>...led to believe... >...sentence is especially misleading. It suggests the primary use ...
As I read the wording that was quoted: I do not see a comparison of the pause/release group of services to the wait/post services. I do not see a "suggestion". I see a valid example. An "example" is not a "suggestion". It is still thought that, for many cases, pause/release is more efficient than wait/post (not just more effective), primarily due to the reduction in local lock usage which can be a significant difference-maker in application performance. I still do not recall seeing an answer to my question of whether the tests were for authorized or unauthorized use of post. And it is inconceivable to me that use of "CS" would be only 33% faster than use of the service. Presumably that means that the CS was done only occasionally. I have forgotten by now: was there a detailed description of what the "benchmark" was doing? Peter Relson z/OS Core Technology Design ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
