Are you saying -- I am trying to clarify; I don't doubt you -- that the JCL allocations are done by the Initiator, and that time is not included in IEF032I?
Charles -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Seymour J Metz Sent: Tuesday, August 6, 2019 12:38 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: CPU time cost of dynamic allocation The key word is "apparently". Unless you can track the CPU time used by the Initiator, you have no way to know which is more efficient. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 ________________________________________ From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <[email protected]> on behalf of Charles Mills <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, August 6, 2019 12:25 PM To: [email protected] Subject: CPU time cost of dynamic allocation I have a batch program that does several SVC 99 allocations. They are fairly vanilla temporary dataset allocations, or at least that is how I think of them. I am seeing a CPU time of about .0025 CPU seconds per allocation on a z196. Is this what others would expect, or does it seem high? OTOH I have an IEFBR14 batch job on the same machine that allocates 15 temporary datasets in JCL. The entire job lock, stock and barrel uses (according to IEF032I) .00 CPU seconds. Can anyone explain why JCL allocation is apparently much more CPU efficient than SVC 99 allocation? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
