[Default] On 25 Jul 2017 12:07:02 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main [email protected] (Way, Richard) wrote:
>Oh, sorry, didnt mean to leave this hanging - I had to leave yesterday and am >just getting back to this. > >The points are all very interesting - no, I haven't got to the bottom of this >yet - but all of this is helpful - particularly the bit about not expecting >the used memory to increase with REGION=0M and the suggestion of RPTSTG. (not >denigrating / ignoring the other suggestions, just that's what I am focusing >on at the moment). > >It's a customer COBOL program - quite long and involved. I haven't grokked it >in fullness yet - it may well have the attributes someone suggested (variable >table searched inefficiently). > >Will chime back in when I have results / additional questions. Is the COBOL program using the SORT verb? What language(s) are any called sub-programs in? Is DB2, IMS or other database involved? Clark Morris > >Thanks all. > >Rich Way > >-----Original Message----- >From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On >Behalf Of Charles Mills >Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2017 10:56 AM >To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: REGION=0M leads to CPU through the roof > >FYI, OP wrote "Customer found that one release of our product got an 878 when >a prior release had not." > >I don't deny that storage utilization is changing with region size; my point >was just that AFAIK LE's startup GETMAINs are based on coded parameters, not >region size discovery. > >Yes, I hope the OP does not leave us hanging here. > >Charles > > >-----Original Message----- >From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On >Behalf Of David W Noon >Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2017 10:39 AM >To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: REGION=0M leads to CPU through the roof > >On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 09:28:35 -0700, Charles Mills ([email protected]) wrote >about "Re: REGION=0M leads to CPU through the roof" (in ><[email protected]>): > >> Not a huge expert but I do a certain amount of tuning of storage >> requirements as the developer of a vendor product, and I have the >> distinct impression that LE's initial program runtime storage >> parameters are fixed at either compile or startup time and based on >> supplied parameters, independent of the actual region size. That is, >> there is no algorithm like "get half the free storage." It is "get X >bytes." > >The change in memory consumption in the step termination reports would suggest >that memory acquisition is varying with region size in this case. The fact >that there is no S80A, S878, etc., abend would indicate that something inside >the application knows how large the region is and does not exceed its bounds. >COBOL programs are not usually that clever. > >> Of course, region size affects the possibility of an x78 failure if >> the program requires more storage than initially obtained. > >That has always been its purpose. > >> I notice the OP, who was posting hourly or so, has gone quiet. >> Perhaps the problem has been located. > >It would be interesting to know the final cause and resolution. > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >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 > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >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
