IBM has published the LSPR numbers for thirty years. They're a ballpark of what to expect.Each company should have a benchmark workload for capacity planning and growth. In 2017 WDC came out with MF counters to help measure the effects of different workloads.http://www-03.ibm.com/support/techdocs/atsmastr.nsf/WebIndex/TC000066
There have been some whoppers in reporting. Like the 9672-n3 to n4 weren't adding up to expectations. Cheryl pointed out what had happened was they ran out of room on the chip and had to add an off-board processor for some of the instructions. It was really nasty in some of the COBOL programs with Indexed by usage was high. So in the LSPR numbers no COBOL pgms with Indexed-by were used. There were also a couple z9's sent back because they were slower than the predecessors with 'old COBOL'. Always something...In a message dated 8/14/2019 1:50:42 PM Central Standard Time, [email protected] writes: In 1965, even thoseexposed to S/360 would have had no experience yet to make them assumethe architecture would be stable enough and kept as a subset of futurearchitectures to allow running the same code decades later, much lesshave z-architecture hardware supporting the same instructions as asubset in 2019. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
