OK, true story. This will probably never happen again. The first CMOS processors were way slower than the water-cooled bipolar processors they replaced. We were fairly early in the transformation process. Overall a many-CP 9672 had lots of MSUs, but each individual CP was a dog; as little as one third the speed. Regardless of composite MSUs, batch runs on a single CP. We discovered early on that jobs that had run fine for years were suddenly getting S322 abends. Faced with the daunting task of updating TIME= on hundreds of jobs, we wrote an IEFUTL exit that granted two time extensions. The coded time value was not changed, just repeated.
Down side? Even though CMOS processors are now way faster than their soggy progenitors, we never removed the code. Batch jobs today hum along for quite a while. ;-) . . J.O.Skip Robinson Southern California Edison Company Electric Dragon Team Paddler SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager 323-715-0595 Mobile 626-302-7535 Office [email protected] -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Bill Woodger Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2016 2:35 PM To: [email protected] Subject: (External):Re: Bypassing s322 Oh, I think there's been a certain amount of "drift" in the topic. There are lots of simple ways the issue you mention could have occurred, even though we'll never know exactly. I agree, rather than trying to give a program more CPU, I'd be wondering why it is sucking up all the CPU that it is. Complete CPU-hogs that actually get to a normal end are rare, in my experience. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
