 90245
http://www.phoenixsoftware.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
