Thanks. Potentially there will be a lot of transactions so I will look into this, although starting the TMP after a fork() seems a bit fraught!
-- Robin -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Paul Gilmartin Sent: 19 May 2017 22:43 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: ATTACH with RSAPF=YES On Fri, 19 May 2017 08:37:00 -0500, Walt Farrell wrote: >On Fri, 19 May 2017 20:05:43 +0700, Robin Atwood wrote: > >>(2) is interesting. Actually my first thought was to use ASCRE to >>spawn a new ASID to execute the command but I have heard that address space >>creation/destruction is a major overhead and so focused on ATTACH. > >My first question would be whether you're processing enough requests, >frequently enough, to worry about the overhead. If you're not used that >frequently, maybe the overhead won't matter? > And, an address space created by fork()/BPXAS lingers after the process terminates (I've observed in system log for 30 minutes) so another fork() within that interval needn't start a new address space. -- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
